SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still reckon it would be worth a try from Southamton. Its the kind of city destination that would be better suited to Southampton then Bournemouth. It surely needs to be the first new destination when more 175's come into service. Surely a destination to Poland would be a no brainer too.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ, trouble is the 175 performance from SOU is sadly lacking, to be kind about it. It's going to struggle to get as far as the Dash with a similar load! We're talking Nice at a push apparently. Personally I don't think you'll see that many 175's in Southampton.
It would work on the 195 though but they're tied up in the longer and fatter routes.
It would work on the 195 though but they're tied up in the longer and fatter routes.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guessing thats due to Flybe being tight-arses when it comes to engines so their E175's are/will all be de-rated. I say this because BA Cityflyer's E170's don't seem to have any problem reaching Madrid, Palma, Ibiza, Zurich, Stockholm among others from 200m less tarmac!!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, the smallest engines available. Pfffffffffffff.
It was such a good deal and it works well enough at every other base (maybe not GCI
) well enough that Flybe are just lumping it with the SOU performance, or lack of.
Out of interest adfly do you know what sort of loads Chippy Fryer are carrying from the docks?
It was such a good deal and it works well enough at every other base (maybe not GCI
) well enough that Flybe are just lumping it with the SOU performance, or lack of.Out of interest adfly do you know what sort of loads Chippy Fryer are carrying from the docks?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I believe the Chippy Fryer E170's seat 78 and I doubt they have much trouble filling the seats on the Sun/Ski routes plus have never heard of them having to block off rows but I wouldn't take my word for it!! But then the BA ones have engines rather than hairdyers 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think for shorter flights (sub 90min) there is little problem but not with the Dash's longer routes such as Verona, Salzburg, Avignon, Perpignan and occasonaly Nice where at first the E175 seems like a perfect replacement/upgrade which I would guess require significant payload restrictions (not sure of the numbers) to stop them ploughing onto the M27!! I would assume these restrictions make using the E175 on longer routes from SOU unviable which is ironic since Flybe originally were on about Copenhagen (possibly within range), Stuttgart (should be in range), Stockholm (Unlikely), Milan (Unlikely) and Helsinki (No).
As for BCN it was not mentioned by Flybe when they were on about what they were planning on doing with their shiny new E175's but I'd guess it would fall in between the 'possible' and 'unlikely' ranges.
I think the best we can hope for is that SOU is able to gain a 4th based E195 as others are moved from smaller bases such as ABZ and INV in favour of the E175's. As for routes I can see BCN working well(as can everyone!) 3-5 weekly along with a route or two to Poland 2-4 weekly each. I also would expect to see a few more new regional France routes (MPL, GNB & BIQ spring to mind) and possibly even Spanish routes (MJV, VLC, BIO). Italy is another option but I shan't get too carried away!
As for BCN it was not mentioned by Flybe when they were on about what they were planning on doing with their shiny new E175's but I'd guess it would fall in between the 'possible' and 'unlikely' ranges.
I think the best we can hope for is that SOU is able to gain a 4th based E195 as others are moved from smaller bases such as ABZ and INV in favour of the E175's. As for routes I can see BCN working well(as can everyone!) 3-5 weekly along with a route or two to Poland 2-4 weekly each. I also would expect to see a few more new regional France routes (MPL, GNB & BIQ spring to mind) and possibly even Spanish routes (MJV, VLC, BIO). Italy is another option but I shan't get too carried away!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring the QNH today because I don't know what it was the RTOM at 10C is a gnats cock under 34 tonnes.
Flybe MTOM is 34,999kg. APS is 22,500kg give or take. Max total pax is 88.
88x90 (for cash) = 7920
+ 22,500 = 30,420kg giving you a smudge over 3.5 tonnes of fuel. Enough for Nice? No. That'll probably do you for a Bergerac (maybe) and getting close to an EDI from SOU.
Wait until it gets hotter!
Flybe MTOM is 34,999kg. APS is 22,500kg give or take. Max total pax is 88.
88x90 (for cash) = 7920
+ 22,500 = 30,420kg giving you a smudge over 3.5 tonnes of fuel. Enough for Nice? No. That'll probably do you for a Bergerac (maybe) and getting close to an EDI from SOU.
Wait until it gets hotter!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, SOU > ABZ > LBA would be quite a bizarre routing, but is there a chance DIJ hasn't been release yet?
An odd route, not available from anywhere else, but SOU does well out of France, I presume there is a good volume of pax coming out of London / elsewhere in SE, and SOU makes much more sense for a smaller unit than LGW?
An odd route, not available from anywhere else, but SOU does well out of France, I presume there is a good volume of pax coming out of London / elsewhere in SE, and SOU makes much more sense for a smaller unit than LGW?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know how far Flybe's E195's can operate from SOU before restrictions make it unviable? I know their total range is around 1800mi and the longest route they currently fly from SOU is just over 1000mi (SOU-FAO) and they seat up to 118.
Also does anyone have a rough idea of how many miles some of the larger aircraft can fly from SOU such as the:
A320
A321
733
738
752 - I think its around 1800mi which is SOU-TFS range
Also does anyone have a rough idea of how many miles some of the larger aircraft can fly from SOU such as the:
A320
A321
733
738
752 - I think its around 1800mi which is SOU-TFS range
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of variables in it. With a full load of passengers FAO and DBV (which is a smidge further) are about it.
If the temperature is 0 or thereabouts you could take off at 49 tonnes (Flybe max) and you could get about 8 tonnes of fuel on but any hotter than that then you obviously lose some lifting ability.
IIRC FAO needed 6 tonnes ish and during the summer we would often be scratching around for an extra couple of hundred kilos and quite often left with minimum fuel.
If the temperature is 0 or thereabouts you could take off at 49 tonnes (Flybe max) and you could get about 8 tonnes of fuel on but any hotter than that then you obviously lose some lifting ability.
IIRC FAO needed 6 tonnes ish and during the summer we would often be scratching around for an extra couple of hundred kilos and quite often left with minimum fuel.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
175's
So we seem to have got to the bottom of the 175 issue. Basically the engines are too small!? From what I could gather from all the spiel coming out of Exeter the 175's were partly coming in to open up thinner routes to further destinations i.e. routes in Scandinavia, Italy, Spain etc.
Do the 195's have any restrictions? If not why do the 175's?
Although everyone moans about the dash you can't deny that it is one of the main reasons Flybe has grown so large and quickly in this country as apposed to all the other regionals who operated jets. At the moment I can't see any merits for the introduction of the 175's.
Do the 195's have any restrictions? If not why do the 175's?
Although everyone moans about the dash you can't deny that it is one of the main reasons Flybe has grown so large and quickly in this country as apposed to all the other regionals who operated jets. At the moment I can't see any merits for the introduction of the 175's.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The E175's are a great option for Flybe but unfortunately they chose to cut costs and have de-rated engines on them (The main reason their performance is so poor from SOU) whereas the E195's do not, meaning they have a higher thrust-weight ratio + also a larger wing area which means they are far less restricted from SOU (Lord Spandex Masher's post details the limits of the E195 from SOU very well).
Its a real shame as if the E175's were de-rated I could have easily seen quite a few of the promised routes and others also being added and working well and also making Flybe's 'mini hub' at SOU a more attractive option to those who use LHR/LGW for their short haul travels.
Its a real shame as if the E175's were de-rated I could have easily seen quite a few of the promised routes and others also being added and working well and also making Flybe's 'mini hub' at SOU a more attractive option to those who use LHR/LGW for their short haul travels.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget that Flybe have potentially ordered up to 140 of these machines. It is quite possible that future deliveries could have the specification altered if required, indeed, they have the option to convert any options and purchase rights to any of the E-Jet family as required.
The main priority for these aircraft so far appears to match route capacity to demand, as with ABZ/INV to LGW and to also offer a more competitive product on some of the longer European business city routes MAN/BHX to DUS & CDG etc. where often LH/SN/AF are also using jet equipment.
The de-rated engines with their lower burn are allowing the E75 to compete so effectively against the Q400 economics and I am sure they will present a better product and impression to passengers. However, perhaps the most significant advantage is the impressive E-Jet reliability meaning an end to to rather childish and tiresome Fly(may)be as used by some on this forum.
The main priority for these aircraft so far appears to match route capacity to demand, as with ABZ/INV to LGW and to also offer a more competitive product on some of the longer European business city routes MAN/BHX to DUS & CDG etc. where often LH/SN/AF are also using jet equipment.
The de-rated engines with their lower burn are allowing the E75 to compete so effectively against the Q400 economics and I am sure they will present a better product and impression to passengers. However, perhaps the most significant advantage is the impressive E-Jet reliability meaning an end to to rather childish and tiresome Fly(may)be as used by some on this forum.
Last edited by JobsaGoodun; 30th Dec 2011 at 23:28.
The E175's are a great option for Flybe but unfortunately they chose to cut costs and have de-rated engines on them (The main reason their performance is so poor from SOU)
The E175's are a great option for Flybe but unfortunately they've had to chose the more expensive option rather than cut costs by having de-rated engines on them (which would have been suitable for the rest of the network)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although you single out SOU as if it is 'holding back' the rest of the network don't forget that a number of flybe's other key bases with shorter runways:
BHD - 1829m
JER - 1716m
GCI - 1463m
IOM - 1837m
SOU - 1723m
Although the mentioned bases are a minority in the bigger scheme of things you have to remember SOU is their largest base and I belive BHD is their second largest. JER is one of the larger bases and both GCI and IOM have a fair amount of Flybe's operations. These bases could all benefit greatly from the E175's being added, remember all the hoo-hah about the new aircraft being introduced on LGW-GCI? The best we can hope for is either a future order or the conversion of some of the existing order so Flybe's will get the most out of their shiny new aircraft while still benefitting to some extent their fuel costs thanks to the hairdryers!
BHD - 1829m
JER - 1716m
GCI - 1463m
IOM - 1837m
SOU - 1723m
Although the mentioned bases are a minority in the bigger scheme of things you have to remember SOU is their largest base and I belive BHD is their second largest. JER is one of the larger bases and both GCI and IOM have a fair amount of Flybe's operations. These bases could all benefit greatly from the E175's being added, remember all the hoo-hah about the new aircraft being introduced on LGW-GCI? The best we can hope for is either a future order or the conversion of some of the existing order so Flybe's will get the most out of their shiny new aircraft while still benefitting to some extent their fuel costs thanks to the hairdryers!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should just clarify that the figures I used for SOU were the alternate performance from 20 which is in fact half a tonne worse than the standard perf.
So at 10 degrees you can lift 34.5 tonnes. Minus the zero fuel weight of 30.4 tonnes for a full load of pax and you get 4 tonnes of fuel. 02 is a couple of hundred kilos better still.
Now for JER 27, as its the closest in length to SOU, using the same numbers gives you a MTOM of 38.3 tonnes so nearly 4 tonnes better than SOU and over 3 tonnes better than the Flybe limited MTOM. Structural limit is 37.5 tonnes!
For interest GCI 09 is 33.2 and 27 is 35.3. That's enough for a LGW with a full pax load.
I can get the figures for the other airfields you mention but it'll take a day or 2.
So at 10 degrees you can lift 34.5 tonnes. Minus the zero fuel weight of 30.4 tonnes for a full load of pax and you get 4 tonnes of fuel. 02 is a couple of hundred kilos better still.
Now for JER 27, as its the closest in length to SOU, using the same numbers gives you a MTOM of 38.3 tonnes so nearly 4 tonnes better than SOU and over 3 tonnes better than the Flybe limited MTOM. Structural limit is 37.5 tonnes!
For interest GCI 09 is 33.2 and 27 is 35.3. That's enough for a LGW with a full pax load.
I can get the figures for the other airfields you mention but it'll take a day or 2.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
175's
Thanks for your posts Adfly and Jobsagoodun.
Can understand going for the more fuel efficient engine but they only seem to full into that bracket because they are underpowered. The analogy I can see is that its like buying a brand new quiet BMW albeit with a 1 litre engine to replace a largely competent Skoda diesel. Smarts of the old fashioned pure snobbery that jets are better then props! I'm a regular commuter from Sou and although I like getting the 195 over the dash I and most other people don't give a crap as long as we get to our destination. Flybe surely need to keep their niche rather then disown it for the sake of pure snobbery?
Can understand going for the more fuel efficient engine but they only seem to full into that bracket because they are underpowered. The analogy I can see is that its like buying a brand new quiet BMW albeit with a 1 litre engine to replace a largely competent Skoda diesel. Smarts of the old fashioned pure snobbery that jets are better then props! I'm a regular commuter from Sou and although I like getting the 195 over the dash I and most other people don't give a crap as long as we get to our destination. Flybe surely need to keep their niche rather then disown it for the sake of pure snobbery?
