Cityjet reliability

LeChienMefiant

I was on WX125 out of London city yesterday and we were delayed 3 hours 20 minutes total . From talking to other passengers it seems to be happening frequently lately. That may be purely anecdotal, I haven't been travelling that route much lately myself.

Two passengers I spoke with had been compensated over a grand over recent weeks. Surely this must be costing them a fortune.

I feel that the staff were a little liberal with the truth with us also. Flightradar24 was great for getting the true story.

I believe the true story was that WX281 bound for Florence earlier in the day had diverted to Bologna for some reason. Our plane was taken off the Dublin route to plug a gap and hence we had no plane.

[edit] I've worked it out. EI-RJO was due to operate WX125. EI-RJR was due to operate WX123, but went tech in Bologna en route to Florence.

Cityjet swapped EI-RJO onto WX123 in the hopes of getting EI-RJR back in the air to beat the three hour limit to pay compensation on either flight. They didn't quite make it but ended up landing EI-RJR at LCY within minutes of EI-RJO. WX125 was finally operated by EI-RJO. EI-RJO stayed overnight at LCY.

I note that EI-RJR had not been used in three days prior to going tech on its first flight. [/edit]

Cloudio9

The BAE-146 aircraft are all very old and never had a great reputation for reliability.

BAE = Bring Another Engine.

L1011

The RJ-(x)xx variants are a fair bit more reliable than the original 146s were; they are however still quite old airframes - despite being some of the newest built.

California Dreamer

Cloudio9 wrote: »

The BAE-146 aircraft are all very old and never had a great reputation for reliability.

BAE = Bring Another Engine.

Good thing CityJet operate the RJ's then!!!

Tenger

I've infracted the non relevant post and deleted the posts to that post.
No warnings or infractions issues to anybody.

EDIT;1123heavy was in contact with me and my initial infraction has been removed.

California Dreamer

I didn't want to go starting another WX thread. Based on airfleets, WX are operting 13 RJ's. Outside of LCY and CDG do their operate anywhere else. What does the Sukhoi do?

The reason I have asked is that I have seen a JOTA aviation RJ operated the DUB-LCY flights for the last few weeks.

Could someone give a reason for this? Is is lack of serviceable aircraft or lack of crews?

EchoIndia

California Dreamer wrote: »

I didn't want to go starting another WX thread. Based on airfleets, WX are operting 13 RJ's. Outside of LCY and CDG do their operate anywhere else. What does the Sukhoi do?

The reason I have asked is that I have seen a JOTA aviation RJ operated the DUB-LCY flights for the last few weeks.

Could someone give a reason for this? Is is lack of serviceable aircraft or lack of crews?

The Sukhois operate for Brussels Airlines.

vectorvictor

California Dreamer wrote: »

The reason I have asked is that I have seen a JOTA aviation RJ operated the DUB-LCY flights for the last few weeks.

Could someone give a reason for this? Is is lack of serviceable aircraft or lack of crews?

I think this fleet is limping around a bit and there's probably alot of tech issues and cannibalizing parts.

Of the 13 aircraft, 3 haven't flown at all in the last week and another 3 have completed a total of four sectors between them over the past 3 days.

Stovepipe

The Rjs will, in time, be entirely replaced by CRJs or the Sukhois. Getting certified to fly into LCY with the Sukhoi was, so I have been told, one of the reasons for the delay in getting shot of the RJs entirely by now.

Phil.x

Cloudio9 wrote: »

The BAE-146 aircraft are all very old and never had a great reputation for reliability.

BAE = Bring Another Engine.

Wow, I thought that having four engines made it was safer.

roadmaster

I fly in to london city once a month with them, will it belong before they have new jets on the route?

Locker10a

Phil.x wrote: »

Cloudio9 wrote: »

The BAE-146 aircraft are all very old and never had a great reputation for reliability.

BAE = Bring Another Engine.

Wow, I thought that having four engines made it was safer.

Or just doubles the instances of tech snags and required maintenance.

Irish Steve

The two/three/four engine debate is more complex than just the maintenance issues.

A twin has to have effectively 50% unused power on the engine, in order to ensure that if one fails at the most critical moment, it can still continue to fly.
The 3 engine only needs 33.3%, and the 4 engine is only going to need 25%, so the reserve power for both 3 and 4 engines is substantially less than the most critical situation of the twin. The maintenance costs and relative fuel burn are also clearly significant factors. The physical size for the engines on a 3 or 4 engine aircraft can also be significantly smaller, which has both weight and aerodynamic implications.

In terms of the airframe, the 3 and 4 engine jets are not as dramatically affected by directional control issues, the effect of a failure of an engine are not as significant as they are on the twin, so the rudder doesn't have to work as hard to control lateral stability on the 3 and 4 engine machines. In the same vein, the structural strength of things like engine pylons does not have to be as massive on the 3 and 4 engine aircraft, as the overall power being transferred/supported is less than that of the twin.

If everything is working correctly, and the operator is prepared to use full power, the twin climbs like a homesick angel, due to the massive reserve power, the 3 and 4 engine aircraft don't have the same performance reserve. That said, there are reliability and engine life advantages in not using full power all the time, or for a lower % of total operating time, so the equations are a lot more complex than might be at first imagined.