Re: What happened to the BA146?

From:         rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
Date:         25 May 96 14:40:20 
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In <airliners.1996.767@ohare.Chicago.COM> BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
writes:
>The 146 probably did not fit the overall fleet strategy of either the
>big carriers, as it was designed for regional route utilization only.
>I also remember that American was not happy with maintenance manhours
>...

A fleet strategy of ten hours per day in the air without interruptions
was more than the 146 could handle.  The US made Lycoming engines and
many other parts just could not cut it.  It was already an old design
by the time PSA got theirs in 1984, but with all the bugs of a new
design because there were so few in service.

It was bought by PSA as a 100 seat airplane, the 6-across seating
giving it the narrowest seats in the industry.  Big Western Americans
just did not take to it, so they changed to 5-across, 85 seats, at a
big expense and loss of planned revenue, and the widest coach seats in
the industry, at 19 inches.

>Certainly the 146/Avro RJ is quite popular/common in Europe, where it
>is more suited to their shorter sectors and route profiles.

And low altitudes.  The 146 is limited to 30,000 feet.  I was told that
is because the skin is too thin to handle more pressurization.

>On an historical note, I see parallels here to both the Viscount and
>the BAC-111 which were relatively successful around the world but
>never really made it in the US. I leave you to draw your own political
>conclusions (if any) :)

I don't believe politics had any impact on the 146, save for possible
British subsidies to build it.

RD