Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAe-146/Avro RJ...a Success Or Failure?  
User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6555 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.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGreek_fspilot From Greece, joined Jun 2000, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

In my opinion, It's difficult to win with the BAe 146/Avro RJ the concurrence of Airbus and Boeing with such a small aircraft equipted with 4 engines and no power in them....

User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4320 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6469 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?
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

It's an interesting niche.

Reliable, STOL, quiet. Very useful for some awkward destinations like LCY.

with 4 engines and no power in them

It's hardly underpowered!



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6365 times:

>Reliable, STOL, quiet. Very useful for some awkward destinations like LCY.

Yeah, but why did some of their jets sit for six years in Mojave without buyers? Never seen any other RJs have that problem. What was USAir's issue with the jet?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6327 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.


User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6287 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.
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6246 times:

As well as the city centre airports... think of users like Druk  Wink/being sarcastic
Admittedly a small minority.

I've often been on them on routes like BRU-MAN - perhaps not the best use; a regular RJ might be more appropriate there.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6192 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.

Steve


User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6188 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.

User currently offlineAnt72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6174 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!)


User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6150 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.
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6126 times:

It's in a way ironic that many BAe-146/Avro RJ customers switched to CRJs.

User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6077 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.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6028 times:

How can BAe-146/Avro RJ be compared to a Dash 8?

Not to the Dash 8, but to the 7 -- DeHavilland's 4 engine STOL turboprops.

Steve


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6025 times:

The BAe 146 and Avro RJ both have a cruising altitude of FL350. They certainly are not underpowered.

One would assume that the BAe 146/Avro RJ were failures, but you have to remember that it was a niche aircraft and was never designed or expected to sell as well as RJs such as the CRJ or ERJ.

I think the Avro RJX had potential. What a shame that it was canceled...........



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlinePsa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5956 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
too small.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin West
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.






View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Blanchard




Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5922 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.


User currently offlineJetblast737 From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5909 times:

There's a quite a few 146s and 2 freighters for sale in Australia.The Ansett administrators are having trouble selling them.They have already scraped two of them.I wonder why they are so hard to sell?

jetblast737  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brenden



User currently offlineTokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5767 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.


Did the chicken or the egg get laid first?
User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1791 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5737 times:

In my opinion, a four engined short/medium range airliner is a very bad idea.
The costs of the engine inventory would eliminate any profit you can make. I doubt if this aircraft was profitable at all.



Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
User currently offlineUfsatp852 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5691 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.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5668 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?


User currently offlineBeltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5648 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.

User currently offlinePsa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

To GDB:
Great point! In the PSA/AirCal systems, it made more sense
in California/West remote areas.And that is what the BAe-146
was used for.




Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
25 IslandHopper : Yeah...USAir stopped serving most of PSAs routes once they parked the 146s. I think that was the real reason, rather than economics. They actually had
26 Rickb : IslandHopper - they definately had 3-3 seating !! Flew on a 146 4 times in the last week alone - 3-3 is the norm. RickB
27 Psa53 : PSA went to a 3-2 seating on the BAe-146 together with the MD-80(DC-9-80).They went and advertised that fact."All planes, 5 across seating".
28 Positive rate : It makes a good little freighter though. Australian Air Express operates a small fleet of dedicated BA-146-300 freighters and the advantage is they ar
29 Tito : Do you know why the BAe-146 was designed with FOUR engines? Because they couldn't fit six. I think it would have been more of a success if the proper
30 GDB : While I agree that a twin RJX should have been a twin developed several years sooner, the original 146 was a STOL aircraft designed in the early 70's
31 Post contains images IslandHopper : I can't imagine 3-3 seating on a 146...2-3 was tight enough! Isn't the cabin width smaller than a DC9? As far as I know, no DC9s were 3-3. I also hear
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...
What Airlines Has Operated BAe 146/ Avro RJ & 737? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 04:33:29 by 747400sp
BAE 146/Avro RJ In Air Malta Colours? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:55:30 by DC10Tim
Ryanair BAe-146/Avro-RJ Routes posted Mon Nov 10 2003 15:45:22 by Aviationfreak
BAe 146/ Avro RJ Air Stair Question posted Mon Sep 15 2003 03:24:37 by Flyboy80
BAe-146/Avro RJ posted Sun Sep 2 2001 17:18:09 by Airplanelover
BAe 146/Avro RJ/Avro RJX: Are They Really RJs? posted Mon Mar 26 2001 21:06:01 by BA
Buying A BAe 146/Avro RJ* ... posted Mon Jun 5 2000 13:45:51 by Heffer
What Type Of Plane To Replace BAE 146, Avro? posted Tue May 23 2006 13:01:38 by Nijltje
BAE 146 (Avro) And Dornier 328 Jet posted Sun Nov 28 2004 15:19:38 by Airline7322
737-900- A Success Or Failure? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 01:38:59 by Khushdesi