Flybe to Buy Q400
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atco-matic - further to excrab's explanation about cruising levels on the DHC8 fleet, a rough guide is to use the sector distance as the cruising level of choice, up to the aircraft's ceiling (without drop-down oxy masks) of FL250, i.e. 180nm = FL180 cruise, and so on.
Additionally, a little info to any ATCers out there, the DHC8-400 is as flexible in the climb and descent as you want it to be, whatever the load. Just ask and thou shalt receive.
Additionally, a little info to any ATCers out there, the DHC8-400 is as flexible in the climb and descent as you want it to be, whatever the load. Just ask and thou shalt receive.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the lonely desert
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyBe and Newcastle
richardhall99 whats this about increase in capacity at egnt? There is a spotters site which mentions 3 dash8-400 aircraft to be based in ncl! To do what exactly? And what increase on the JER route. I was under the impression that it only ran on saturdays from may to october (some may call it a posh charter flight)!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Down a Tin mine......
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atco-matic and hydroforming bushmaster - the reason the dash does'nt go above FL090 between JER-SOU or even GCI-SOU is that it is at the request of airtraffic - both the channel island's and SOU have a agreement in place which enables operator's to depart and run the tight schedules they have between these destinations as long as they dont go above FL100 - this removes the a/c from entering the airway system and being subjected to lengthy ATC restrictions(slots). Which can be horrendous through the Hurn sector with traffic passing through here from LHR and LGW.
Hope this answers your querry.
Hope this answers your querry.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Newcaslte upon Tyne
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information in the Newcastle Journal stated that there would be an increase in the capacity on the NCL-BHD route with all operations using a 50 seater aircraft.
Where did you get the information about the number of aircraft coming to Newcastle. Any address for it?
Where did you get the information about the number of aircraft coming to Newcastle. Any address for it?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Tuboprops are complicated, they vibrate, they do not fly high enough or fast enough, they suffer from icing problems.
To get Turboprops to vibrate less like the Q400 makes them even more complicated.
They cost nearly as much to manufacture as jet aircraft and especially in Europe are only economical, when virtualy given away by desperate manufacturers who cannot sell aircraft
.
Oh really?!
So turboprops are "complicated" eh ? Compared to what - a turbojet !!!??? You must surely be talking about just the engines themselves, right? (and your point is ??)
Well, you might consider most turboprop aircraft are free of the complexity of drop down oxy masks, and all the expensive and time consuming maintenance that goes with servicing that system. You might also consider that because they operate at lower altitudes (read: lower pressurisation differentials), they can be built lighter and more cheaply to begin with.
As for icing "problems", I know of no great disadvantage (economical or safety) of operating a turboprop in icing conditions compared to a turbojet. Of course you could forget to turn on the prop-heat or whatever, but then you could do something equally negligent in a turbojet.
The economic advantages of operating them are also quite undeniable. You will recall of course the turboprop vrs turbojet graph of "efficiency" over "distance" that must surely appear in just about every textbook of basic aeronautics ever published.
The fact that the Bombardier/Pratt and Whitney has, if anything, emphasised that difference by producing a turboprop that genuinely cruises at Mach 0.6/ 365kts and does so on only half the fuel required by a 146-100 over the same route surely only highlights those basic advantages.
These are FACTS. If Flybe bought Boeing, Airbus, CRJs, or even Embraer, to replace their turboprop fleet, they would, at the very least, be throwing away the economical advantage of paying pilots turboprop wages instead of jet wages. And that is to say nothing of the cabin crew advantages. You could say many things about the Flybe management, but naive they are not.
Just about all the early reliability issues of the Q400 have since been solved. Dispatch rates are very close to what they ought to be. Buying more of these aircraft is only going to improve matters(more spares, etc), and so reduce the operating costs even more. Flybe have been operating a mixed fleet long enough now for them to be able to have had a good hard look at the economics of it all. They have done the sums.
That is why they are buying more Q400 turboprops.
Tuboprops are complicated, they vibrate, they do not fly high enough or fast enough, they suffer from icing problems.
To get Turboprops to vibrate less like the Q400 makes them even more complicated.
They cost nearly as much to manufacture as jet aircraft and especially in Europe are only economical, when virtualy given away by desperate manufacturers who cannot sell aircraft
.
Oh really?!
So turboprops are "complicated" eh ? Compared to what - a turbojet !!!??? You must surely be talking about just the engines themselves, right? (and your point is ??)
Well, you might consider most turboprop aircraft are free of the complexity of drop down oxy masks, and all the expensive and time consuming maintenance that goes with servicing that system. You might also consider that because they operate at lower altitudes (read: lower pressurisation differentials), they can be built lighter and more cheaply to begin with.
As for icing "problems", I know of no great disadvantage (economical or safety) of operating a turboprop in icing conditions compared to a turbojet. Of course you could forget to turn on the prop-heat or whatever, but then you could do something equally negligent in a turbojet.
The economic advantages of operating them are also quite undeniable. You will recall of course the turboprop vrs turbojet graph of "efficiency" over "distance" that must surely appear in just about every textbook of basic aeronautics ever published.
The fact that the Bombardier/Pratt and Whitney has, if anything, emphasised that difference by producing a turboprop that genuinely cruises at Mach 0.6/ 365kts and does so on only half the fuel required by a 146-100 over the same route surely only highlights those basic advantages.
These are FACTS. If Flybe bought Boeing, Airbus, CRJs, or even Embraer, to replace their turboprop fleet, they would, at the very least, be throwing away the economical advantage of paying pilots turboprop wages instead of jet wages. And that is to say nothing of the cabin crew advantages. You could say many things about the Flybe management, but naive they are not.
Just about all the early reliability issues of the Q400 have since been solved. Dispatch rates are very close to what they ought to be. Buying more of these aircraft is only going to improve matters(more spares, etc), and so reduce the operating costs even more. Flybe have been operating a mixed fleet long enough now for them to be able to have had a good hard look at the economics of it all. They have done the sums.
That is why they are buying more Q400 turboprops.
Last edited by Weary; 26th Apr 2003 at 05:08.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: north
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weary , Why such an aggressive tone ?
Much of what you say is true, although forgetting to select a system on is not normally considered a reasonable criteria in evaluation.
Any aircraft resticted to operations below 25000 ft in europe, (especially in the winter) will experience problems, creating additional discomfort for pax and crew, and especially for turboprops reduced efficiency due ice accretion.
The main advantage the 150 seat Boeing or Airbus has is operational flexibilty.
You can operate short, medium or longer sector lengths, as close as Birmingham Belfast or as far as Athens.
The Jet can with 2 rotations of 5 crew carry up to 1200 pax per day. Labour costs must be maximised to achieve low fares.
Much of what you say is true, although forgetting to select a system on is not normally considered a reasonable criteria in evaluation.
Any aircraft resticted to operations below 25000 ft in europe, (especially in the winter) will experience problems, creating additional discomfort for pax and crew, and especially for turboprops reduced efficiency due ice accretion.
The main advantage the 150 seat Boeing or Airbus has is operational flexibilty.
You can operate short, medium or longer sector lengths, as close as Birmingham Belfast or as far as Athens.
The Jet can with 2 rotations of 5 crew carry up to 1200 pax per day. Labour costs must be maximised to achieve low fares.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey foundation digger -
Don't get me wrong, I would MUCH rather fly a B737 than a turboprop, BUT
If you want to make money, you have to know your marketplace.
A great many of the most profitable routes for Flybe are into, and out of, quite short aerodromes. SOU, BHD, JER, GCI, IOM, LCY etc. Short field performance is one of the fundamental advantages of a turboprop over a jet. A 737 cannot operate from these runway lengths with enough passengers to be economical, certainly not at the same ticket prices of the Q400.
And that is to say nothing of the size of the customer base or the times THEY may wish to travel. Yes you can fit more people on a B737, but if there are only enough pax for 2 flights per day in your jet, what is it (and the crew) doing for the rest of the day? (Answer = loosing money).
A smaller capacity airliner serving the same market will be able to economically operate more flights per day and therefore offer more flexibility and choice for the consumer. When times are really tough they can also reduce the frequency of the service (as opposed to fly around with a half empty aeroplane), if necessary.
Put simply, your 737 is too big and heavy for the job.
I agree with you if your argument about icing is that turboprops are going to be in it more often. However, I cannot support the suggestion that, as a result, they will therefore be economically unsound to operate (compared to a jet).
My personal experience is that debilitating ice accretion is rarely a problem, but hey - I've only got 4000 hours in them and I could be wrong.
Sorry if I yelled at you in my last post !
Don't get me wrong, I would MUCH rather fly a B737 than a turboprop, BUT
If you want to make money, you have to know your marketplace.
A great many of the most profitable routes for Flybe are into, and out of, quite short aerodromes. SOU, BHD, JER, GCI, IOM, LCY etc. Short field performance is one of the fundamental advantages of a turboprop over a jet. A 737 cannot operate from these runway lengths with enough passengers to be economical, certainly not at the same ticket prices of the Q400.
And that is to say nothing of the size of the customer base or the times THEY may wish to travel. Yes you can fit more people on a B737, but if there are only enough pax for 2 flights per day in your jet, what is it (and the crew) doing for the rest of the day? (Answer = loosing money).
A smaller capacity airliner serving the same market will be able to economically operate more flights per day and therefore offer more flexibility and choice for the consumer. When times are really tough they can also reduce the frequency of the service (as opposed to fly around with a half empty aeroplane), if necessary.
Put simply, your 737 is too big and heavy for the job.
I agree with you if your argument about icing is that turboprops are going to be in it more often. However, I cannot support the suggestion that, as a result, they will therefore be economically unsound to operate (compared to a jet).
My personal experience is that debilitating ice accretion is rarely a problem, but hey - I've only got 4000 hours in them and I could be wrong.
Sorry if I yelled at you in my last post !
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an unofficial Exeter Airport website there is a quote from the local Exeter newspaper stating that Flybe will commence several national and international sched routes from EXT 'next summer' (I presume they mean summer 2004).
That will be interesting given that SOU is not a million miles away and Flybe are making that into a substantial base.
That will be interesting given that SOU is not a million miles away and Flybe are making that into a substantial base.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the above posts re the costs of Jet vs. Turboprop. I cannot see FlyBE developing in any market where they are in direct competition with the LoCo's flying 737-type equipment. There are, however, a lot of 'niches' out there where a good fast turboprop, with low running costs, is the ideal aircraft.
Some of the stations mentioned previously (GCI, JER, IOM, etc.) are ideal examples. I think the next few years may well see continued development of eJ, RYR, etc. on their 'patch', with FlyBE doing well if it sticks to these smaller markets.
Best of luck to FlyBe with this Q400 fleet.
Some of the stations mentioned previously (GCI, JER, IOM, etc.) are ideal examples. I think the next few years may well see continued development of eJ, RYR, etc. on their 'patch', with FlyBE doing well if it sticks to these smaller markets.
Best of luck to FlyBe with this Q400 fleet.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weary. If one of the only reasons for buying a turboprop is so that you can pay the pilots less then it's a pretty cruddy reason. There is no justification for paying TP pilots less than jets, esp as the Flybe TP pay is so poor in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice in FI, 29th April-5thMay, that 7, 146-200s will be replaced by the Q400.
Any 146 drivers been penciled in for Q400 courses yet?
Could cause further desent amongst the troops, with a two tier pay structure on the Q400.
Them's that are on "Jet" salaries and them's that ain't.
Any 146 drivers been penciled in for Q400 courses yet?
Could cause further desent amongst the troops, with a two tier pay structure on the Q400.
Them's that are on "Jet" salaries and them's that ain't.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Down a Tin mine......
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smokie - dont beleive everything you read in Flight International...
There are 3 146-300's joining the fleet in the very near future so as to start replacing the remaining 146-100's and 200's and several other 146-300's also being looked at..
W.G
There are 3 146-300's joining the fleet in the very near future so as to start replacing the remaining 146-100's and 200's and several other 146-300's also being looked at..
W.G
