Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 4th Dec 2001, 14:57
  #1 (permalink)  
The Guvnor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool BAE Systems RJX: "If Customers Want Them, We'll Build Them"

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.
 
Old 4th Dec 2001, 15:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

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

RJX looked good too......
jetgirl is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 15:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

They're still flight testing the RJX out of Woodford. Maybe not all dead and buried?
cossack is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 16:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 18:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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?
moggie is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 18:36
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

....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?
411A is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 18:36
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
spagiola is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 19:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

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?
Raw Data is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 19:26
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
411A is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 20:26
  #10 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

And very smelly.

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

Chuck (ex 146)
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 20:42
  #11 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Only build 14 aircraft? BAe have plenty of experience with that... in fact just such an aircraft has recently returned to service
MarkD is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 20:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bedford
Posts: 330
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
oncemorealoft is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2001, 23:12
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fish

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.
Raw Data is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 02:15
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
spagiola is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 15:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,834
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Cool

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......
White Knight is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 17:23
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Stansted
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

............including Aspen, which is why Air Wisconsin are looking at the RJX!!
Greg Baddeley is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 17:43
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

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...
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 20:40
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
spagiola is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2001, 21:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

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.
GearUp CheerUp is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2001, 18:29
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

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...
Kerosene Kraut is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.