FlyBe 146

[markflyer6580]

I flew to Southhampton yesterday (31/10/2005) via a nice 146,leather seats the lot! My question is this:-as an atpl student I find it hard to see how this can be a viable way to conduct a 40 min hop,surely a dash 8 would be considerably cheaper to operate? I also noticed it was not efis equipped(from what I could see) is this not availiable on 146's or do FlyBe just have some old ones? Last thing the flight crew looked young, flight no BE174 15:35 LBA-SOU. Are there good opportunities for a command on jets at a young age with them? Cheers Mark.

[ElNino]

it was not efis equipped

The vast majority of 146's are not EFIS. A few 146-300s were built with screens towards the end of the production run. Even these are not EFIS in the modern sense - really just replacing the ADI, HSI and some (N1, TGT, N2, Fuel gauges) engine gauges with electronic screens showing the same info. The autopilot, thrust system (which is manual only) and nav system remained the same.
Originally 146's would have had only basic VOR and ADF for navigating, but they have since been retrofitted with GPS based nav computers to allow area (but not terminal) RNAV.

The AVRO RJ, which looks no different to a 146, is EFIS equipped, has a modern AP and full autothrottle and slightly more powerful engines. It's a common rating with the 146. Don't think FlyBE have any though.

I find it hard to see how this can be a viable way to conduct a 40 min hop

That depends on the load and yield. The 146 is a very thirsty and maintenance heavy beast but presumably if the load was too much for a dash it would make sense.

do FlyBe just have some old ones

All 146's are very very old (most were built in the mid-80's). The RJ replaced the 146 for the 90's and is also out of production.

[HZ123]

I think Flightline may disagree with some of your comments as they have run there fleet of 146s for many years with a creditable service record. On another point these aircraft seem to be much in demand as they are cheap to lease at the present. BA's RJ 100's are supposedly already earmarked by Swiss as the a/c is seen as an efficient and cost effective for short runway use / high frequency use.

[Wycombe]

I think there are 6 BACX RJ100's on their way to SWISS. Think that will take them up to about 25 a/c.

Eurowings have also increased their fleet, with the 6 ex Air-UK/Buzz -300's

Air Dolomiti have also put 5 -300's into service recently - think these are some of the a/c retired by Aer Lingus.

As it was no doubt built to the "bulletproof" standards of other British airliners, I'm sure it will be around (good news for pilots/bad news for engineers?) for a few years yet.

[JW411]

"All 146s are very, very old...."

Indeed, a lot of them are almost as old as the BA 747 fleet!

[alf5071h]

markflyer6580
The 146 cabin does not have to be full to be viable; more than 30% load factor should break even.
An aircraft does not have to be EFIS equipped (or necessarily modern) to make a profit.
The crew do not necessarily have to be old to be proficient; they may be cheap (!!*?), but at least they should be good - FlyBe :-)

EFIS was offered on all aircraft after number 164, the prototype was 118. The principle of the 146 EFIS design was for a ‘glass’ flight deck (EFIS, Eng Inst, TCAS) whilst retaining commonality in operation with older versions and thus having the ‘same type rating’ for the crew.
The RJ uses similar EFIS hardware, but changed the 146 analogue interfaces to digital, and thus has DADCs, IRS, and digital flight guidance (ex MD11).
The concept of these aircraft is far from old; how many 100 seat jet aircraft operate into LCY and can still fly to Rome, what other RJ aircraft can operate below Cat3a minima (Avro RJ enhanced Cat3 – 150m RVR), and what other types can operate economically out of Lugarno (length, terrain, and noise restrictions)?

[pax britanica]

I like the 146 very much as pax-roomy and quiet -except for the funny flaps in transit noise and a nice solid airliner quality ride

Miles better that the horrid cramped Bombadier and Embraer RJs ( havent flown on the anorexic 737 Brasilian yet tho so reserve judgement there)

[markflyer6580]

Thanks for the replies people. I was impressed with the 146,it was my first time on one. The noisy flaps looked to have some pax worried though.
Alf- I wasn't saying the crew were not profficient,the route was very niceley flown,I meant do flybe promote young fo's to a command if they stay with the company rather than defecting to a 737 operator for instance?:D

[Micky]

My pp instructer said who wants an 737 when you can have a 146??? :} :}
well he was a capt. on the 146 so I guess that doesent count...:ok:

[Mr R Sole]

All 146s are very, very old

Well the comment on the BA classics is a bit far fetched since some of the classics that BA had dated back to the very late 70s and that was before the 146 flew!

However an interesting comment to make is that the 146 is the same age as the 757! You don't hear many people remarking that the 757 is an old type but they both had similar first flight dates! The 146-100 flew a year before the 757 and the 146-200 flew at nearly the same time as the 757 and the 146-300 was flown for the first time in 1987. However the 146 design dates back to the early seventies when it was initially called the HS146!

The 146 gets a lot of press about contaminated air and fumes but it will be around to stay for a while longer. It is no longer fuel efficient when compared to the B737 or the Minibuses since they can carry more pax than a 146 can. It is a lovely aircraft to fly and it is a joy to land. The large trailing link main gear really flatters your landing - just have to try and ensure that the nose gear touchdown is as gracious as the main gear touchdown was - easier said than done!

[JW411]

I'm not talking about 747 classics - they have long gone. I'm talking about their current 744 fleet. Their first 744 (G-BNLA) was delivered in June 1989.

A hell of a lot of BAe146s had still not been built then.

[Mr R Sole]

Agreed on that one.... I misread your initial post and I thought you were talking about the old BA 747 fleet!

[Trislander]

Although a fantastic a/c, the older models certainly show their age in the cabin when compared to the likes of the 757.

The interior design is somewhat 70's (despite first flying in the 80's), noisy, cold and smelly!

The later build models are like a completely different a/c, 90's airbus-esque interior design, quiet and comfy.

Either way it will be a sad day when our last one leaves the fleet to be replaced with the E-195. (Although this a/c looks amazing!)

www.smiliner.com - an amateur website devoted to the 146/RJ and very good too.

T:ok:

[ElNino]

they have run there fleet of 146s for many years with a creditable service record.

So has my company, with a lot more aircraft, and I did not dispute the service record. Read my post again. But the facts remain that they are very thirsty for their load capabilities, they are very maintenance heavy (the 146 that is, the RJ less so I believe) and are prone to a lot more tech delays than newer types.
And they are old, the technology is 1960's and most were built in the mid-80's. Agreed the same absolute age as earlier 757s, but technology wise it's apples and oranges.
Given that the average fleet in western europe is most certainly not 20 years old, I would say that are definitely relatively old.

[eastern wiseguy]

I like the 146 very much as pax-roomy


Have you sat in a SIX across Flybe 146? .UNCOMFORTABLE is not the word!! Pile of crap ...theres three words!The most uncomfortable aircraft I have ever been a pax in.

[pax britanica]

Eastern Wise Guy-I think you are being a bit harsh

Ive not flown FlyBe only BA . I did three round trips and the seats I was in were a set of three rh side of aircraft I could not swear to fact that they were not 5 abreast ( can anyone confirm config for the BA 146s that they used from LGW to Toulouse a few years back). Interestingly on one trip the Toulouse Rugby team were on board and they really do have some immense guys but they seemed to fit in quite well

Anyway I thought it was at least as if not marginally more comfortable than many 73s I have flown inand I am not small in any direction so I know all about cramped seats. I think they were the -300 version and thus a later build and I agree its certainly not as good as an airbus-minibus which are the best shorthaul aircraft for comfort although if you get a seat towards the front the MD80 or 717 are nice too.

If the 146 is the worst ac you have flown on you have lead a sheltered life indeed- the Brasilian pencil jets are absolutely awful with no seat width no head room and a horribly claustrophobic experience boarding or deplaning when standing in the aisle it literally seems just wide enough for your head. Another pretty uncomfortable ac is an American Eagle ATR42 which has a non reclining rearward facing set of seats at front of cabin requiring some interesting interpolation of legs with the folks opposite. In that part of the world they can often be opinionated but frequently charming and entertaining ladies from the islands who are extremely generously proprtioned and with hand baggage to match-a 146 on those trips would be an absolute joy.

Its a bit of novelty in a pretty standardised world and high wing aircraft are always a bonus for pax like me who like the view-they wont be around forever and soon all short haul jets will look almost exactly alike and that will be a little sad dont you think

PB

[eastern wiseguy]

Pax .....nope I have lead a very unsheltered life. You say you have never flown with Flybe...try it...even in "business" they have six abreast. The curvature at the inside by the windows is dreadful. The pencil/barbie jets are bad but in all honesty the 146 is the worst...sooner it is retired the better.

[Farrell]

Awwww the 146 is a ton of fun!
Where else could newbies like myself get their hands on FOUR engines?

[alf5071h]

The 146 was generally equipped with 6 abreast to provide the lowest seat/mile cost, but the choice of cabin layout was up to the operator. One UK charter has fitted 4 abreast business throughout.
The RJ has a slightly wider cabin due to the revised interior design, particularly at shoulder height. The modifications also include the large overhead bins.

The BA RJs may have the latest optional seat arrangement that enables one side of the cabin to be configured either as 3 abreast or only two; the seats are moved/spaced by electric motor, but this is only selectable on the ground!

[UKpaxman]

'Have you sat in a SIX across Flybe 146?'

No but as a weekly pax on a six across Flightline 146 for the last two years - 'yes'

And no I don't find them uncomfortable at all. I think you should try some of the regional routes before making a statement like that. Once you've had a turbulent flight on a packed Shorts 330 or ATP you'll know what uncomfortable is....

[pax britanica]

Eastern WG. well I havent flown on FlyBe, not sure I want to after reading some recent postings here about them.

But I think BA was 6 abreast and they were fine-I confess tho I have only sat in the middle or aisle seats and I found it fine. I still think you are being a bit harsh ( tho I apologise for the sheltered life comment -no offence intended)

The 146RJ might not be great but I still think they are better than the pencil slim competition . I think a fair comparison ,but one I cannot make from experience yet, might be with the new Embraer series. I think that these more are likely really highlight what deficienices the old 146/RJ s have in terms of perceived pax comfort ( I say perceived 'cos at the end of the day it is personal ) and specifics like fuel consumption and maintenance costs

At least I think we were able to disagree in a civil manner on this- seems a bit of a rarity on PPrune that)

PB

[loader]

I don´t know what you guys have????

I fly a BAe146. There are only two words to describe it:

PURE FUN.

The cockpit is one of the biggest in its class. Not so narrow as in the bobbies. And you really have to fly. No simple button-pushers.

Where else have you the possibility to fly a four-engine a/c. Even as a newbe like me.

Landings are simpler than with a C172. Thanks to the guys who built such a cool main gear. :ok:
Almost impossible to make a hard landing.

And in the company I work for, we fly the -200 (92 seats) and -300 (98 seats). The -300s have the bigger overhead bins and now also a complete new interior. Now it looks even bigger with the light coloured seats.

I had in no other plane (except the BA 777 business class) more space for my feet. And even in the aisle I can stand upright. Not as narrow as in the claustrophobic CRJs or Embrears. :ugh:

And it is not as maintenance heavy as everybody says. The easiest way to solve a problem is: Make it dark (no power at all), wait 2 minutes, switch everything on again and in 90% there is no fault anymore. (OK. Only possible when on ground :cool: )
Don´t fly the engines always on the limit. Stay some degrees below max TGT and you have no problems (another airline with RJs have almost every week an engine-failure, because they always fly with max TGT/EGT).

The 146 has only two minor glitches. Lack of power at high altitude or during icing conditions and it´s a little bit thirsty :ouch:

I hope for a long life of the 146s/RJs.

[WHBM]

The 146 was basically designed as a 6-across aircraft. Many of the early ones were sold in the US market and with the average larger size of passengers over there (nothing inviting comments, it's just a fact, like Europeans are typically larger than Asians), and the fact that the cabin diameter is indeed less than Boeing's, some were re-specified with 5-across seating.

Many of these US aircraft had a limited life over there and returned to Europe, often at cheap lease rates with smaller carriers or those operating into LCY, where the 5-across seats were looked on with interest. There are still some around whereas others seem to have come out of major checks as 6-across again.

In my paxing experience 6-across is not a problem except where in-flight meal service is provided.

The 5-across type seats often seem to be in leather.

[spanishflea]

Being a regular commuter to Belfast from London, I'd much rather fly the FlyBe 146 than the easyJet A319. I'm 6'3 and I always find the 146 comfortable, although if you can blag the seats right at the back on the A side there are only 2 which is much nicer.

In comparison I am always in considerable discomfort after getting off the 319 as your legs are constrained far more than on the 146.

[Trislander]

In my experience the only people who complain about the width of the seats are those wearing an extension seatbelt.