Capt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 686 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5526 times:
I recently flew Air Wisconsin from DTW to ORD on a BAe 146-100. I must say this was the most unpleasant ride of life. The aircraft was configured 2 x 3, which was very cramped and further made worse by the almost total lack of legroom (compared to other commuters of this class). The overhead space in the middle of the plane was considerably small, I guess b/c of the wing. Also, practically no seat is half-way descent, unless your in the first few rows. If you're in a "D" seat (middle) God help you! Overall, it was simply very uncomfortable and the airplane itself looked as if it hadn't been refurbished since 1986. This was a -100 series; I don't know if the other 146s with United Express are any different. Anyway, if you see BAe-146 on your United itinerary, pick another flight, at least in my opinion.
Tokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5447 times:
I have to agree with Capt.Fantastic. I flew a BA 146 from AMS-LHR and found it clausterphobic. Besides the ridiculous overhead bins under the wings (maybe 10-15cm in height, effectively rendering them useless) there is a row of seats without windows. Because of the 3x3 configuration in a cramped cabin, people in that row cannot even see the windows of the row in front or behind them (i.e the outside seats are so close to the side your view is completely blocked). I've never seen any other narrow body plane with such bad packaging.
BAW2198 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 637 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5440 times:
I've flown on all three series and never had a problem sitting in any of them. Their very comfortable and quite nice. I'll take a 146 over an embraer 135-145 any day of the week. Agreed about the over head room in the middle, but since thats where the wingspar resides...... The leg room in the 146 is the same compared to a EMB145-135 and the CRJ 100-200 series.
"And remember, Keep your stick on the ice"--->Red Green
JBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2296 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5398 times:
What aircraft are you comparing the 146 to in terms of spaciousness? Certainly, with the 146 (and its ARJ brethren) being among the largest of regional aircraft, it is roomier than most. I have not been on one myself, but I've heard that alot of people enjoy it compared to other regionals. Probably depends on the configuration.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
Tokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5304 times:
BA319-131, Yes, as I remember it was to LHR (maybe it was substituting another plane that day).
JBo, I wouldn't know what Capt.Fantastic was comparing it to, but for me it is the smaller 737s, DC9s (MDs) and Fokker 100s. A nice thing about the BAE146 is the view that you get due to the wings being on top and I like the four engines concept (Jumbolino!), though I have to say the term Whisperjet is maybe exaggerated -- I expected it to be much quieter after all the hype about it being the quietest passenger jet in the world.
By the way, did you know Prince Charles once had an incident when piloting a 146?! I don't know if he still flies.
Zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2955 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5079 times:
UA's 146's are one of my favorite planes. Would I want to fly them transcon? No. But shorter flights? Absolutely. I find the space better than any other regional jet (haven't yet flown the 170). View is great because there is no wing to obstruct.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4074 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4954 times:
Are you sure it was the -100? AWAC only has one of these in the fleet (not sure if they still do), and it certainly doesn't measure up to the -200 or -300. It's smaller and has 6 abreast seating. The others all have 5 abreast and are longer. I flew one ORD-MKE and it was a great flight.
Afay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4889 times:
Hmmm, what a silly post. I have only flown the -300 Aer Lingus variety and found them to be very comfortable. They had 33" pitch (same as UAL) which is 2" more than usual airline economy. Were you bored and needed something to complain about?
Azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3656 posts, RR: 29 Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4863 times:
Yes, Mesaba is still operating the avro to ASE from MEM and MSP. THis is a seasonal route from December to APril. At the peak of the schedule on Saturdays we offer 4 flights from MSP and 2 from MEM.
As for the small overhead bins - that is a design issue with the airplane. There is no way around the fact you've got a wing and center fuel tank there. It's not an Air Willy or Mesaba thing... it's a BacJet thing. You can get small bags and briefcases in those bins. But the way people pack and bring things on board you'll have a problem. Nobody seems to lisen either to the FAs making suggestions for storing their things.
Wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5766 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
I've flown BAe-146's on USAir and UA Express and all of them have been 3-2 seating. I didn't think they were that uncomfortable...not any more than your typical commuter aircraft. I kind of miss them a little.
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4450 times:
Actually up until about 1990 Air Wisconsin had all their BAe146-200s configured for 3x3, I flew on one in that configuration from O'Hare to Moline in late 1989.
Subsequently they changed it to the 2x3 seating. Only the two Former Aspen Airways BAe146-100s that Air Wisconsin got when they bought out Aspen were configured for 3x3 and I flew on both of them when Air Wisconsin still had them. I have never felt cramped on the 146 and If my memory is correct, I read some place that it was as wide or maybe an inch WIDER that a 737 not narrower. Can anyone find this???
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the BAe146 100/200/300 series or its Renamed AVRO-Jet series....The only thing that will now make it obsolete in the eyes of the bean counters is the 4 stove pipes......otherwise its an awesome plane.....something I never used to think when it originally came out..And besides...What about the awesome soudns made by lowering and raising the flaps!!!!!!
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
25 Sluaviator: It is not possible for you to have flown on a ZW BAE146-100. We don't own any -100s anymore. Websites (including United's) show you are flying a 100,
26 Dc10heavy: I recently flew an AIR_Wisc BAE 146 and I too would concur that this specific a/c is not a very comfortable ride seating wise (at least on the 2 X 3 s
27 ATA L1011: RE: Access Air; Here are the cabin widths of the Airbus 320 family, Boeing Narrowbodies,146/Avro and MD-80 family, the boeing narrow bodies are wide A