I can see why FlyBE is quick to defend the aircraft, this is the backbone of their fleet and have got to instill public confidence in the aircraft for members of the public who live near airports and people boarding these flights... If they keep quiet, passengers are not going to know what to think and will be afraid to fly them - It does not take much for a media scare to prevent people boycotting the airline!
I don't think they are blaming SAS and in my view seem to be keeping quite an open mind... They are right to explain there is a number of differences in the way both airlines operate the aircraft and conditions they operate. On the face of it, they seem to have confidence in Bombardier...
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5339 times:
No, I don't think they are trying to blame SAS and I don't think the article is either, they are both keeping an open mind. The article states that:
"FlyBe said it would wait and see if investigations into the latest incident revealed issues with SAS's maintenance procedures"
Whilst FlyBe's own statement reads:
"FlyBe awaits with interest the publication of independent reports into the SAS short haul fleet and looks forward to learning of any issues with operating procedures with the aircraft or with SAS's maintenance procedures"
That's definately not saying that it's SAS's fault - it's sitting on the fence until the verdict is out. As part of SAS's Q400 maintenance is done at EXT, along with FlyBe's own planes, it really wouldn't pay them to come out and say that it was a maintenance issue!
Cumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5303 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2): That's definately not saying that it's SAS's fault it's sitting on the fence until the verdict is out. As part of SAS's Q400 maintenance is done at EXT, along with FlyBe's own planes, it really wouldn't pay them to come out and say that it was a maintenance issue!
I was thinking that, but comments like the SAS fleet is "old" and operates in "extreme conditions" is a bit of a spin.....
What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5263 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 3): I was thinking that, but comments like the SAS fleet is "old" and operates in "extreme conditions" is a bit of a spin.....
Yes, definately. 6-7 years is not old and, as the main thread on the DHC8-Q400 discussed, the Oresund is not particularly salty. Spin though is spin - at the end of the day it's there to make you look better and you passengers feel safer!
you must note that the Q400 and other turbo props age at a far different rate than most commercial aircraft. They might rack up in one year the cycles that a long haul jet takes 10 years to accumulate. So in many respects a 10 year old Q400 has been kicked around alot more than a 30 year old 747.
Sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 867 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4722 times:
I don't think that Q400 gear problems on 146 air quality issues are Flybe's biggest problem. I flew with them recently... never again! Very expensive for a 'budget ariline' and service was very poor. Return flight CDG-EDI had no catering (not even water) on 2 hour flight because the catering had to be offloaded because of 'weight issues' - nice.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4599 times:
Flybe is at least bending the truth when when then write: "The thing is that there are Q400 operators across the world and until we hear more from the investigation this is a problem confined to Scandinavia."
The corroded internal treads, which made the eyebolt and actuator separate, causing the two SAS accidents in September, was subsequently found in various stages of development "across the world" on not brand new Q400s. They should thank SAS for having removed that time bomb on the Flybe fleet.
If they call 5-6-7 years planes "old", then it will be interesting to notice when they will retire their own fleet in case they don't want to tell their customers that they fly old planes.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7): ...in many respects a 10 year old Q400 has been kicked around alot more than a 30 year old 747.
Right, but that's accounted for when designing short haul planes - including the 747SR. 19 years old ATR-42 in this country are considered modern planes. 25 years old Icelandic F-50 and 30 years old Dash 7 in Greenland are not considered new, rather middle age with no plans for retirement. And hey, their airports are generally exposed to much more ocean salt than Danish airports, and certainly much more than CPH.
Maybe planes - like ham - last longer when constantly kept in the fridge?
Also the greater part of those 5-6-7 years old SAS Q400 replaced 30 years old "domestic" single class configured DC-9s flying the same short haul routes. And what happened to those DC-9s? Some were sold to NW who equipped them with hush kits and fly them today, and retire them when?
Quoting Sandyb123 (Reply 9): I don't think that Q400 gear problems on 146 air quality issues are Flybe's biggest problem. I flew with them recently... never again! Very expensive for a 'budget ariline' and service was very poor.
Anyway I think that Flybe has a bright future, mainly because of their Southampton hub. Several of my colleagues living in southern England have switched from BA to Flybe for their travel to Europe, not because they hate BA, not because they love Flybe, but only because they are willing to accept almost any inconvenience if they can avoid setting foot on LHR turf. A pleasant little car drive plus Flybe at Southampton make that possible.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Iceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2799 times:
In my opinion there definitely is some problem with the Dash 8's landing gear at least in those models (didn't extend is a problem) and they have found the same problem with other carriers' aircraft so it isn't just confined to SAS. However only at SAS are they having trouble landing with both landing gear extended. I would then suggest that possibly the reason is that the tolerances in maintenance is less at SAS. Now I'm not going to say they are unsafe by any standpoint however there is something to be said about even after the attention these incidents got that we see another one of these. I would think they would be scrounging those landing gears and if they saw even a speck of rust, discoloration or even a speck of dust they'd be replacing the heck out of them because parts are cheaper than planes.
Anyway although I've never flown one I like the Dash 8 Q400 a lot for its economics, looks, and heritage so I wish the best for it and hope for the safety of all airline passengers that these events do not happen again.