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.

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.

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!!

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?

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 :E

So the E175 can operate in and out of SOU:


Do we know what restrictions this flight operated with, if any? I am talking fuel or pax numbers

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!

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

Or alternatively

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!

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.

Out of interest how would the extra half tonne or so of fuel benefit the E175's range from SOU?

Not a huge amount. Its about 15-20 minutes of holding fuel and maybe 150nm extra range.

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?
:rolleyes:

LSM,

I'm afraid your information regarding 175 performance is still incorrect. Given calm conditions on 20 at SOU with a pressure of 1013 the aircraft does not become limited until 28C. Furthermore, RTOM is only restricted by about 150kg at 30C. Obviously, a breath of wind or some high pressure will improve matters. Landing performance is never an issue.

Maybe you didn't use the optimum parameters when doing your calcs. ie T/o 1, ECS OFF, MACTOW >16% ? Or maybe you were using the paper tables?

Given that Flybe limit the MTOM presumably to reduce nav charges, it's not really such a ground-gripper, is it? Obviously, it's also never going to be a long range bucket and spade jet from any airport given the reduced MTOM. Of course, Flybe could choose to increase the MTOM on some of the fleet should they wish to operate some longer routes from longer runways in the future.

Never said it was.

No I don't have access to your nice new iPad but I find it hard to believe that it gives you an extra tonne of performance.

How much does ECS OFF give you?

With a full load of punters how far does 3.5 tonnes get you? Would have been nice if it could get as far as the Dash no?

LSM,

“Quote:
Given that Flybe limit the MTOM presumably to reduce nav charges, it's not really such a ground-gripper, is it?

Never said it was.”

I guess I must have misinterpreted your earlier post:

“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!”


To do the numbers…..

From your post #88:

“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!”


Let’s just re-work that for RTOM 34,999kg at 28C still air 1013HPa.
34999 – 30420 = 4579 call it 4.5 tonnes for cash.

So, 4.5 Tonnes at 28C, not 3.5T at 10C.

To compare to the D8:

Typical APS 18200 Max pax 78 – x 90kg = 7020 gives a ZFW of 25220kg
Now, at 10C in calm conditions with QNH of 1013 on rwy 20 at SOU the D8 has RTOM of 28727kg, giving a max fuel load of…..3507kg

Bump the temperature up to 28C and you have RTOM of 27850kg, giving a max fuel load of….2630kg

The E175 max fuel load would be 4500kg in either case…..sure, the fuel burn is higher, but not THAT much higher!

Perhaps a better way to look at the 175 would be to say that with an 80% load (70 pax) it can carry about 6000kg of fuel off 20 at SOU in calm conditions on a 30C day.

That takes you a long way into Europe if you put it on a higher yielding route.

The EFB performance app is excellent. It also allows the use of flex in icing conditions. I think the payback time for the ipads will be quite short.

“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!”

Pretty much what Lord Spandex was getting at.
I think we can all do the sums until we are blue in the face the facts seem to be that the 175 offers nothing over the dash and As Adfly mentioned, a lot of flybe's bases (and importantly the ones they have little or no competition at) have short runways. So the question remains, why have they bought the damb things with those engines?

How much greener is the dash over the 175 on a typical route?

RJ,

The quote in your post was a comment made originally to you by LSM!

If you were to read and comprehend "the numbers" in my post you would understand that his understanding of 175 performance was flawed as he doesn't have access to accurate data.

The 175 has no significant performance issues out of SOU. From a practical point of view it out-performs the D8 in terms of range and payload.

Sorry Osbo, my understanding is not flawed! Maybe my figures are a bit out of date following the advent of the iPad perf, granted. Still only available to those who have completed the LMS training;) and I admit it sounds a bit better.

Yes you did misinterpret my post. My point was not one of gettingairborneability rather one of practicality and efficiency when compared to the Dash, which it is replacing.

Even with a Dash load it'll only carry 5.5 tonnes of fuel, same as the Dash and even if you can lift that from SOU you're not getting as far as the Dash full stop. Increasing the RTOM will increase, even further, the operating costs of a 175 as opposed to the Dash.

However, I agree that limiting its passenger load will help. Why not get a 170 in that case...?! AND it's got better runway performance!

LSM

“Sorry Osbo, my understanding is not flawed! Maybe my figures are a bit out of date following the advent of the iPad perf, granted. Still only available to those who have completed the LMS training and I admit it sounds a bit better.”

Sorry, your understanding of 175 performance is flawed because it’s based on data that is totally out of date and doesn’t maximise the aircraft’s capabilities using all of the available means. The new performance data is more than “a bit better” – it’s a lot better. For a start, in the example for 20 at SOU we can now make use of the improved performance offered by restricting the MACTOW to more than 16% - that gives an improvement of more than 500kg in itself. From your previous post I gather you didn’t take account of ECS OFF in your calc – that accounts for another 500kg. Also, each T/O calculation benefits from being a precise calculation rather than using worst case data produced to cover a huge range of variables on one sheet of paper.

“Even with a Dash load it'll only carry 5.5 tonnes of fuel, same as the Dash and even if you can lift that from SOU you're not getting as far as the Dash full stop. Increasing the RTOM will increase, even further, the operating costs of a 175 as opposed to the Dash.”

Just a minute! Using your planning data of 90kg/pax, even without performance restriction the max fuel the fully-loaded Dash can carry is:

MTOM 28998kg – TYPICAL ZFM 25220kg = 3778kg!!, considerably less than the 5.5 tonnes you quote!

As demonstrated in the previous post, using the same average pax weights, the 175 can lift a full load of 88 pax with 4500kg of fuel right up to 28C. The Dash starts to suffer from performance reduction when the temperature rises above 5C (15C on rwy 02), so that by the time the temperature reaches 28C it can only carry 2630kg of fuel (3100kg on rwy 02).

Let’s say that those two maximum fuel loads equate to roughly the fuel required (FOB) for the same sector on each aircraft, though the difference in fuel burn will be smaller.

Then to summarise,

1. with a full pax load where neither aircraft is performance limited, they have broadly similar range, but the 175 is carrying 10 more pax.

2. at SOU, where performance is an issue for the Dash, the 175 maintains its payload/range capability whilst the range of the Dash with max payload reduces significantly as the temperature rises. An EFB performance app for the Dash may improve this in the future, but point 1. above will still apply.

3. At airfields with longer runways the Dash and 175 offer similar range but with the 175 able to carry 10 more pax.

4. There is potential to increase the fuel load of the 175 by up to 2500kg (>2hrs flight time) by an increase to MTOM should it be required in future but that would incur higher nav charges for any aircraft so upgraded. This would considerably extend its range capability from longer runways, but it is not relevant to the discussion here.

As for operating costs, suffice to say that Flybe got a VERY good deal on the 175 and we are told that operating costs of the 175 vs Dash are really not a significant issue. Factor in the expected reliability benefits and much-improved customer experience and I think it will prove to be a big success as a Dash replacement on all but the shorter domestic routes.

It certainly does not suffer from performance problems at SOU, which is where all of this began with the incorrect statement that “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!”

It's simply not so!

Hang on osbo, if we are clutching at straws which is what we would be to gain the performance we require the Dash example if not correct.

Taking the Flap 10 Bleeds off Alternate 20 emerg turn @10c wind calm 1013, the RTOM is 29241 . . . . in excess of our company MTOW of 28998.

So therefore on could carry 4021kg of fuel in your theoretically aircraft APS weight.

To make this a balanced argument I thought I should point this one out. Sadly this chart much like your ipad thingy is not always readily available but is published on AIMS!!

Rgds,

CaptAirProx

I don't understand the "clutching at straws" reference. I can't find the chart to which you refer on he Intranet, The 20alt chart gives the numbers I have used. But given that it is correct it would make little difference as it's only giving a couple of hundred kilos and the performance will already be dropping off given the 29241 figure.

I really can't be bothered with arguing the toss over this any further. All I wanted to do was correct the false impression of the 175 given by some of the posts on his thread. Anyone who cares to read and digest the numbers will see that it is a credible replacement for the Dash even at SOU.

Happy New Year!

Osbo,

1. As someone who, until last year, taught aircraft performance I can assure you that my understanding of aircraft performance is not flawed. As I admitted, I am using older figures than the iPad performance.

2. In the interest of a balanced argument why don't you compare the two types using the same performance? Old paper stuff or iPad stuff. Or will you continue to ignore the fact that the Dash performance is going to improve and restore the balance!? I am, of course, assuming that the improvement for the Dash will be largely in line with the 175. A point not provable either way.

3. In which case all of the figures are accurate. IE at 10C the Dash will lift 4.0 tonnes (according to Capt AP) and the 175 4.5 tonnes according to you.

Who's going further?

For the sake of argument and only as a demonstration:

Dash at LRC will use about 800kg/h. TAS of 300kts.
175 at LRC will use about 1400kg/h (generous). TAS of 420kts (generous).

Giving the Dash an extra 150nm at least. Less fuel and less nav charges! So, reliability aside (I agree with you on that point) which is the more economical?

Even if you limit the 175 to 78 pax and carry 5.5 tonnes of fuel and using more sensible FF and TAS of 1500kg/h and 400kts the range is about the same. Still using more fuel and higher nav charges though!

I'm happy for you to show me the figures for the iPad performance for both types because until then your point is moot.

Apologies Osbo. Guys, I think you can all do as many calculations as you like the fact of the matter is your working very hard to find small details especially you Osbo. I'm sure your figures are very accurate but surely you can agree that when spending half a billion on new equipment the advantages should be as clear as day! Even after all your hard work thats far from the truth so the question remains why? The only answer I seem to arrive at is snobbery.

Plus all this rubbish about reliability, the fact is these props are used pretty rigorously on all sorts of routes, often on short sectors and after a few years they are going to need a bit of tlc. Sure the 175's will to although I don't think they are going to be such a success.

Osbo - don't worry the 'clutching at straws' reference was not intended to be personal.

If you go onto the Q400 Perf section, ignore the destination charts and go for the link ALL OTHER AIRFIELDS you will find all the non optimum charts for many airfields we operate. It has proved handy to keep a copy of these charts in the back pocket (another metaphor?) so the Dash can get it up - so to speak.

Btw my sole intention with my post was to correct the false impression of the Dash, in that it is overtly limited. It appears not at SOU using the figures I have available to me.

Good to hear
 

Good to hear that the 175 is not performance limited out of SOU because as our most successful base it would have been foolish to buy an aircraft that you couldn't use from there.

In terms of why the 175 is better it's a far superior aircraft to travel on - quieter, smoother, less vibration, more room, better seats, faster. Frankly it staggers me that so many people are prepared to entertain the Dash - especially on the longer routes out of SOU (say anything over 1.5 hrs - and that's a lot of routes). Every time I fly as a pax I'm astounded how noisy it is in the cabin with all that resonance from the overhead bins etc.

And that's before you touch on the thorny subject of reliability...

DP

CAP

Thanks for the pointer – strange that such a useful chart isn’t more easily accessible. It gives 02-like perf on 20.

LSM

I don’t for one second doubt your credentials as a performance guru and I’m sure your flight planning is up there with the best too. My reference to your lack of knowledge was solely with regard to 175 performance as used in Flybe today. I intended no offence. I didn’t come here looking for a fight with anyone and I’ve certainly got nothing against the Dash, which has done great things for the company.

I only came out of PPRUNE hibernation to correct the false notion that the 175 is a dog in terms of performance out of SOU. You (unintentionally) gave inaccurate figures in your posts that painted a very poor picture of what the jet could do. You wrongly said that in summer things would be even worse.

Implied in your last post is that you now accept that while the 175 may not be able to travel quite as far out of SOU as the Dash in the winter it will go rather further in the summertime, which is when it matters. Yes, that may change to some degree with the introduction of an EFB in the future, but that’s really not the point – we are talking about the situation today. Reference to operating costs etc are just muddying the waters and a separate topic.

I'll leave it there and slip back into hibernation, I’m sure you’ll want the last word.

Cheers,
O

SOU-NWI
 

News release from Flybe today regarding a new Summer Saturday service to NWI. Firmly aimed at the cruise pax market by the looks:

Flybe | Corporate | Media | News archives

I think this will be operated by the Dornier being based in NWI to do the MAN and EXT flights during the week. So, a former Suckling Dornier may be returning to SOU?

Vueling
 

After deinyng the flights from Southampton they are now online from 23rd June

Flights to Southampton

Regards

A quick search reveals NWI will be flown by a Q400. Also, fantastic to hear about Vueling finally adding BCN!!:ok:

So, as it stands...

New Routes S12:

Flybe:

NWI - 1 weekly Q400 (Sat) Summer Seasonal

Thomas Cook:

IBZ - 1 weekly BE E195 (Sat) Summer Seasonal

Vueling:

BCN - 3 weekly A320 (Tue, Thu, Sat) Unknown if Summer only or year round as yet.

Adfly:
Not one to doubt your sources but the press release for the NWI route states Loganair plus the timings suggest it will operate NWI-SOU-NWI. As I believe there will only be a Scotairways Do328 aircraft based there for the summer I find it unlikely that it will be a Dash 8. The route is surely a filler at best. Happy to be proved wrong but I can't see the demand for 78 seats with the additional expense of a couple of positioning sectors to be fair!

NWI-SOU
 

The new route will be operated by the Dornier, not a Q400. I think you have gone just by the ecolable but carry on to the seat assignment and you will see the seatmap.