BAE Systems RJX: "If Customers Want Them, We'll Build Them"

[The Guvnor]

From today's ATWOnline:

BAE will build RJXs if customers still want them
Dateline: Tuesday December 04, 2001

BAE Systems will honor firm orders from British European and Druk Air for 12 and two
RJX aircraft respectively.

"If those airlines want those airplanes, then we will build those airplanes," Senior
VP-Marketing and Communications Nick Godwin told ATWOnline. "Personally I think it would be unlikely but there is always a possibility."

BAE said last week that it would terminate its Avro RJ-85 and RJ-100 programs as well as its RJX follow-on project, citing the weak order book and the ongoing downturn in the aviation industry (ATWOnline, Nov. 27).

Godwin said there is not an aircraft currently in the marketplace that matches the
unique characteristics of the RJX, which is designed for short takeoffs and landings. In
an ironic twist, BAE's chairman honored the RJX program with an award for innovation two days after the announcement that it was being cancelled.

[jetgirl]

British Waste-of Space strike again..... End of a long and distinguished ac building history.

RJX looked good too......

[cossack]

They're still flight testing the RJX out of Woodford. Maybe not all dead and buried?

[Kerosene Kraut]

Note the big "IF the customers still want it". It wouldn't make any sense to develop a certified production a/c for a series of just 12 with anything else terminated.
-Still sad news.

[moggie]

according to Flight, BE and Druk still want them - an BE say that BAE are "contracturally obliged to build them".

So, if they have to be certified so that some can be built, is there REALLY any point in canning the programme?

[spagiola]

One advantage of getting the RJX certified, even if no more than the current 14 orders are built, is that it would make it much easier to envisage a re-engining scheme for 146s and RJs. The ALF502 and LF507 have always been the type's achilles heel. Being able to replace them with better engines may help keep an aircraft that has some pretty unique capabilities flying. Think of what re-engining did for the DC-8 and the Convair 440.

[411A]

....yes, because there are more modern, fuel efficient and cost effective aircraft in the marketplace. Lets face facts, the 146, -RJX etc are fine for short runways, but how many of those are around?

[Raw Data]

411A, for those of us not living in the US, there are plenty of short runways suitable for the talents of the 146 family... an obvious example being London City. Why do you think Lufthansa, Crossair, SABENA/DAT etc purchased them?

[411A]

Well Raw Data, there are plenty available second hand in the marketplace....and if re-engining is an option (or a possible option), why not? Would agree that the aeroplane is a good short field performer (where needed) and very quiet. But the cost of operation would appear to be rather high compared to others in the same catagory.
Not to mention of course the "problem" with the earlier models....where it suddenly became very ah....quiet.

[Chimbu chuckles]

And very smelly.

I wonder if Bae's promise is more of a threat myself.

Chuck (ex 146)

[MarkD]

Only build 14 aircraft? BAe have plenty of experience with that... in fact just such an aircraft has recently returned to service :D :D

[oncemorealoft]

Jet Girl said...

End of a long and distinguished ac building history.

Us Brit's may have made some very beautiful airliners (VC10 etc) and pioneering technological marvels (Concorde, Viscount, Comet) and we may build them like brick outhouses but...

We've never made any real commercial successes by which I mean selling reasonable numbers globally at a profit. That's what keeps people in jobs.

So, "long" - well relatively but "distinguished" - well a good effort I suppose.

[Raw Data]

411A, the point is that in the markets where the 146 family excels, there are no other 100-seaters that can actually operate... so the issue of operating costs becomes largely irrelevant. Again, London City is the obvious example.

The "problem" you mention is actually far less common than, for example, 737's rolling on their backs and diving into the ground... although it is favourite topic for 146-detractors, the reality is that virtually every type has some achilles heel or other. Interesting that, the most recent accident in Zurich notwithstanding, there has not yet been a 146/RJ lost through an aircraft systems or structure failure, or a passenger killed by same... which is a lot more than you can say for the products of Boeing or Airbus. I am actually a great fan of the products of both those companies, however the safety record of the 146 is very impressive indeed.

[spagiola]

Raw data is right. The Embraer 170 looks to be an extremely good aircraft, with a top-notch passenger cabin, and it will be able to operated at LCY and other restricted airports. However, its max capacity is 76 pax. Above that, the 146-200/RJ85 and 146-300/RJ100 are the only options. And remember that slots at LCY are strictly limited by runway limitations, so the "just put on more flights" argument doesn't hold there.

[White Knight]

Not forgetting airfields like Guernsey in the Channel Islands, Sion and Innsbruck in the Alps.
There are MANY more airfields around the world where the only jet aircraft carrying 110 pax that can get in or out is the 146/AVRO RJ......
;) ;) ;)

[Greg Baddeley]

............including Aspen, which is why Air Wisconsin are looking at the RJX!!

[Kerosene Kraut]

How about the Druk people? Do they insist on getting their RJXs? Might be really tricky to get into their places with anything else than a 146/RJ or RJX...

[spagiola]

If an Embraer 170 can get into London City, I would suspect it can also get into Paro. But in terms of size, that's no better than the BAe 146-100s that Druk uses right now. The RJX-85s that they had ordered would have given them greater capacity with greater range. They could get a second-hand RJ85 or RJ100 from someone, but that wouldn't give them the range to do non-stop flight to Bangkok, which is their key route. So there really is no replacement for the RJX-85s they had ordered. They can get the capability, but not the capacity; or they can get the capacity, but not the capability.

Druk are probably the most restricted operator, but there are others that face similar constraints on parts of their system. Air Wisconsin at Aspen. Meridiana at Florence. Crossair at Lugano. Malmo at Bromma. Plus all those carriers that get a premium from charter companies for flying pax direct to ski destinations (Chambery, Sion, etc) rather than a 3-hour bus ride away (Geneva, Lyon). Not a huge market, but it would have been enough to sustain the RJX had September 11 not wiped any possibility of orders from the table for the next 6-12 months.

[GearUp CheerUp]

To add to White Knight's list Berlin Tempelhof. There the 146 is the only jet (apart from bizjets) allowed / able to get in and out of this city centre airfield.

Cant think why BA dont go there from Gatwick really and take some of the pressure off Heathrow.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Gearcheer, EDDI can take them all. From Tridents to Tornados, 727 to 747s and Canberras to C5s we have seen it over there. (slight bit restricted in weight sometimes) The jet limit you mentioned is more a political one.
Since the political strategy in Berlin is to close the inner city airports (EDDI and EDDT) and move it all to SXF (EDDB) one day. When and if ever that will happen...

[spagiola]

That's right, two RJ85s and two RJ100s are either complete or almost so. NJI was going to take all four, just before September 11. But that doesn't change Druk's problem. The RJ will not let them do Bangkok non-stop out or Paro at acceptable loads. The RJX would have.

[brabazon]

Don't know the airfield details for Paro, but anyone know the capability of an A318 to operate at such an airfield.

On paper the RJX was a good aircraft, it's a real shame that BAe/Textron didn't have the guts to develop it sooner. Anyone else remember the original spec of the 146-300 in 1986 - it was going to have more powerful engines, higher weights, winglets etc, but instead BAe took the cheap option and kept the same engines as the -100 and -200 and stretched the fuselage to provide 100 seats 5-abreast or 112 6-abreast (without mid-cabin exits) or 128 (allegedly, with them).

A few years sooner and the RJX could have made a real difference, but now it's all gone sour. What a way to run an airframe manufacturer? Given the response of British European it looks like they were led down the Swanny by BAe.

[brabazon]

Further to the Druk Air issue, I don't know how many are aware of the wing corrosion problems experienced by Druk (I believe a similar problem was found with RJ100s being taken back from SAM in Colombia by BAe before being passed on to Malmo/Braathens).

The following is from a Bhutanese news web-site (http://www.kuenselonline.com/article.php?sid=429):

Druk Air's plane back
Posted on Monday, August 06 @ 07:52:21 EDT by webmaster

After 13 months Druk Air's second plane returned to Paro on August 3 from the BAe Systems.

Operations from the newly returned plane began the next morning, said the managing director, Sangay Khandu.
Meanwhile a detailed visual inspection of the first plane, which has been grounded pending inspection, is being carried out by Druk Air's engineers and engineers from the BAe Systems.

Working around the clock one wing has already been x-rayed and the other wing should be completed by tonight or tomorrow, explained the managing director.

"The x-ray will be sent back to the BAe Systems and after 10 days we should have a report on the results," the managing director said last Monday.

"So far with the visual inspection half way completed the news looks hopeful but we have to wait for the results to come back from the BAe Systems," he added.

Depending on the results Druk Air may have both planes operational for the impending tourist season in September. "The flight schedule that has been announced for the September season will not change with a second plane, rather additional flights will be operated," said the managing director.

Druk Air came under heavy criticism over the last 13 months with customers unable to confirm seats for the one operational plane.

The managing director explained, "Many people were under the misconception that because there was only one plane we were unable to keep up with the flight schedule. In fact we were able to keep the flight schedule of two planes with only one operational plane."

He added, "The real problem was not a minimal flight schedule but rather an increase in the number of people flying. At that point in time we sadly had a reverse trend, the fleet reduced while the number of passengers increased."

What we learned from this experience was that we need to increase the number of flights after both planes become operational to certain destinations with the number of passengers growing."

Druk Air's BAe 146 spent 13 months getting repaired after corrosion in the wings were detected during a routine structural check.

After detailed x-rays of both wings BAe Systems found major repairs necessary. Druk Air then requested that both wings be replaced with new ones, refusing BAe Systems said that both wings could be repaired.

Following much grinding and filing of the corrosion on the wings, nine months later, BAe Systems admitted that the wings were beyond repair and new ones would have to be placed on the aircraft.

After four months the aircraft finally touched down at Paro International Airport.

Today the BAe-Systems has acknowledged if they had initially listened to Druk Air's requests a great deal of money and time could of been saved on both sides.

The bill for the repairs totaled US $2.5 million with some financial assistance from the BAe Systems to a tune of US $1 million.

The managing director said, "Our saving grace was during the signing of the repair contract, a clause was put in ceiling repairs to a total of 1.025 million pounds. If this was not done the repair bill could of been US $4.5 million.

Corrosion of the wings in these type of aircraft's have been found to be prevalent with other airlines who are using this aircraft.

In Bhutan with Druk Air and the BAe Systems the main bone of contention that is ongoing lays in whether the corrosion was actually a design flaw or a maintenance fault.

[The Guvnor]

I remember there was a VIP 146 from one of the Gulf states that had very little time on it but was corroded BER - sold to ASI in BOH for part-out and delivered by AN124!

[Raw Data]

The wing corrosion is a well-known problem that is a result of bacteria (I think) in the fuel attacking the aluminium of the tanks (in other words, the inner wing structure).

There is a simple and effective biocide treatment that prevents the problem. Most cases of corrosion have apparently been in aircraft where the biocide treatment was not carried out for one reason or another (ie money).

I seem to recall that the ex-Coloumbian 146s that BM were going to buy/lease had very bad corrosion and had to be re-winged in the end!

Just as well BAe build 'em strong....

[Red Four]

A very sad announcement for U.K. manufacturing industry - apart from military hardware, do we still MAKE any thing in this country anymore? (answers on a postcard)

I seem to recall that when Fokker announced they were ceasing the FK100 production, there were all sorts of plans mooted/campaigns launched/venture capitalists interested in resurrecting the jet.

Are BAe at all interested in selling the RJX project on to anyone? Are there any venture capitalists/industrialists/millionaires who can see a future for U.K. airframe manufacturing and give us all some hope(ie:3i/Alchemy). Maybe even Rover could take over the project now for a peppercorn £1 :D :D

[Wycombe]

Guv, the fuselage of the aircraft of which you speak (A6-SHK, I think it was) now lies rotting at the back of a garden centre, a few miles down the road (A339) from Lasham!

It's recently been joined by the fuselage of an ex-Uni Air example, which also had the wing corrosion, I believe.

[B727]

Is that the same garden centre that houses the shorts 330 airframe ?

[ROLLER STAMP]

I WAS INVOLVED WITH REPAIRS ON THE SAM AIRCRAFT & TWO TNT FREIGHTERS THAT HAD TO HAVE MAJOR REPAIRS TO THE WINGS.THIS WAS CAUSED BY GLADIS AS CALL IT, IN THE WING TANKS.
ALL THESE AIRCRAFT WERE OPERATED IN HOT HUMID CLIMATES WHERE THIS STUFF FORMS DUE TO WATER IN THE FUEL TANKS.IF THEY FAILED TO DO A WATER DRAIN CHECK THEN IT GROWS VERY QUICKLY.IT ALSO CORRODED ALL THE FUEL PIPES & MANY OF THE COMPONENTS IN THE TANKS.
BAE USE L93IN WING CONSTUCTION, THE SAME MATERIAL THEY USED IN THE 125,THIS AIRCRAFT ALSO HAD SIMILAR PROBLEMS MANY YEARS AGO.
IF OPERATORS DON,T DO REGULAR WATER DRAIN CHECKS OR THOROUGH INTERNAL TANK INSPECTIONS DURING CHECKS THEY WILL END UP WITH THESE PROBLEMS.

[Wycombe]

727:

Yes, it's called "Hillside Nurseries", just North of Alton on the A339 going towards Basingstoke.

The Co. specialises in spares recovery, I think, but I can't remember it's name.

Roller:

I think there are some ex-Ansett a/c that also have the problem, according to spagiola's site

Smiliner (http://www.smiliner.com)

[yowie]

Will the BA/QF hunt for a common type RJ have any effect on the outcome? :eek:

[brabazon]

Soddit, that's very deep and meaningful for a Friday morning. So where does it leave the BA/QF RJ order?

[Greg Baddeley]

Trouble with the water drains on the 146 is that they suffer from chronic leakage, and once they're sealed, the engineers are loath to disturb them and make 'em leak again.

Also, it's just been revealed that the original Biocide possibly acted as a food for the bacteria, so if people had been using it, it could have made the problem worse!!! In the right (or should that be wrong!) climate, the damage can occur in as little as five or six weeks, and boy, is it expensive!!

[Wycombe]

Yowie:

You would like to think so, wouldn't you!

An order of that size would have kept the line at WFD chugging along for Years at previous build rates (about 20 per Year)

According to this weeks "Flight", BE will not accept a shortened delivery timeline for their RJX's (which would mean a very small no. of aircraft manufactured over a very long time, or building them and then storing them I guess) and point out again that they haven't cancelled their Order.

Seems BAESys are in a bit of a contractual tight spot!!

[brabazon]

Wycombe, re BAE's contractual tight-spot, you would have thought that BAE would have foreseen this and had discussions with British European before telling the world that they were canning the RJX. Anyone in BE know how and when they heard the news? On the tv/radio by any chance?

[moggie]

As for BAE and BE consultation pre- canning, when the Jetstream bit the dust the factory workers heard it on the local radio before the bosses told them.

Same goes for our move from PIK to Jerez - read it in Flight first.

Nothing changes!