Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
vinniewinnie
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 am

Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:50 am

Dear all,

I have heard that Avros and BAE's have rather cheapish lease rates. But I would actually also like to know whether they are cheap to run or not?

This question came up to my mind because there is an active debate going on at the moment here in Belgium about SNBA.I always found it silly that their fleet pretty much only consists of the 2 above mentioned aircrafts. In my opinion these planes can't really offer a good cost per seat ratio! Otherwise why would SNBA not offer cheaper fares? These cheaper fares might increase loads (at the moment only 65% on average) and thus help SNBA get out of the red on its European network! Just my personal opinion though!


Thanks for your help!
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:52 am

I think they are very cheap to run, but also very quiet. I think most airlines that use them have got them partly because they are quiet and very 'User-Friendly'

Thanks
Mike
 
bennett123
Posts: 10734
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:57 am

How are they on maintenance?.

I have noted several aircraft over recent years that have had serious wing corrosion problems.

Given that most are under 30,000 hours, this could partly explain the low lease rates.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 am

You have to look at the total costs, lease rates, fuel consumption, maintenence, etc. Probably the Avro's are the best fit for them, just like LX, who is also addng more.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7859
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:12 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 1):
I think they are very cheap to run, but also very quiet. I think most airlines that use them have got them partly because they are quiet and very 'User-Friendly'

Well, its pretty obvious by your statement you've had no contact with this aircraft. They are very expensive to operate, and very 'un-user' friendly. They are maintenance pigs and a real pain to work on....just ask any mechanic that has done a flap track lube...

The lease rates are cheep because no one wants them in their fleet and the lease companys can't afford to have them just sitting.

[Edited 2006-01-06 00:14:10]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
debonair
Posts: 4174
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:17 am

Nope, not really... The AVRO jet is doing much better than the BAe146! But belive me, the BAe 146 is a big pain in the a**! Sorry British guys!  whiteflag 

I have worked for an BAe146 operator, and now the reasons, why a LoCo-airline can't survive with the BAe146: the 4 AlliedSignal (formerly Textron/Avco
Lycoming) ALF502R are very unrelaible, need lots of attention. We had lots of problems with them! and the second reason is the payload. especailly in the hot summer season with full a/c and maximum baggage/freight the range is very poor... So we had to offload pax...

I luv the BAe 146 a/c: quite, nice cabin and perfect for shorter runways!
 
diesel1
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 9:11 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:53 am

Debonair and EMBQA sum up the situation pretty well around the disadvantages on the '146 - consider 4 engines to maintain rather than 2 in nearly every other modern jet (and certainly anything operating in the same market sector) and maintainance costs are going to be somewhat higher than its competitors.

Having said this, the '146's advantages are well summarised by Debonair

Quoting Debonair (Reply 5):
I luv the BAe 146 a/c: quite, nice cabin and perfect for shorter runways!

Though this needs to be qualified by the fact the cabin isn't so great when seats are in a six abreast configuration, and the pilots aren't so keen on the aircraft when the ventilation system pumps in those nasty oily fumes either...
I don't like signatures...
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:58 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):

After saying what i said, i can agree with you. But i beleive it is like a human, different people have different tastes.

i.e. A lot of MX ppl have different opinions on the aircraft.

Thanks
Mike
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
....just ask any mechanic that has done a flap track lube...

well,
I' am not a mechanic, but I can imagine this is some nervwrecking part...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerardo Dominguez

What time is top of descent?
 
2travel2know
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:05 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:13 am

Now defunct SAM from Colombia had a fleet of AVRO RJ100. Their experience with those supposedly wasn't a pleasant one.
But I guess, if the Brazilian authorities ever allow a AEP-SDU-AEP, a RJ70 would be ideal for that route.
I don't work for COPA Airlines!
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:20 pm

How did they fare in the intra-California market with AirCal?

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:02 pm

It's a plane I have great affection for and I very much enjoy flying on them. But I have heard them referred to as "four oil leaks connected by an electrical fault"...
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting PM (Reply 11):
But I have heard them referred to as "four oil leaks connected by an electrical fault"...

Ha, that's a good one!
I like it very much as a passenger!
It is quite, comfortable and fast.
The only thing I miss on them are thrust reverser noises, but they are substituded by that famous flap "lion wroar"!
What time is top of descent?
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:15 pm

PM,
You are right after talking to MX guys at LX, they have there fare share of
opinions (dislikes)....... But they are very cheap to lease based on the info I
have.

Cheers,
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:45 pm

Northwest airlines' regional partner, Mesaba airlines opperates a large fleet of AVRO RJ70's, which are based out of MSP (I live a little under 10 miles downwind of the runway), and having flown them a few times, I'll tell you that they are quiet. I will attest to the nerve-racking quality of being able to see into the wings. The cabin in somewhat spacious (I'd still say the DC9 is roomier, if louder). If you like looking out the window, the high wing kind of throws you off. Unfortuneately, it is also the ugliest commercial airliner, anywhere. As for it being cheap to opperate, wikipedia notes that Qantas, who used to opperate the BAe 146, replaced it with the Boeing 717, because they found the Boeing 717 was significantly less expensive to opperate. I guess, again, 2 modern engines beat 4.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
LX23
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:54 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:54 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 11):
four oil leaks connected by an electrical fault

 rotfl 


Though I've heard that they're maintenace hogs, I like the jumbolinos... every time I'm home, I love watching them take off... we still get our fair share despite the reduction in LX flights


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © M-A Veillard
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Patrick Mutzenberg



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Haskell
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Laurent Arsac



but somehow, I still think this mix of airplane and c/s just looks perfect

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christian Drändle

 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:01 pm

they have extremely impressive takeoff/landing performance.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:14 pm




Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16):
they have extremely impressive takeoff/landing performance.



...Without reversers, even.




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
toltommy
Posts: 2809
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:02 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
Northwest airlines' regional partner, Mesaba airlines opperates a large fleet of AVRO RJ70's, which are based out of MSP

Mesaba operates the RJ85, not the RJ70. However, Mesaba's RJ85's are configured with 69 seats, hence the confusion. The planes are based at all 3 NW hubs. Mesaba also based the RJ85 at CVG, where they had a MX hangar. However, Mesaba recently closed this facility, and the pilot and FA crew bases there as well. Mesaba leases the A/C from NW. Rumor is that NW plans to remove the RJ85 from service shortly, which has the possibility of resulting in massive layoffs at Mesaba.

The statements about the RJ85 being a MX pig are 110% correct. The RJ70/85/100 series was a last gasp for British aircraft. With good reason. Comfortable aircraft for passengers, but a nightmare for mechanics!
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:12 pm

If you've seen their flaps, you'd understand. They don't need them.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
bohica
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:05 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
The cabin in somewhat spacious (I'd still say the DC9 is roomier, if louder).

Actually the cabin is slightly wider than a DC-9.

The 146 was advertised as the "Quiet Neighbor." That is because all the noise was inside. (especially in the back)

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
They are very expensive to operate, and very 'un-user' friendly. They are maintenance pigs and a real pain to work on....just ask any mechanic

 checkmark 
 
bigsmile
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:26 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 9):
Now defunct SAM from Colombia had a fleet of AVRO RJ100. Their experience with those supposedly wasn't a pleasant one.

I remember these A/C when they came back to Woodford. They were a mess. All had massive corrosion in the fuel tanks. Their was even talk of changing one of the wings it was that bad. All this because they hardly ever bothered to drain the water from the fuel tanks that builds up over time.

As for what they were like to work on. I served my Apprenticeship working on these and the ATP (Advanced Technical Problem). They were bad in some areas and good in others.

BAE planned at one point to make it into a twin, and use the outboard pylons to carry extra fuel tanks.

It is a shame they scrapped this aircraft. As it was the last all British aircraft. But that's progress for you.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:08 am

Mesaba, the NW satelite regional carrier who opperates NorAm's largest fleet of Avro RJ85's (34 aircraft) is now in bankruptcy. Mesaba has started to acquire CRJ's. Sadly, they own their own RJ85's, and can't get rid of them. I'd bet money if they could find someone to sell them to, they'd own a fleet of CR2, CR7, and CR9's in a heartbeat.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
I guess, again, 2 modern engines beat 4.

IIRC the reason for the 4 engines and not 2 was that at the time no engine was powerful enough to make the aircraft with 2 engines.
But I suppose this is what the 146 could have looked like... Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Krzysztof Godlewski (EPGD Spotters)



Quoting Bohica (Reply 20):
"Quiet Neighbor."

Surely you mean "Quiet Neighbour" as they are British aircraft  Smile
 
GDB
Posts: 14114
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Are Avros/BAE 146 Cheap To Run/Cost Efficient?

Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:23 am

The original RJX, from around 1992, (not to be confused with the version cancelled in 2001), was to have new engines, (probably of the RR-BMW type), revamped systems etc.
But BAe was not keen on staying in this market, the much less radically improved Avros were making profits on a relatively low production rates.
Had this new RJX been built, it could well have been a good seller.

I think the BAe-146/Avro did well sales wise considering it was designed for a market that never properly materialized, serving city centre airports, like LCY in London.
Hence the engine choice, in the 70's it was the only solution for this very quiet airliner.

The big breakthrough was selling 25 to PSA in 1983, as this airline needed to operate out of very noise sensitive airports.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos