Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAE 146 And The US  
User currently offlineUAL727NE From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 205 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6760 times:

So I love the BAE 146 and miss them with United express AW. So why did all the US carriers that was flying them get rid of them? Just woundering? Thanks..mike


Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6729 times:



Quoting UAL727NE (Thread starter):
So I love the BAE 146 and miss them with United express AW. So why did all the US carriers that was flying them get rid of them? Just woundering? Thanks..mike

They became a fuel guzzler, and many of the airlines that operated them found the expenses on maintenance to be alot higher, especially with 4 engines. I too love the 146, and miss seeing them in the sky! They were really good for ASE and other hard to get to cities, but reality was that they were not as efficent as the newer RJ's coming out. Not only that, but parts were becoming a bit hard to come by. Especially with the collapse of BAE.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineTravatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6728 times:

Oink, oink.... maintenance hog.

User currently offlineUAL727NE From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

That sucks. If I had the money Id go to Kingman AZ. I do believe and pick up one of those Air Wiskey ones and paint it in new UA colors.


Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6700 times:

PSA and AirCal got them for the noise abatement issue at some Southern California airports most notably SNA and later CCR in the Bay Area. They left California after the two mergers.

User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

you know, I heard they were maintenance hogs and gas soakers too.

Yet, they did/do well in AUstralia/Europe?South America.

So why didnt they work here if they appear to thrive elsewhere?



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2583 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

PSA bought them to replace older 727-200 aircraft - what a mistake. The BAe 146 had multi month delivery delays, then were not very reliable. PSA put 6 across seating in as the 146 had something close to the exact floor width as a Boeing, but the tube curved in so that a 6 foot person in the widow seat would have their head touch the wall.

The retrofitted helicopter engines weren't that reliable and the interior noise was much greater than a Boeing/DC. The windows were not installed in the same fashion as a Boeing/DC product - the aircraft had a normal ceiling of something like 24,000 feet. The BAe 146 was quite a bit slower than other jet aircraft - maybe 5-8 minutes Basin-Bay.

Need I say more - the aircraft may work for short hop commuter type services, but must be impossible to turn a profit at today's oil price.

The 146 did prove to overturn the applecart at SNA as it qualified under established SNA noise level regulations. SNA had to scramble to develop an exempt class of slots for the 146, but reigned in the totals by establishing a total passenger limit for the airport. AirCal did also have to buy the aircraft to stay competitive with PSA.


User currently offlineMsntriathlete From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

I've got great memories of flying on the 146/RJ-85, both on Air Wisconsin as United Express, and especially on Mesaba as Northwest Airlink. Because of the NW scope clauses, the RJ-85s were limited to 76 seats, which made for a very comfortable coach cabin with excellent legroom and 5-abreast seats. Mesaba had first-class in theirs, which was pleasant, while Air Wisconsin did not. The only problem was that if you were in row 3 or 4, the engine right outside your window obscured your view, except for straight down! I flew the Mesaba birds into ASE a few times, which was impressive. I also flew a British Airways (Cityflyer I think) 146 from LCY to EDI, and that LCY short-field takeoff was amazing! I caught myself saying, "Wow...THAT'S what these planes can do!" The only problem was that the BA 146 was 6-abreast and no legroom, which was incredibly cramped!

Not to knock scope clauses, because they're there for some good reasons, but the 76-seat limit really made it difficult for Mesaba/NW to make money flying those planes, being fuel- and maintenance-hungry as they were.


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1622 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6445 times:

Now that the ANTONOV 148 is flying, one has to wonder if a TWIN version of the BAe146 would have been a viable alternative to the constant engine problems that plagued the early 146 series?


BAe146....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Timo Harsch



Antonov 148

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrei Pechenkin




AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineEdina From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 742 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6279 times:



Quoting F9Animal (Reply 1):
Especially with the collapse of BAE.

BAE never collapsed.......they just don't make commercial aircraft anymore - defence contracts are where the £££s come from.



Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

The external similarity between the 146/ARJ and the An-148 is uncanny - stick another two engines on the latter and it IS practically a 146?ARJ!!!

Karl


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

The original Lycoming engines weren't very good, the replacement LF507 in the revised Avro RJ seemed to be more reliable.

Didn't the 146/Avro fall into the labour agreement whole between mainline and regional airlines in the US (apologies for the hopeless terminology)

The revised Avro RJ was reasonably popular in Europe, the likes of LH Cityline, LX and SN being heavy users of the type, as well as the many airlines flying into LCY. A shame BAE didn't develop it further (why no RR Tay powered twin?) but then they were more interested in the US defence market.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6187 times:

I happened to make my first BAe flight this weekend, Eurowings FRA-Bristol. What a cute aircraft, so much space and so comfortable compared to the Emb145 or CRJ cans...

User currently offlineSuperDaveMc From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

Actually, BAe did float the idea of the BAE-146 airframe as a Twin in the early 1990's. At the time it was branded the "NRA" (New Regional Airliner) .

According to some of the marketing information that I have filed away, the concept had some of the following a longer fuselage with a possibility of the CFM-56 or IAE V2500 under the wing. Another unique feature was to be winglets which looked very different on the high wing layout of the 146. In these ads, they were trying to go up against the 737-5 series comparing cruise efficiency, etc.

The aircraft did not get past the discussion phase and initial publicity as I remember.

I still have some of the old publicity materials on it if anyone would like to see them, just drop me an e-mail and I will send you a scanned image. Big grin



A&P Mech J31/32/41, BAe ATP, BAe 146, DHC-7/8, SD360
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6018 times:



Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 5):
you know, I heard they were maintenance hogs and gas soakers too.

Yet, they did/do well in AUstralia/Europe?South America.

So why didnt they work here if they appear to thrive elsewhere?

Heavier use in the US than elsewhere exposed the faults and produced a high operating expense.

(Think Jaguar cars in the 70's-90's. Worked fine in England and Europe with shorter trips over generally better roads. Brought to the US and all kinds of electronic and drive train issues cropped-up.)

Airlines in the US could buy better aircraft at a lower or equal price. The 4 v. 2 engine argument is a point but not the end-all point as whether it is 2, 3 or 4 engines you still have to have a certain level of thrust. How efficiently that thrust is generated is the key. Maintenance on the 4 engines was the hard part.


User currently offlineA10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5924 times:

I was told by an instructor that worked on them that BAE= Bring Another Engine

User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4488 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Last year I flew aboard a BAE 4-holer for the first time--on an LH connection carrier from FLR to FRA. A spacious, comfortable aircraft, far superior to the CRJ, even at 6-across. And speaking of short-field performance....at the end of FLR's 5,100-foot runway, the pilot sat on the brakes, ran up the engines, and we blasted off. Whee!

It's a real shame that such a fine aircraft is so maintenance-intensive and less efficient, and no longer used in the US. They were a great option for a lot of medium-sized markets served by NW and UA regional carriers, who now mostly get CRJ's in their place.

Not to knock scope clauses, because they're there for some good reasons, but the 76-seat limit really made it difficult for Mesaba/NW to make money flying those planes, being fuel- and maintenance-hungry as they were.

With due respect, scope clauses well deserve to be knocked. They harm passengers and communities, by preventing airlines from right-sizing capacity and efficiency to the market. Think AA and its ridiculously limited number of 70-seaters. It is not justifiable to make it harder for the airline to offer better service options, potentially make money in more market-pairs and, ultimately, benefit employees as well as investors and passengers. There need to be other ways to serve mainline pilot interests within a carrier's larger picture.

Jim

[Edited 2008-07-15 10:57:51]

User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5741 times:

PSA had a horrible experience--operationally and economically with the aircraft. When asked how the introduction of the 146 went...the president said "We wished we could have just driven them into the bay....(as in SanFran bay).

I imagine it got a bit better....but judging by how quickly they were put in the desert--I imagine not much.


User currently offlineAmccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

I know I have flown on the BAe146/ARJ atleast twice in my lifetime. The most recent being a NWA flight from MSP to DSM. I was probably 16 at the time of the flight and remember talking to the pilots during boarding, just snooping around the cockpit. I told them the story of me wanting to be a commercial pilot and then becoming type 1 diabetic and can no longer become a commercial pilot. One of the FAs overheard me say that and bumped my mom and I up to first class. It was amazing. Coach in the NWA ARJs was incredibly comfortable, but first class was absolutely amazing. Very wide seats, very generous seat pitch, it was the most comfortable I had ever been in a RJ.

The pilots did say though that the ARJ is kind of a dog to fly, low and slow, and always had engine troubles.



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineVisityyj From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5484 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 17):

I imagine it got a bit better....but judging by how quickly they were put in the desert--I imagine not much.

They got sent to the desert because the operators American(ex-Air Cal) and USAir (ex-PSA) abandoned their West Coast routes; the ones the 146s had been specifically bought to serve.

Air Wis was certainly in no hurry to dump theirs. The 146 was always going to be a niche airplane and I don't think BAe ever expected to sell as many as they actually did (Avros included). By the time the 'local-jet' became fashionable the 146 was unattractive due to having 4 older-technology engines; it took the CRJ a few years to take off (figuratively) as well.


User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5434 times:



Quoting Visityyj (Reply 19):
the ones the 146s had been specifically bought to serve.

Good aircraft can be deployed on a variety of routes. The purchase did not kill the 146--particularly for USAir which could have deployed them on any number of shorter East Coast routes.

They were not economical---and unreliable.

Quoting Visityyj (Reply 19):
BAe ever expected to sell as many as they actually did

They certainly expected to sell more---or they wouldn't have gone into the investment of of creating the prototype for the RJX---then killing the program for lack of interest....


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5322 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 20):
Good aircraft can be deployed on a variety of routes. The purchase did not kill the 146--particularly for USAir which could have deployed them on any number of shorter East Coast routes.

AA who bought Air Cal and US who bought PSA both dumped their inherited 146s. Both bought lots of Fokker 100s instead. Neither still operate the latter either...

Quoting Visityyj (Reply 19):
Air Wis was certainly in no hurry to dump theirs. The 146 was always going to be a niche airplane and I don't think BAe ever expected to sell as many as they actually did (Avros included). By the time the 'local-jet' became fashionable the 146 was unattractive due to having 4 older-technology engines; it took the CRJ a few years to take off (figuratively) as well.

The 146 was never designed to be a commuter jet, it was meant to be a rugged jet for the third world and tricky conditions, with good take off performance and a relatively simple design.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineUAL727NE From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Hey thanks for all the replies guys! Anyone have any pics of the NW Airlink interiers? Id like to see the first class on those. Like i said id still love to have one and make it into a privite config. Any 146 lovers wanna go in on one haha.


Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Don't forget one thing: The Q400 is about as big as an RJ85 and about as fast as an RJ85 but burns a fraction of the fuel the RJ would burn, is much cheaper maintenancewise as it does not have those Avco Jet engines and still goes tech pretty often, just as the RJ's did Big grin

Cheers
Legacy135  Wink


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4712 times:



Quoting F9Animal (Reply 1):
They were really good for ASE and other hard to get to cities,

UA begat AW, which begat Aspen Airways, an independent airline with an interesting heritage back to the early 1950s. Does anyone know the story of how Aspen Airways purchased the 146 in what must have been a pioneering and groundbreaking purchase from the United States? I wonder what the respective dates were compared to PSA and AirCal. It changed Aspen Airways into something more than a two-point airline.

I also like to know about the subsequent airlines that flew 146s, such as Tristar Airlines.

-Rampart


25 Post contains links and images FATFlyer : WestAir also operated the 146 as United Express on the west coast, flying routes like FAT-SFO. SFO's gate 79 had a jetway added (the thumb was jetway
26 ATP2033 : Rampart, from what I have to hand, Tristar did not last very long - roughly June 1995 to Oct 1996. The aircraft they had were as follows: E1017 - Now
27 Post contains links BAe146 : Air Wisconsin was the launch customer for both the -200 series, and -300 series. http://www.smiliner.com/operators/n.shtml#airwisconsin
28 VV701 : The first BAe 146 aircraft tp operate any BA service were these two aircraft: They were put into service on BA's former Highlands and Islands routes f
29 Rampart : Great info, thanks!! I had thought Aspen had the 146 longer than 6 years, meaning Air Wisconsin or Mesa flew CRJs in sooner than I thought. Does anyo
30 FlyHoss : IIRC, Aspen Airways proprietary approach into ASE was a TACAN approach and that was the reason the aircraft were equipped with TACAN. Aspen's competi
31 Post contains links and images PWM2TXLHopper : Don't forget the Business Express -146's Use to love seeing these birds around New England long before NW Airlink was flying them and when UA never ha
32 Post contains links and images PWM2TXLHopper : Don't forget the Business Express -146's Use to love seeing these birds around New England long before NW Airlink was flying them and when UA never ha
33 Mirrodie : Thanks, THat pretty much sums up the thread. It makes a fair amt of sense too. Wow, impressive stat.
34 MtnWest1979 : I know Pacific Express planned to operate the 146s and were using BAC1-11s and later 737-200s but folded prior to any 146 arrival. I think these went
35 AVLAirlineFreq : Did US ever operate the 146 in the eastern half of the country, either as mainline or as Express? Also, don't forget ASA operated them for DL for a sh
36 WhatUsaid : I loved the 146, flying back 'n forth to SFO on WestAir, PSA to LAX, and Tri-Star (Funjet) to LAS out of FAT.... But, noisy. Really noisy. But, there'
37 FATFlyer : They had an order for 6 firm deliveries and I think 8 options. But as you said they folded before delivery. I believe ASA got some of the old Westair
38 Lincoln : Ssssh! Don't tell my dad that, he works for a BAE subsidiary in California -- they make bits of planes, just not the entire thing It may not be on to
39 Eyes2thesky : Cool info. I had no idea there were airlines out there with proprietary approaches. Although I guess it wouldn't surprise me if AS has some of their
40 Type-Rated : Recently I saw a private BAE-146 at HOU parked over on the Enterprise ramp. From the angle I was viewing the aircraft I couldn't make out the reg numb
41 Post contains links A342 : You seem to have a rather generous definition of "about". The RJ85 can seat 100 vs. 78 for the Q400. It's the RJ70 that is about the same size as the
42 Dispatchguy : Yeah, the plane was a fuel HOG. For a short 35 minute flight from ORD-ATW, the standard ramp fuel load was 10000#, including burn and reserve. Around
43 Enginebird : I have been on many many flights on these birds into and out of LCY and have always loved them as much as I do love LCY airport. They are a very commo
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...
The BAe 146 And Avro RJ - Why 4 Engines, Not 2? posted Sun Jan 30 2000 20:09:04 by Boeing 777
How To Distinguish Between BAe 146 And Avros? posted Wed Apr 2 2008 08:04:51 by Raggi
Aladia, Schedules And The US posted Fri Feb 8 2008 16:02:00 by QF108
A380 Tour To Asia And The Us In Aug-Oct posted Mon Aug 13 2007 23:17:58 by Breiz
Flyglobespan And The US posted Tue Jan 3 2006 19:48:48 by Trekster
Difference Between BAe 146 And Avro RJ posted Tue Sep 13 2005 21:04:50 by JeckPDX
What Should Boeing And The US Do? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 07:41:19 by A380900
Flights Between Bermuda And The US? posted Fri Jul 30 2004 20:45:31 by COEWRNJ
LH/UA Codeshare Between LHR And The US!? posted Wed Feb 4 2004 17:58:51 by Daumueller
Tribute To The BAe 146 In The USA posted Mon Mar 3 2003 00:17:34 by Matt D