Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995.

From:         Stefano Pagiola <spagiola@worldbank.org>
Organization: World Bank
Date:         04 Dec 95 01:14:54 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) wrote:
>spagiola wrote:
>>In any case, the Avro RJ is very much improved.  Do you think airlines
>>like Lufthansa and Crossair would buy them in large numbers in preference
>>to the Fokker jetline series if they were poor aircraft?
>
>That's one thing I cannot figure out (but being Dutch I may be
>prejudiced):
>
>why buy a four-engined plane which is more expensive to operate
>instead of a two-engined, just as quiet and (from personal experience)
>with a much higher passenger comfort.
>
>I do mean, of course, the Fokker Jetliner series....

Its hard to find good info on operating costs (do you really trust
manufacturers' data?) so I won't comment on that aspect.  I challenge the
passenger comfort aspect, though.  And I don't think its simply a matter
of personal preference: the BAe 146/Avro RJ has a wider cabin.  When fitted
with 5-abreast seating (as most are, these days), it offers far superior
passenger comfort.  On the other hand, I'd much rather fly a Fokker 70/100
than a 6-abreast 146/RJ, any day!  The 146/RJ has other advantages as
well.  Its short-field performance is exceptional, letting fly into places
like LCY, Lugano, Aspen, and other "tight-fit" airports with ease.
Depending on door fit, Fokker 100/70 also may not be compatible with many
airbridges.


I'll state my bias: the BAe 146/Avro RJ is my favorite aircraft.  Mainly
because its such a welcome relief from the unremitting boredom of the
gaggles of quasi-indistinguishable twin-jets, whether their engines be
under the wing or on the aft fuselage.

Stefano