The nicest design feature is that it runs out of fuel after about 3½ hours.

After years and years of long haul that made life so much nicer!

Funny I never looked at it that way JW .... an excellent feature indeed ! :)

And So Are BA and so are Ryanair......
 

Many an Airline losing money I would think

ryr????
 

ryr will loose money in the 3rd quarter due to mis-management on fuel hedging,but are still profitable for the full fiscal year!!! somewhere in the region of 85-100m euro,not bad considering the financial landscape!!!

ba on the other hand have had a 1billion swing in fortunes +850m to -150m ouch!!!!

Well we used to fly it at .72, which coincidentally was the same as all the Easy 737s at the time, as they were all busy trying to be economical.

We also used to fly it at FL300/310 (depending on variant), which is hardly "low".

Gets in everyone's way? I lost count of the number of times I got held up by some Nigel, slowing down to 140 kts 20 miles out, while we could easily maintain 250kts to 8 miles.

And organophosphates? That's pretty rich coming from someone who has "757" in their user name, as that particular Boeing has poisoned far more people than the 146 ever has.

Engine failure? Pretty rare these days. Our fleet of 17 only had one in five years, and I drew the short straw on that one... turned out to be a duff overspeed controller, aircraft was back in service an hour after landing.

Rollback? Ancinet history. All engines were modded years ago.

In fact, as others have said, not one has been lost to any failure of the aircraft... all the losses have been crew errors (or deliberate acts). Now how many Boeing/Airbii have speared in over the years after a major airframe or engine malfunction?

But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

hit a nerve have we remoak?

as to; quote And organophosphates? That's pretty rich coming from someone who has "757" in their user name, as that particular Boeing has poisoned far more people than the 146 ever has.

Utter rubbish, the early version of the 757 had a problem (the ones fitted with the RB211-535-C engine were very prone). I personally know of two ex collegues who have recently DIED from suspected complications re organophosphate poisoning, both flew the 146. Plus there are many ex 146 pilots that i know who have lost their medical through organophosphate poisoning. The 146 always had an old socks smell (organophosphates) i have never noticed this on the 757.

Quote "We also used to fly it at FL300/310 (depending on variant), which is hardly "low".

Hardly a startling max cruise is it! and bet you really struggled to get there, (prob not achieving the min 500ft per min atc requirement in class A airspace), ask any ATC and they will tell you the 146 was a pain in the ass.

quote "Well we used to fly it at .72, which coincidentally was the same as all the Easy 737s at the time, as they were all busy trying to be economical."

Wow .72 , if i remember rightly .73 was max speed on the 146-300, our regular cruise speed was .68, very very slow!! I refer you to the ATC quote earlier.

4 engines that preduce LESS than 7000lb of thrust each. (when they worked). designed for tanks!!

As for 250kts to 8 miles..........very good !! well done!! and probably broke every ATC speed limit required (particularly in germany), isnt the 146 a cat B aircraft (same as most turboprops!), in fact some employers consider 146 time as turboprop time, never was a proper jet.

quote : In fact, as others have said, not one has been lost to any failure of the aircraft... all the losses have been crew errors (or deliberate acts). Now how many Boeing/Airbii have speared in over the years after a major airframe or engine malfunction?

No B757 has ever been lost to airframe or engine malfunction, as with the 146 only losses have been to human error or terrorist activity, but then again there are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of airbus and boeing pruducts flying compared to a few hundred 146s, hardly a good comparison.

A most dreadful unreliable aircraft that was ever my misfortune to fly.

having flown both types I have to agree with the above post. The B757/767 is built like a brick $hithouse (especially when it comes to reliability) unlike the BAE146/RJ.

Emotively put, but the jury is still out on that one.

It isn't a contest. We flew at the most appropriate level for the route, and the other London-bound traffic - 757's included - was only 3-5 thousand feet above us. Big deal.

I did, which is how I found out the BA shuttle was much more of a problem for ATC than we were (in Scotland).

So you flew at LRC. Not everyone was as tardy as you were!

Are you even a pilot? Obviously we all obey ATC speed restrictions.but not all our destinations had them. Most encouraged us to maintain high speed, pretty common in the UK, and it often saved us (and ATC) a lot of time. There is a lot to be said for versatility.

What does that have to do with anything? It can still fly a greater range of speeds on approach than any Boeing, and to much closer in. Makes no difference what it's approach category is. Perhaps you need to revise how approach categories are defined.

Not quite:

2 October 1996; Aero Peru Boeing 757-200; near Ancon, Peru:The aircraft was on a flight from Lima, Peru to Santiago, Chile. Shortly after takeoff, the crew reported some sort of mechanical failure. Contact was lost with the aircraft and the aircraft crashed at sea. All nine crew members and 61 passengers were killed.

And of course there was the 767 accident - essentially the same aircraft:

26 May 1991; Lauda Air 767-300ER; Suphan Buri Province, Thailand: Aircraft lost control and crashed after an uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser during climb. All 10 crew and 213 passengers were killed.

A pity your 146 experience didn't agree with you. I flew it for 10 years and rarely went tech. Maybe our engineering was better...

And I did so enjoy doing things that 757s could only dream of. I'd much rather have those years of flying into LCY, than a few extra knots or a slightly higher cruise level.

errr? so is the 319 and 380 a common type rating?

I'm prepared to be enlightened.

And, for what it's worth, remoak has touched a far more nerve than the other way around.

no nerves here, but its great fun winding up these guys :E:E

Is this what is colloquially known as a "willie waving contest" ? :rolleyes:

No mate, it's known as a "let's-have-a bit-of-fun-with-a-(insert favourite pejorative term here) contest.

The point being that posting on a thread for no other reason than to slag off an aircraft type is both puerile and offensive, and as the mods don't seem to mind that sort of post, why not have a little fun? :ok: Speaking of which...

errr... the reason it is a common type rating is because the two aircraft are substantially the same. And do the A319 and the A380 have a common type rating. Not really, no. I wonder why.

Apart from Lufthansa, Swiss, the UAE royal flight, Cityline, Eurowings, Air France, Atlantic Airways, Malmo, SAA Airlink... and that's only a few...

Well, I normally respect them - until they give me a reason not to. Guess you must be one of them... so I'll put you in the same category as mr seasexsun.

Wrong again. Sigh. Ah well, jumping to conclusions seems to be your favourite activity. Knock yourself out!

May I vote this thread for being the dumbest for the first quarter of 2009?
Get a bloody life.

And you just made yourself a part of it! lol

not wishing to burst in on a good cat fight between the girls, but i just thought i would point out that the B757 and the B767 are not substantially the same. Different wing, engines, body etc, the only thing substantially the same is the flight deck. Similar differences between the A320 family and the A330, same rating but different aircraft, I think.

Ok girls seconds out round four!!

(ps should this go to jet blast?)

The 146/RJ and the 757 both have their pros and pitfalls.

The 146 to be honest has not really been exposed to its true niche market. I used to fly the 146 in Europe and that ain't the environment that it excels in. I am now flying the 146 in North Africa now and an auditor asked me what load I could lift from a 2000m runway with 40C OAT. I think I surprised him when I said that we could take a 'full house' with no problems.

Electric start means that a knackered APU means all we need is a GPU and not an airstart unit which are rare in the desert. :} Also the high engines mean we don't chew up lots of sand, unlike the 737 in our fleet!

The 146/RJ does not shine when it is doing mundane city to city flying in Europe!

Hi Mister Geezer,

Check your PMs please.

Thanks

Have VLM F50s been operating some of the LCY to EDI RJ schedules, and if so why?

It could the start of VLM's "cooperation" with Cityjet, or they just got a bit stuck and needed to rejig things to protect EDI pax.

On another note RBS are letting 20,000 staff go worldwide, who do you think were CItyJets main client base on LON EDI....I can see a very bleak summer ahead...