Lapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1597 posts, RR: 6 Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1779 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.
Pothiabs From United States of America, joined May 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1733 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.
LMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1705 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.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1677 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.
Thomas_Jaeger From Switzerland, joined Apr 2002, 2435 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1661 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
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1626 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.
Flyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1909 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1492 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.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1356 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).