IslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5651 times:
From 1982 to 2002, 394 BAe-146s and Avro RJs were built. Not disastrous numbers, but consider that Canadair made almost three times as many RJs since only 1992!
After some teething problems, the jet seems to be technically successful, and most remain in service (unlike BAe's ATP, which was a dismal failure at 65 frames and almost half are already WFU!). Also, it was the only wide RJ made, which I thought was genius because one could include a first class section unlike other RJs.
Do you consider the BAe-146/Avro RJ to be a success or failure? Did BAe make any money from the project? Will there ever be any wide RJs produced that will allow 2-2 first class seating? With RJs taking over more and more routes, I would think this would be welcome by the airlines.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4210 posts, RR: 36 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5565 times:
394 airframes is a fairly OK production run, although the early and the final years were a bit too slowish (about one a month). Only a few major designs passed the 500 mark... Remember the BAC 1-11 (237 built) and Fokker F-28 (241), Fokker 100/70 (327) and Caravelle (282) are also seen as fairly succesfull European jets, and the ARJ outscored them all.
The new Embraer 170/190 and Dornier 728/928 (and to a certain extent the Boeing 717) can be seen as in the same class as the ARJ, with their 5 abreast coach seating I'm sure they can have a nice 2-2 first class compartiment.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5423 times:
Considering that it was designed for a market that never really emerged (STOL ops from city centre airports), the aircraft did well.
LCY was one of the few airports that actually used the aircraft in the role it was designed for.
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5383 times:
I flew on two of these jets. Those 4 engines seem to give enough power to power a heavy aircraft and not such a small RJ. You can very well feel the thrust at take off. However, I would much rather fly in a bigger plane. I just feel more confidence in bigger jets. Or maybe it was because of the trasition, my connecting flight was in an A333. Overall, from a passenger point of view, I would rate the Avroliner below average.
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5288 times:
I remember when the 146 was brought out. It, like the Dash 7, were really based around the concept that quiet ops, and steep/STOLport ops would become a reality. Everyone talked about noise, and how it was so unbearable, and how you'd see airports built out in the middle of nowhere for the big jets, with the Dash 7's and 146's pulling in passengers from small metro area airports.
But it turned out people preferred the noise over the higher fares and taxes those plans would have brought, so we still have jumbos operating from LAX, JFK, SFO, etc.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
The BAE-146 is underpowered, i think the RJ has uprated engine has it not? The BAE-146 is a dog in terms of climb performance, and it's altitude limited to FL250 due engine icing, plus it's slow too. The newer Avro RJ's have better performance i've heard.
Ant72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 413 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5270 times:
"Never quite fufilled its potential" would sum up the plane in my view. As stated above its true market never materialised but having flown ER145s, F100s and CRJ70s (as well as Avroliners) from Northern English airports to the continent, I must admit to enjoying the extra width in the Avro. There is also something comforting about watching the engines as they hang from the wings above.
(Possibly think the presence of a large party of females on the only Avro flight I took may have contributed to the rose-tintedness of my spectacles!)
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5246 times:
How can BAe-146/Avro RJ be compared to a Dash 8? One is a turboprop, while the other one is a four-engine jet. And it's definitely cruises higher than FL250. When I was on one, the pilot said that we're cruising at an altitude of 9km (that was in Europe), which makes it roughly FL 310....I might be off by a couple of feet though.
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5173 times:
And it's definitely cruises higher than FL250
Here in Australia all BA 146 a/c are altitude limited to FL250, i thought the rest of the world was the same sorry my bad. The reason being the engine intakes can get iced up causing engine failure. This happened to an Ansett BA 146 in 1992- all 4 engines failed in flight due to icing.
Psa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3033 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5052 times:
When U.S. Air(ways) got the BAe-146 fleet
from PSA, they weren't smiling. In a polite way,
"The plane was uneconomical to run," and parked
them. Although I never rode them, I heard also
they were underpower and the bathrooms were
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3158 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5018 times:
The bathrooms are VERY small!
One of the main draw backs and its a pitty cause the little jet certainly is a nice one.
I think on of the biggest problems with the 146/ARJ is that it doesn't cost very much more to run a 737, with a hell of a lot more seats and better performance. This is particularly so in the USA, with cheaper fuel and nav charges on weight not being as high. Think about it. For a similar price on can lease a 737-300, with at least 45 extra seats..... a lot more profit potential in the good times.(hell even the 732 could squeeze a significant extra amount of seats in!), and in the bad times, may mean the difference between loss and profit. Of course these is a hypothetical figure, but think about it, if you spend 10% more but u increase your capacity by 40%? two or 3 extra seats sold on a lot of flights will pay for that difference in operating costs.
Tokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4863 times:
From a passenger's point of view the 146 was also a bit flawed. Do not choose an underwing seat because there is virtually no overhead stowage space; the toilets are cramped; and there is a row where a "window seat" is simply blank wall and you can't even see the window of the person in front of you -- ideal for clausterphobics!; and quite frankly I found the 3-3 configuration quite cramped.
Ufsatp852 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4787 times:
In my opinion the 146 is one of the best aircraft ever built. The 17 that we are still flying are over twenty years old, have who knows how many cycles on them, and still break less than brand new CRJs. The aircraft is rarely weight restricted ( at least in ORD, I have heard horror stories about mountain cities) and allows us to fly to very profitable cities like ASE that no other commercial jets can get into.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4764 times:
For a design made for a market that did not emerge, it did OK.
You really have to compare it to the aircraft it replaced, like HS-748s, F-27s and other older commuter aircraft.
PSA brought them as they were the only jets that could operate out of very noise restricted local airports in CA.
Some operators used them on routes they were not designed for, others found them useful and workmanlike aircraft.
Has that not happened with most airliners over the years?
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
It all comes down to CASM (cost per available seat mile). Between fuel burn and maintenance cost, it never had a chance. Airlines will not - never - buy an aircraft based on anything other than operating cost.