Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
146 For LCCs  
User currently offlineLapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1684 posts, RR: 6
Posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1859 times:

A lot is said about how the Bae146 is no good for Low Cost Carriers. Indeed, the carriers that have operated the 146 have not fared very well, those that spring to mind immediately are Buzz and Debonair.

Why is the 146 no good as a low cost aircraft?

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineUnique From Switzerland, joined Mar 2003, 1703 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 1834 times:

Maybe it's not economic to have four engines? It's save though...

User currently offlinePothiabs From United States of America, joined May 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 1813 times:

Looking at the tremendous inefficiency of the established carriers, it would be fairly easy to operate a fleet of 146s on a low cost base, even when the aircraft is not perfect for this kind of operation.

User currently offlineLMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2566 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

The fuel consumption of a 146 is as much as that of a 737. More engines = double the maintenance expenditure of a twin. Then there is the little question of capacity. 146's are not suitable for LCC's IMO.

User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

You must also consider the fate of Buzz and Debonair... Debonair is no more and Buzz just has a few days left. And Buzz had plans to replace the BAe's with more 737's so I don't really know if you can say that the plane really worked well for them.


User currently offlineThomas_Jaeger From Switzerland, joined Apr 2002, 2471 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

You also have to take into account that load-factors at Buzz and Debonair were not really good, it would certainly possible to operate those aircraft profitable on a low-cost basis if one had load-factor of 75-80% ...

Swiss aviation news junkie living all over the place
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

I wouldn't doubt that 146 costs are higher per seat-mile than, say, a 717 or a 737. That said, I think sometimes people get caught up in the myth of aircraft costs -- reality is, direct aircraft operating costs aren't the majority of the airline's net cost.

Southwest, for example, was built and thrives on doing things one could consider "wrong" -- flying 737NG's on short hops. Yet most, if not all, airlines would kill to have WN's operating costs.

As others have pointed out, it's a question of total cost, and total yield. The airplane's not an impassable hurdle.


User currently offlineBeltwayBandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1659 times:

The acquisition price / lease cost would have to be so low that it made up for the operating cost differential. In a down market like this, there is no sympathy for the inefficient.

User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2026 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1572 times:

For one the BAe146 is a slow aircraft, many airlines have complaned about on time efficeincy because the aircraft's slow speed. A lot of pilots refer to it as an "Air Plow." THe 146 how ever seems to use a small amount of runway. It also is an aircraft Ideal for quick turns, pop open the door (2 passenger boarding doors, unlike most regional aircraft) when it stops and swing out those little air stairs, the plane can on its way in 20 mins. The 146 also is versitile. Its seating arrangement means the aircraft could be used as a high density charter aircraft, or a spacious bussiness jet. I'm also starting to notice cargo airlines taking light of the little 146. Also The 146 is supposed to be a cheap aircraft to aquire, and somewhat that to operate.

User currently offlineBeltwayBandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

I don't think a slow jet would work as a business jet. Although with 4 engines you could promote it as a "mini-A340".

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

The 146 looks like it will see a resurrection as a cargo bird. The STOL characteristics make it a good replacement for the older turboprops used to feed FedEx, UPS, and other parcel carriers, since they could use short fields. I think the main reason why the a/c has not been as successful as a passenger a/c is that airlines didn't know what to do with it. So have used it as a mainline a/c, others as a regional jet (which was what it was being touted as when BaE closed the Avro RJ program down), and it never really filled either role too successfully. The only U.S. carriers currently operating 146s (or the Avro RJ versions) are Air Wisconsin (for United Express) and Mesaba (for Northwest Airlink). The a/c is really an aircraft without a defined niche, and newer small jets basically took away operators or potential operators (ASA is an example of one that dropped the 146 in favor of the CRJ).

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are Multi-leg Flights Profitable For LCCs? posted Sat Jan 10 2009 02:01:05 by Shanxz
Routes That Just Didn't Work For LCCs posted Sun Apr 16 2006 21:15:16 by PanAm330
Why No Regional Airlines For LCCs. posted Mon Aug 22 2005 20:10:10 by AirWillie6475
BAe 146's For Air Dolomiti posted Mon Feb 14 2005 21:41:18 by BALandorLivery
Why No International Flying For LCCs? posted Wed Jul 16 2003 04:13:38 by Viflyer
Last Flight For Brussels Airlines Bae-146 posted Fri Oct 31 2008 03:07:32 by SIBILLE
Reason For Eurowings 146 Tech Delay At ZRH Today? posted Thu Sep 4 2008 04:55:04 by AustrianZRH
VLM Airlines Replaces BAe-146 Flights For F50s posted Fri Feb 15 2008 08:35:04 by OwlEye
Mexican LCCs Blamed For Financial Woes Of Legacies posted Sat Sep 1 2007 00:48:32 by Laxintl
Why No LCCs For DCA? posted Mon Mar 28 2005 03:54:40 by ERJ145LR