FLYBE in to the black,but at what cost !!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: england
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps Jimbo was abused by crew in his time as a traffic agent at LGW and is taking his opportunity for revenge now!
One thing is for sure, he doesn't like crew and most likely never will.
One thing is for sure, he doesn't like crew and most likely never will.
Presumably, with the numbers of people leaving it can be assumed that anyone still at Flybe is there through some sort of choice - and rest assured that there are many companies worse than Flybe to work for (been there and done it!)
RD : I agree with a lot of what you say, but whilst the Q400 may have some faults what is wrong with it from a pilots viewpoint - modern glass cockpit, good FMS, Fadec... but of course you know about those things, flying a 146. The reality is that unless you crane your head round to see the props you could almost be in a CRJ, except there is more room to slide your seat back on the dash. The only issue is the salary.
KIL : Assuming I have guessed your identity, the company you are returning to offered you two choices after 9/11 - career break or redundancy. Some of the BMI bus pilots were offered RHS instead of LHS and a return to F/Os salary. So surely the jet pilots flying dash 8s on ringfenced salaries shows that flybe are treating its crews better than BMI did in a similar situation. Under employment law they could almost certainly get away with t.p. pay or statutary redundancy payments - as, if what you say is correct, the jet jobs at BHD aren't being offered to anyone else - they are ceasing to exist.
PD2 : Are you a Balpa member - if so talk to one of the cc reps - supposedly the pay talks are far from dead.
RD : I agree with a lot of what you say, but whilst the Q400 may have some faults what is wrong with it from a pilots viewpoint - modern glass cockpit, good FMS, Fadec... but of course you know about those things, flying a 146. The reality is that unless you crane your head round to see the props you could almost be in a CRJ, except there is more room to slide your seat back on the dash. The only issue is the salary.
KIL : Assuming I have guessed your identity, the company you are returning to offered you two choices after 9/11 - career break or redundancy. Some of the BMI bus pilots were offered RHS instead of LHS and a return to F/Os salary. So surely the jet pilots flying dash 8s on ringfenced salaries shows that flybe are treating its crews better than BMI did in a similar situation. Under employment law they could almost certainly get away with t.p. pay or statutary redundancy payments - as, if what you say is correct, the jet jobs at BHD aren't being offered to anyone else - they are ceasing to exist.
PD2 : Are you a Balpa member - if so talk to one of the cc reps - supposedly the pay talks are far from dead.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excrab,
Unless you have a clause in your contract allowing "ring fencing"
or any other terminology that effects your pay by a deduction, then it is an unlawful deduction of salary.
You must (and are entitled to) remain on your full salary including in service increments/loyalty increments regardless what type the company decide to retrain you on.
All the other Airlines (that I'm aware of) that have demoted Captains to First Officers, or, have retrained crews on to a smaller type(whether it be a jet or turbo prop) that warrants a deduction in salary, have such clauses in their contracts.
So it is "Lawful"under their contracts of employment.
My contract does not allow that facillity, and therefore would be an
"unlawful deduction" which could be challenged at an Industrial tribunal and/or the High Court, should it be neccessary.
So the bottom line is, under the current employment laws, which cover our Ts & Cs, you retain what ever salary you are on; including the in service increments, which are also part of your
Ts & Cs.
It's THE LAW end of story. Unless your contract says other wise.
Read your contract .
PJ2, nice one!
Nip back paddy wack..........
Unless you have a clause in your contract allowing "ring fencing"
or any other terminology that effects your pay by a deduction, then it is an unlawful deduction of salary.
You must (and are entitled to) remain on your full salary including in service increments/loyalty increments regardless what type the company decide to retrain you on.
All the other Airlines (that I'm aware of) that have demoted Captains to First Officers, or, have retrained crews on to a smaller type(whether it be a jet or turbo prop) that warrants a deduction in salary, have such clauses in their contracts.
So it is "Lawful"under their contracts of employment.
My contract does not allow that facillity, and therefore would be an
"unlawful deduction" which could be challenged at an Industrial tribunal and/or the High Court, should it be neccessary.
So the bottom line is, under the current employment laws, which cover our Ts & Cs, you retain what ever salary you are on; including the in service increments, which are also part of your
Ts & Cs.
It's THE LAW end of story. Unless your contract says other wise.
Read your contract .
PJ2, nice one!
Nip back paddy wack..........
Last edited by Smokie; 18th May 2003 at 18:13.
Smokie,
I think you're rant just reinforces the point I was making to KIL.
You say that Flybe have to keep pilots on the higher salary as it is the law - and BMI didn't have to as they deliberately included a clause in their pilot contract enabling them to adjust the pilot's salary downwards if required.
So who has treated their staff better - Flybe (salary maintained), or BMI (salary reduced) ?
"Ring fencing", in this context, is the term that was used by MW at the base meetings last year to describe keeping jet pilots on the same salary when they returned to the t.p. fleet - not a way of reducing salaries.
I think you're rant just reinforces the point I was making to KIL.
You say that Flybe have to keep pilots on the higher salary as it is the law - and BMI didn't have to as they deliberately included a clause in their pilot contract enabling them to adjust the pilot's salary downwards if required.
So who has treated their staff better - Flybe (salary maintained), or BMI (salary reduced) ?
"Ring fencing", in this context, is the term that was used by MW at the base meetings last year to describe keeping jet pilots on the same salary when they returned to the t.p. fleet - not a way of reducing salaries.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well pilots that I talk to from other airlines including scheduled and charter by the sounds of things have had it worse than us at flybe. They may get paid more in the long run but it all sounds like swings and roundabouts to me.
I'm keeping low and quite and enjoying the exodus as my seniority slowly starts to rise compared to its stagnation of past.
Out with the old and in with the new I say.
I'm keeping low and quite and enjoying the exodus as my seniority slowly starts to rise compared to its stagnation of past.
Out with the old and in with the new I say.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab,
Yes I am a BALPA member and yes I'm sure the pay talks are far from dead.
My point is...... When members of the CC go to all the trouble of producing a detailed pay offer and then give it to the management months before arranging a pay negotiations meeting, I would have at least expected Jim to read it BEFORE he walks in to that meeting.
I know he has got to play hard ball for the sake of the company but if you don't treat people with respect, including BALPA, then you can expect them to give you the same treatment.
Yes I am a BALPA member and yes I'm sure the pay talks are far from dead.
My point is...... When members of the CC go to all the trouble of producing a detailed pay offer and then give it to the management months before arranging a pay negotiations meeting, I would have at least expected Jim to read it BEFORE he walks in to that meeting.
I know he has got to play hard ball for the sake of the company but if you don't treat people with respect, including BALPA, then you can expect them to give you the same treatment.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecrab
Sorry your a bit of the beaten path with your info
just like a few others,nice try though,some interesting comments,
Rgds K.I.L.
Card players never reveal their hand unless they have to!
Sorry your a bit of the beaten path with your info
just like a few others,nice try though,some interesting comments,
Rgds K.I.L.
Card players never reveal their hand unless they have to!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but I just dont follow Smokie's contractual arguments.
The Company has effectively replaced 4 CRJs with D-8s. presumably Smokies original offer letter referred to the CRJ--it didnt say 'some kind of jet'. Therefore the hard ball position would be that the CRJ pilots could be made redundant. The company is not 'deciding' to retrain these pilots on the D-8, it is offering alternative employment in line with seniority. Just as the Contract does not refer to ring fencing, it also does not refer to pilots being paid other than the rate for the job; why should any D-8 pilot be paid more than any other ?.
It would be quite feasible for BALPA D-8 pilots to challenge the Company's offer of red ringing in the reverse direction to that taken by SMOKIE.
I believe the Company's offer is a generous compromise undertaken on the usual Flybe hope that the problem will go away given time---which could happen sooner rather than later snce the reduction in the jet fleet is probably only temporay.
The Company has effectively replaced 4 CRJs with D-8s. presumably Smokies original offer letter referred to the CRJ--it didnt say 'some kind of jet'. Therefore the hard ball position would be that the CRJ pilots could be made redundant. The company is not 'deciding' to retrain these pilots on the D-8, it is offering alternative employment in line with seniority. Just as the Contract does not refer to ring fencing, it also does not refer to pilots being paid other than the rate for the job; why should any D-8 pilot be paid more than any other ?.
It would be quite feasible for BALPA D-8 pilots to challenge the Company's offer of red ringing in the reverse direction to that taken by SMOKIE.
I believe the Company's offer is a generous compromise undertaken on the usual Flybe hope that the problem will go away given time---which could happen sooner rather than later snce the reduction in the jet fleet is probably only temporay.
K.I.L.
My apologies if you're not who I think you are.
The info about BMI came pretty much from the horses mouth - a BMI airbus Captain in exactly that position - although he was very drunk when he told me.
My apologies if you're not who I think you are.
The info about BMI came pretty much from the horses mouth - a BMI airbus Captain in exactly that position - although he was very drunk when he told me.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points.
Regarding salaries/ringfencing etc, maxprop is quite right. The company could easily have done what many others have done over the years, and make the CRJ guys redundant- and then offer them new jobs on the D8 with new T's and C's. Quite legal and commonly done.
Similarly, regarding sickness, I am 99% certain that smokie is wrong on that one as well, as a condition of employment is a valid medical. That is a different situation to a person who simply cannot attend work due long-term sickness. As soon as you lose your medical, you have broken your contract. In any case, the company has kept people for well in excess of six months on occasion- which simply reinforces the point. I'm no expert on contract law, but I would imagine that the company can do quite a lot, as long as it isn't specifically mentioned in the contract, and doesn't affect your statutory rights.
Regarding the pay negotiations, there is a lot of mis-information about regarding that. The negotiations are not just on-going, but close to a resolution from what I have heard. Expect to hear more in the near future. With all that is going on at the moment, I am not at all surprised that the MD wasn't (allegedly) well briefed. I say "allegedly" as I wasn't there, and nor were the rest of you.
excrab
Whatever floats your boat. Many of your colleagues that fly it don't seem so keen. Mind you, I expect some crews enjoy all the time off they get when it breaks!! 
I wonder if the CRJ boys would agree it's the same if you don't look at the engines. Nope, thought not!
puddle-jumper2
Well... perhaps you shouldn't listen to rumours then! More to the point, try looking at it from JFs point of view. He would have gone to the meeting knowing exactly how much money was available for pay rises without endangering the financial future of the company. Any proposal for more than that figure, in isolation, would obviously be rejected out of hand irrespective of what the rest of the document said. Now that some negotiation has taken place, we will no doubt see a little movement our way- but I doubt it will be more than a tiny increase on the present offer. The proposal, whilst obviously the minimum we would like, is pretty ambitious for a company only just emerging from near-death.
I absolutely agree, and I think this is an area where the company consistently fails to meet even a minimum standard (I'm sure I'll get an angry phone call or two for saying that, but it remains the truth). All our managers should be sent on communication courses next week (or earlier if possible). It isn't the individual managers fault; they have never been properly equipped for their roles, as far as I can tell. I, for one, am fed up with emails that never get responded to, voicemails that never result in a response, hearing that my base is under threat from Servisair, and the sheer pointlessness of trying to get anybody in EXT to answer a telephone after 3pm on a friday! 
And finally... my boy has one of those Fisher Price toy jets, it does look a lot like a 146...!!!
Regarding salaries/ringfencing etc, maxprop is quite right. The company could easily have done what many others have done over the years, and make the CRJ guys redundant- and then offer them new jobs on the D8 with new T's and C's. Quite legal and commonly done.
Similarly, regarding sickness, I am 99% certain that smokie is wrong on that one as well, as a condition of employment is a valid medical. That is a different situation to a person who simply cannot attend work due long-term sickness. As soon as you lose your medical, you have broken your contract. In any case, the company has kept people for well in excess of six months on occasion- which simply reinforces the point. I'm no expert on contract law, but I would imagine that the company can do quite a lot, as long as it isn't specifically mentioned in the contract, and doesn't affect your statutory rights.
Regarding the pay negotiations, there is a lot of mis-information about regarding that. The negotiations are not just on-going, but close to a resolution from what I have heard. Expect to hear more in the near future. With all that is going on at the moment, I am not at all surprised that the MD wasn't (allegedly) well briefed. I say "allegedly" as I wasn't there, and nor were the rest of you.
excrab
the Q400 may have some faults what is wrong with it from a pilots viewpoint - modern glass cockpit, good FMS, Fadec...
I wonder if the CRJ boys would agree it's the same if you don't look at the engines. Nope, thought not!
puddle-jumper2
Unfortunately it doesn't help matters when we hear rumours that the latest BALPA pay claim was ignored by Jim right up to the last minute and then only looked for a total of 15mins during the pay negotiation meetings before basically being ignored again
surely it is the job of a manager to motivate his/her staff which involves communication for him/her to their staff, not the other way round.
And finally... my boy has one of those Fisher Price toy jets, it does look a lot like a 146...!!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max prop,
As I have said earlier it is case of employment law.
If the company have written ill thought out contracts then that is their problem.
Other airlines have managed to address any forseeable problems by including such clauses in their contracts; whether it is in the pilots favour or not is irrelevant.
The bottom line is a contract is a contract and any breach is unlawfull.
For once it appears that this ommission is actually in our favour for a change.
The company are not above the law, although they seem to think so at times.
If there is any doubt in anyones mind please feel free to ask your local solicitor or
Reg Allan at BALPA, who is the legal eagle.
He will also share his expertise with you.
Please dont just take my word for it, find out for yourselves, it will make you all feel a whole lot better.
As I have said earlier it is case of employment law.
If the company have written ill thought out contracts then that is their problem.
Other airlines have managed to address any forseeable problems by including such clauses in their contracts; whether it is in the pilots favour or not is irrelevant.
The bottom line is a contract is a contract and any breach is unlawfull.
For once it appears that this ommission is actually in our favour for a change.
The company are not above the law, although they seem to think so at times.
If there is any doubt in anyones mind please feel free to ask your local solicitor or
Reg Allan at BALPA, who is the legal eagle.
He will also share his expertise with you.
Please dont just take my word for it, find out for yourselves, it will make you all feel a whole lot better.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD, I think the Q400 is great, far better than the 'Classic'.
And I am beginning to believe the Q400's improved reliability. I haven't had a prob in quite a while now. Like the powder puff, once you get to know it, you can start to play many a different tune on it, and they getter better with practice. Unlike the landings!
And I am beginning to believe the Q400's improved reliability. I haven't had a prob in quite a while now. Like the powder puff, once you get to know it, you can start to play many a different tune on it, and they getter better with practice. Unlike the landings!
RD ,
It is unfair to knock the aircraft when most of the perceived faults cannot be laid at it's door. There has been at least one day this month when 3 Bae146 aircraft were tech at the same time, the difference is that if a 146 breaks the sectors are normally picked up by another 146 crew and other fleets aren't involved. If a Q400 goes tech then as that is 25% of the fleet it almost always involves someone else so more people know about it and are able to make derisive comments.
Regarding what the CRJ crews think - that remains to be seen once they fly it. However, it depends if they enter it with an open mind, and I think that is unlikely, too many people in the company are looking for reasons not to like the aircraft. There are issues such as crew food, baggage space and instrument presentation, but those can be laid at the door of the company - when they purchased the CRJ they spent as much money as possible getting every extra there was (how many times have the HGS been needed in anger, for example). When purchasing the Q400 they have gone for the cheapest possible cabin and flight deck options, and expect it to do the same job as the CRJ.
At the end of the day, unless you are trying to build hours to work somewhere else (which due to geography I am not) does it matter if you fly a jet or a turboprop - ignoring for a moment the salaries issue which is what this thread is about ( I think). I've flown both, through force of circumstance at the moment I fly the Q400, and I still think it is potentially an excellent aircraft.
Capt. Airprox : Whilst I agree with most of your post I'm afraid the in with the new bit is absolute tosh. The company has to keep it's experienced captains, who are primarily on the 146, as they provide a wealth of experience upon which we can all draw - even if it's just asking a question in the crew room before you set off to a new destination.
It is unfair to knock the aircraft when most of the perceived faults cannot be laid at it's door. There has been at least one day this month when 3 Bae146 aircraft were tech at the same time, the difference is that if a 146 breaks the sectors are normally picked up by another 146 crew and other fleets aren't involved. If a Q400 goes tech then as that is 25% of the fleet it almost always involves someone else so more people know about it and are able to make derisive comments.
Regarding what the CRJ crews think - that remains to be seen once they fly it. However, it depends if they enter it with an open mind, and I think that is unlikely, too many people in the company are looking for reasons not to like the aircraft. There are issues such as crew food, baggage space and instrument presentation, but those can be laid at the door of the company - when they purchased the CRJ they spent as much money as possible getting every extra there was (how many times have the HGS been needed in anger, for example). When purchasing the Q400 they have gone for the cheapest possible cabin and flight deck options, and expect it to do the same job as the CRJ.
At the end of the day, unless you are trying to build hours to work somewhere else (which due to geography I am not) does it matter if you fly a jet or a turboprop - ignoring for a moment the salaries issue which is what this thread is about ( I think). I've flown both, through force of circumstance at the moment I fly the Q400, and I still think it is potentially an excellent aircraft.
Capt. Airprox : Whilst I agree with most of your post I'm afraid the in with the new bit is absolute tosh. The company has to keep it's experienced captains, who are primarily on the 146, as they provide a wealth of experience upon which we can all draw - even if it's just asking a question in the crew room before you set off to a new destination.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the Q400 is a bad aircraft, in fact I'm sure it is a very good one, especially now we are getting on top of reliability. It will probably earn us oodles of cash, and turn out to be a good investment. As long as we use it as intended, I'm sure it will do exactly what it says on the tin.
However I don't particularly want to fly it. Thanks all the same.
Regarding the CRJ guys, the aircraft they flew was in an altogether different class to the Q400 (from a pilots point of view). Not better ot worse (depending on your viewpoint), just different. Probably why so many jumped at the chance to keep flying it, preferring a three-month contract to moving to the Q400 for as long as they wanted to stay.
No, I think the Q400 will be good for us. I am particularly looking forward to seeing us operating for lower sector costs than Easyjet can. We stand to do very well indeed.
However I don't particularly want to fly it. Thanks all the same.
Regarding the CRJ guys, the aircraft they flew was in an altogether different class to the Q400 (from a pilots point of view). Not better ot worse (depending on your viewpoint), just different. Probably why so many jumped at the chance to keep flying it, preferring a three-month contract to moving to the Q400 for as long as they wanted to stay.
No, I think the Q400 will be good for us. I am particularly looking forward to seeing us operating for lower sector costs than Easyjet can. We stand to do very well indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excrab,
I should be more specific without offending anyone, but I feel that the ones that are constantly moaning should go. I am fed up of entering the crew room to start a day of what I love doing (flying) and hearing negative, negative, negative.
At least with new crew they are all bright eyed and bushy tailed.
I do agree it is not a great thing to see good and experienced guys go for the reasons you state.
I should be more specific without offending anyone, but I feel that the ones that are constantly moaning should go. I am fed up of entering the crew room to start a day of what I love doing (flying) and hearing negative, negative, negative.
At least with new crew they are all bright eyed and bushy tailed.
I do agree it is not a great thing to see good and experienced guys go for the reasons you state.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for the FlyBe people, and these are for my own benefit to get a better handle on what happened with the CRJs.
Did anyone leaving the CRJ for other fleets have to take a pay cut or otherwise lose out on Terms and Conditions?
Did anyone who relocated get financial assistance from the company to do so?
Has anyone lost seniority from this and will ex-CRJ pilots be at the front of the queue when new jet slots come up (A320/737/ERJ)?
What I guess I am asking is: Is the dissatisfaction displayed here down to a loss of earnings or down to a perceived (or genuine) loss of prestige due to the loss of a jet job?
Did anyone leaving the CRJ for other fleets have to take a pay cut or otherwise lose out on Terms and Conditions?
Did anyone who relocated get financial assistance from the company to do so?
Has anyone lost seniority from this and will ex-CRJ pilots be at the front of the queue when new jet slots come up (A320/737/ERJ)?
What I guess I am asking is: Is the dissatisfaction displayed here down to a loss of earnings or down to a perceived (or genuine) loss of prestige due to the loss of a jet job?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab,
how can you compare the Q400 Dash with the 146? If the 146 goes tech it is most likely because it is just an older machine, where the Q400 is pretty much brand new. That's different.
I it unfair to compare the Dashes with the CRJ. As said by people before, it is a different type of airplane. The CRJ is probably more suitable for routes where flybe uses a Q400 on and vica versa.
flybe's management seems to be very confident with the Q400 operation, seen the order that has been placed by them. But is this the right machine to go into Europe with? If the Q400 setup backfires flybe might have a big problem on their hands, since they will be stuck with an airplane that is not greatly wanted and desired by anyone.
The economics of the Q400 must be great, I have no doubt about that, but unfortunately it does not stop there. Aviation goes further than 'just' economics.
Also flybe seems to know this, because on every flybe add there is a 146 jet displayed and not a Q400.
And excrab, as far as I can remember, the BE CRJ's had only one fancy option and that was the HUD. Which must have been a Bombardier salesman's succes. But the rest of the machine was also the 'cheapo' version.
Capt. AirProx,
it has always appeared that BE preferred to hire low time pilots, since these are very easy to push around. Because if they like what is happening or not, they will be unable to leave, seen their bond (although this doesn't seem to stop people anymore) and little experience. Their future will be relatively useless type-ratings on orphan fleets.
Unless they leave when they can.
And if people who moan should leave the company. Then they can probably shut down the company in three months time due to lack of pilots.
Where is smoke, there is fire.
Or is the whole thing just a test how long it takes to wear out the loyalty of a workforce?
Ptt
how can you compare the Q400 Dash with the 146? If the 146 goes tech it is most likely because it is just an older machine, where the Q400 is pretty much brand new. That's different.
I it unfair to compare the Dashes with the CRJ. As said by people before, it is a different type of airplane. The CRJ is probably more suitable for routes where flybe uses a Q400 on and vica versa.
flybe's management seems to be very confident with the Q400 operation, seen the order that has been placed by them. But is this the right machine to go into Europe with? If the Q400 setup backfires flybe might have a big problem on their hands, since they will be stuck with an airplane that is not greatly wanted and desired by anyone.
The economics of the Q400 must be great, I have no doubt about that, but unfortunately it does not stop there. Aviation goes further than 'just' economics.
Also flybe seems to know this, because on every flybe add there is a 146 jet displayed and not a Q400.
And excrab, as far as I can remember, the BE CRJ's had only one fancy option and that was the HUD. Which must have been a Bombardier salesman's succes. But the rest of the machine was also the 'cheapo' version.
Capt. AirProx,
it has always appeared that BE preferred to hire low time pilots, since these are very easy to push around. Because if they like what is happening or not, they will be unable to leave, seen their bond (although this doesn't seem to stop people anymore) and little experience. Their future will be relatively useless type-ratings on orphan fleets.
Unless they leave when they can. And if people who moan should leave the company. Then they can probably shut down the company in three months time due to lack of pilots.
Where is smoke, there is fire.
Or is the whole thing just a test how long it takes to wear out the loyalty of a workforce?
Ptt
PTT,
We seem to be getting away from the subject of the thread into a debate about aircraft types, but to answer your points as best I can.
I can compare reliability of the Q400 to other aircraft because the rest of the company does, and rightly to. There is no reason why an aircraft should go tech because it is "old", each component is lifed on an aircraft - many of the 146s will have engines, pumps, brake lines etc etc which will have run no more hours than equivelant items on the Q400s, so there is no more or less reason to have a hydraulic problem(for example) on either type. However, a lot of faults in avionics and systems are more likely to occur in new aircraft as build faults manifest themselves, and this is not peculiar to Bombardier.
Unfortunately aviation doesn't go much further than economics. The primary aim an airline is not to carry the most passengers, but to make money for it's shareholders. To achieve this ten high paying passengers are less trouble than fifty low paying, but unfortunately those high paying passengers are no longer out there. As a result the most important part of any airline now is not the flight ops department but the marketing department. Whether the Q400 is the right aircraft or not remains to be seen, but economically the option of more 146s or CRJs would not have worked for a low cost carrier. Had they instead gone for 737/A320 they would have lost the chance to operate from smaller regional airports serving thin routes, and come into direct competition with Easyjet/Ryan Air.
Finally regarding options - the HGS, INS, dual FMS and ovens are all options on the CRJ and (according to BRAD) on the Q400. However, Flybe have chosen not to fit them to the Q400 thus giving themselves less flexibility in flight operations and passenger service.
We seem to be getting away from the subject of the thread into a debate about aircraft types, but to answer your points as best I can.
I can compare reliability of the Q400 to other aircraft because the rest of the company does, and rightly to. There is no reason why an aircraft should go tech because it is "old", each component is lifed on an aircraft - many of the 146s will have engines, pumps, brake lines etc etc which will have run no more hours than equivelant items on the Q400s, so there is no more or less reason to have a hydraulic problem(for example) on either type. However, a lot of faults in avionics and systems are more likely to occur in new aircraft as build faults manifest themselves, and this is not peculiar to Bombardier.
Unfortunately aviation doesn't go much further than economics. The primary aim an airline is not to carry the most passengers, but to make money for it's shareholders. To achieve this ten high paying passengers are less trouble than fifty low paying, but unfortunately those high paying passengers are no longer out there. As a result the most important part of any airline now is not the flight ops department but the marketing department. Whether the Q400 is the right aircraft or not remains to be seen, but economically the option of more 146s or CRJs would not have worked for a low cost carrier. Had they instead gone for 737/A320 they would have lost the chance to operate from smaller regional airports serving thin routes, and come into direct competition with Easyjet/Ryan Air.
Finally regarding options - the HGS, INS, dual FMS and ovens are all options on the CRJ and (according to BRAD) on the Q400. However, Flybe have chosen not to fit them to the Q400 thus giving themselves less flexibility in flight operations and passenger service.