Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Type Of Plane To Replace BAE 146, Avro?  
User currently offlineNijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Hello All,

Like in the topic title; what are the airliners ordering to replace their BAE146 or Avro planes?

Probably the A320 or 737 is to big to do 1-1 replacement.

Thanks for your feedback

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoffie From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 812 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Hi

Qantas are slowly replacing them with the 717 when they come back from JQ

I would think perhaps some sort of CRJ or Embr. would do the job??


User currently offlineDiesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1638 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

If you have passenger growth, then A319 or 737-700 are fine as replacements, although they are larger.

Alternatively, the Emb190 is a good fit where capacity requirements need something similar in size.
CRJs and other Embraers are an alternative, especially as they may give the opportunity of adding frequency to routes.

Finally, the DHC-8-400 and ATR72 shouldn't be discounted either.



I don't like signatures...
User currently offlineBritannia191A From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

I think an important factor with the BAE146 is on of the things that make this aircraft unique and that is its STOL performance. For instance London City airport and other airports whereby it makes other aircraft difficult to perform.

User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1608 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

It is sad that the 146 is gone. Many years ago I remember seeing a proposal by BAE at the Farnbrough air show for a 146 that was powered by twin Turboprops.This would clearly have worked well with the high lift high wing design.At the time I believe there was no suitable engine.It is perverse that now production has halted the perfect engine is about to arrive.The engine under development for the A400 Transport plane. So I believe that this would have been the perfect replacement!

User currently offlineBBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

Replacement progamme:

146-100 replaced by RJ70 ideal replacement E170
146-200 replaced by RJ85 ideal replacement E175
146-300 replaced by RJ100 ideal replacemnet E190/E195 and A318.

 wave 



Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
User currently offlineNijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4767 times:

mmm so Embraer do have all the cards in their hand, in the next 10 years I suppose to see a massive replacement of all Avro, BEA. Most of those planes are 10 years old, no? This will be an expensive exercise as they have to train their pilots for a new plane like E170/190.

User currently offlineA320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

I think a good replacement would be an Airbus A318 - especially becasue it can land at smaller airports with small runways (shown at London City)


If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
User currently offlineDHHornet From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

Scrapping the 146/RJ/RJX was a mistake. The type still had legs in it. Did the A318 (& 19) hit a nerve with BAE and Airbus, and the overlap of a product?

I think BAE could of sold the production to China, or Russia etc as an option. FlyBE, and Bhutan, wanted the RJX versions of it. Who else maybe today would be ordering SNB,LH,Swiss,Cityjet?

In Hindsight with Dornier failing and EMB having a large slice of the current market. I think a steady flow of orders would of kept it viable for the time being?

I think generally the best thing to replace a 146/RJ with is still even now is/was the RJX! Just look at the boom of small regional airports with restrictive runways.

Other aircraft touch on the capabilities of the 146/RJ. I think the best type that matches it now is the -8 Q400.

And... I know it is sentimental, it was the last British airliner built. But give me a reason (I am sure someone will) why the plug was pulled on it?


User currently offlineBBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting DHHornet (Reply 8):
Scrapping the 146/RJ/RJX was a mistake. The type still had legs in it. Did the A318 (& 19) hit a nerve with BAE and Airbus, and the overlap of a product?

I think BAE could of sold the production to China, or Russia etc as an option. FlyBE, and Bhutan, wanted the RJX versions of it. Who else maybe today would be ordering SNB,LH,Swiss,Cityjet

The issue was the orders: Bhutan ordered 2, FlyBE ordered 11 with 4 options.

Then Sept 11 happended and FlyBE delayed the order. Crossair (at the time), opted for the Embraer, Cityjet weren't interested, they were having issues at the time, Delta Air Transport (SN RJ operator) were going down hill.

Within 3 months interest was zero....except Bhutan and FlyBE.

The prototypes were built, but the walls were whitewashed and the marker pens were being handed out.

Financially it made say sense to say Bye Bye BAE RJX programme.  Sad


 wave 



Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4378 times:

If the A-318 is a good replacement for the BAE-146, then why wouldn't the B-737-600 also fit?

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting DHHornet (Reply 8):
Scrapping the 146/RJ/RJX was a mistake.

Hindsight is 20/20, for at the time of the cancellation of the project, the segment looked to be overcrowded. In addition to the Embraer E-Jets, you had the Fairchild-Dornier 728JET and 928JET programs on the drawing board, Bombardier had the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 and the BRJ-X idea was being floated as well. Only the E-Jets and the CRJ-700/900 make it into production (Bombardier ditched the BRJ-X idea, later revived it as the C-Series, which has been shelved yet again.). The E-Jets are the new leader of this niche, as they are a clean sheet design, unlike the CRJ-700/900, which are stretches of the CRJ-200 with some improvements. Add to this the fact that the RRJ is beginning to pick up steam (and potentially Western customers), the segment is pretty much saturated. Bombardier may potentially become the minor player in this market if they don't develop a new clean sheet 70-100 seater to compete.


User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
If the A-318 is a good replacement for the BAE-146, then why wouldn't the B-737-600 also fit?

Heya,

It could be a good fit, but the B736 is no where near getting certified for landing on runways such as LCY.

The A318 is also newer than the B736 and i think the fuel consumption is lower aswell.

I go with A318 on the replacement of the Avro RJ75/100 series.

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11):
Bombardier may potentially become the minor player in this market if they don't develop a new clean sheet 70-100 seater to compete.

Although not a clean sheet design, it is hinted in another thread that the 900X is close to launch. Meanwhile, Bombardier is focused on the 850 business version and a similar variant of the 900, and also working on a Q400X.

With regards to field performance, has Embraer pursued further its efforts to have the E-170 and the others certified for LCY?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!

Just like you can never replace with a new plane what the DC3 has ever done except with another DC3 or the same with the 727, you will never be able to replace the BAe146/Avro with anything that will completely copy its performance capabilities...These planes were built with a specific mission in mind, and unfortunately some of them do require more than the cookie cutter twin high bypass turbofan concept....
We all have to face it, some aircraft are just irreplaceable. Try as we might, some concepts even tho antiquated or horribly inefficient by todays standards can never be duplicated.
Thats just the way I see it...
Dont get me started on how the Barbie Jets have litterally killed Regional/Commuter Turboprops!!!!

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
With regards to field performance, has Embraer pursued further its efforts to have the E-170 and the others certified for LCY?

From what I understand and recall from reading the Embraer website info regarding the E70, it is capable under most/all conditions of taking off from a 4000 foot runway. The larger variants are not. Apparently, under good weather conditions, the 737-200 can take off and land in about as many feet (probably why Aloha loves them). I think there is something to be said about STOL regional jets and their ability to efficiently move people from modest regional centers without the need for 6-10,000 feet of runway. With land costs and space at a premium in Europe, North America, Japan, and places in southern Asia, some foresight needs to be used and a replacement for the Avro RJ should be seriously researched by someone.


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

Quoting DHHornet (Reply 8):
And... I know it is sentimental, it was the last British airliner built. But give me a reason (I am sure someone will) why the plug was pulled on it?

Hornet....

It was more than likely because it was powered by FOUR engines....The 146 is an awesome plane and I am happy to have flown on all three models. the 100 200 and 300....All with Air Wisconsin.

Im sorry, the 2x2 questionably roomy interior of the EMB 170/190 series doesnt seem to be a spacious as the 146. I never felt crampt in the 146 even in the 100 series that sat 3x3.....I think my favourite of the three models is the short 100 series....Its cute and I dunno I just love it... Smile

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineCsturdiv From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 1491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

It is a long shot, but how about the AN148?


An American expat living and working in Australia
User currently offlineSphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

> At the time I believe there was no suitable engine.
> It is perverse that now production has halted the
> perfect engine is about to arrive.The engine under
> development for the A400 Transport plane.

Um, I think a pair of those would make the 146 a VERTICAL-takeoff-and-landing airplane!

sPh


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...
Banja Luka To Valley - What Type Of Plane? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 12:19:02 by CamAir
Ams - Thr, What Type Of Plane? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 21:33:21 by Komran110
What Type Of Plane Does UA Cargo Fly? posted Thu Aug 8 2002 04:15:54 by SJCguy
What Type Of Plane? posted Mon Aug 6 2001 06:03:29 by Boeing757fan
What Type Of Plane posted Fri Aug 3 2001 05:45:04 by Apollo13
What Type Of Plane Will I Be On...? posted Tue Apr 3 2001 19:59:10 by SEA nw DC10
UA: Chicago-Hong Kong. What Type Of Plane? posted Mon Oct 16 2000 18:55:53 by MD 11
What Type Of Plane Did United Use. . .? posted Mon Sep 25 2000 20:04:59 by Globetrotter
What Type Of Plane Was Used On Home Alone 2 posted Wed Dec 22 1999 00:26:49 by Cody
What Type Of Plane Did TWA Operate On These Routes posted Mon Nov 15 1999 01:06:29 by Cody