Intercity Airways Discussion Forums

Hi there!

I really enjoy flying for this great VA! I like the routes, and the MJC Q400 is definetly a fantastic addon to fly!

Anyways, it would be great to have a plane, capable of carrying more passengers on longer routes, in our fleet right now. 

I think the FS Labs Airbus will be THE Airbus addon for MSFS once it is released. But right now, nobody knows when this is going to happen.

And in its most recent version 1.10, the Aerosoft Airbus is a pure joy to fly! FS2Crew just added that last bit of immersion and I would like to kindly ask you to think about adding this beautiful aircraft to your fleet.

As much as I enjoy my study sims, like the Q400, the NGX, the Leonardo SH Maddog or the Coolsky DC9, the AXE in its current state is a really good aircraft. 

Thanks and greets from Germany,

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

We've been thinking for a long time how to expand Intercity but we have many considerations; what our pilots want, what is realistic, what addons are available, etc. As you said, the FSL A320 may not be ready for many months (years?), so we could use the AXE A320 until the FSL is released.

 

But we're not sure the A320 is the right aircraft for us at the moment; it is twice as big as the Q400, so we wouldn't realistically be able to do 2x or 3x daily frequencies to most cities (Intercity is all about realism and lots of choice on flights <2 hours). The A319 is a much better size, but that could mean waiting longer (and paying more)! Also, the A319/A320 can't use London City Airport, so we have 4 options:

1. Ignore London (don't add any flights to/from London), use A319/A320 at other bases

   
2. Open another base in London for the A319/A320 (Gatwick?)

   
3. Get Wilco/feelThere E190 for London City and use A319/A320 at other bases

   
4. Get Wilco/feelThere E190 for all bases (and wait for FSL A320 and use it on longest and busiest flights only?)

What do you think about these options? Also, we are considering opening a new operating base; what is more important to you, a new aircraft type or a new base? 


PS: Everyone is welcome to contribute to this discussion, we'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)

PSS: You may find reading a previous, similar discussion useful

Difficult issue really. The philosophy behind ICX seems to be shorter regional routes which suits those with limited time.

 

The next question is realism. Do we want a multi type fleet or as in the case of RW carriers do we concentrate on single fleet or maybe 2 tpyes?

 The introduction of the Airbus could mean longer routes or just enhanced capacity on the more popular routes (LCY is out with this type)

As Chris mentioned the frequent services to destinations may be affected by using the larger types.

 

From a personal view having limited time I like the short hops in the Q400 particularly from LCY, however the introduction of maybe the E190/195 could bridge the seating gap between the Q400 and a 100 seat type.

 

With regards to new bases around London, STN and LGW are options, as long as you don't mind sharing with the RYR and EZY crowd!!

 

I wouldbe interested to hear other's views on this subject.

 

Best regards

 

Ben

Well I'm new, but I bought the MJC Q400 especially to fly with Intercity, I intend to learn it thoroughly and become expert with it, to eventually gain the confidence to take it online on a busy Friday evening in London airspace - I'm some way off that yet :)

 

So for me, I would prefer the Airline to prioritise bases expansion over additional types.

 

My choice for a new base would be EGGD Bristol. This would keep in line with the regional short-haul philosophy, would be easier for newbies to venture online, and usually has a good Vatsim online presence with a small group of resident fliers and controllers who I'm sure would welcome us sharing their airfield with them. It's also well provided for by UK2000 scenery.

 

But I'd go along with whatever the management team decide - it's good that they're taking time to consider how to expand and not rush it.

 

With just 3 flights in my logbook there's plenty to keep me busy for the time being :)

 

Cheers

 

Graham

1054

The Airbus is capable of short haul and medium haul, bearing in mind at easyJet from Liverpool we operate from there to the Isle of man, not even a 20 min flight (EGGP-EGNS) and also operate on the same aircraft Manchester to Moscow, so defiantly a lot of scope for both short and long flights!

 

With regards to the Embraer, this as Ben pointed out could bridge the gap between the Q400 and a bigger aircraft!

 

One thing is certain we wont be rushing any decisions and whatever decision we make it will be made in the airlines best interest and also to the closest degree of realism that we can achieve!

Okay, now Düsseldorf is online (no pun intended) we can start to look at future expansion plans. Next year we'll look at introducing a jet type of some sort, hopefully in time for the Spring/Summer 2014 schedule, which will bring many new destinations within two hours reach, although this depends on what happens in the addon aircraft market.

 

At this time we're looking at getting A32S operating out of all bases except London City (Option 1), but that is by no means finalised.

 

We're pretty much at the limit of what London City can handle in terms of aircraft movements, although I appreciate it's our most popular base with pilots and therefore as discussed previously we are also considering the deployment of Embraer E-jets (E190/E195) (Option 3) or opening another base in London that can accommodate the A32S, most likely Gatwick (Option 2).

 

Wherever we sort LCY out first or the rest of the network we haven't decided. We're unlikely to action any plans before the new year.

IMO, Id avoid moving to a large aircraft. What makes Intercity unique is its rehigonal/shorthaul operations.


If you were wanting to add a jet to the fleet, the biggest id go is the E190. Anything smaller is just competing with the Q400. Nything larger will jut chew at the operating costs. The E190 fits the current markets, and after time if the market on the routes gow we can look at larger aircraft.


Just my two cents thrown into th discussion.... :)

The E190 seems like the perfect evolution for us.  It fits into all our bases, has a respectable range (enough to fulfill our short range operations) and supply the ample capacity for our more traveled destinations.  We could swap out a few Dash 8 flights for E190s to free up aircraft movements at LCY and perhaps increase the number of destinations we offer as an airline.

 

From a business standpoint, the E190 is a big of an aging jet (in need of a refresh).  if we were to take on 2-3 year leases on a number of E190s, this would buy us more time to really evaluate new aircraft coming on to the market without tying up so much capital into old jets when we are looking for a fresh new face to the fleet.  I really like the E190 but I'm excited at a number of new prospects that are up and coming that could really enhance the fleet.  The E190 like mentioned before frees up a lot of aircraft movements by boasting up to a 40-50% increase in seat capacity.  This will open some slots at LCY and allow us to widen our customer base by offering even more destinations from the lovely LCY.

 

There are two future options that I'm very curious to see how they pan out and they are the E190/E195 v2 from Embraer and the CS100 and CS300 from Bombardier.

 

CS100 - With a maximum 108 pax (2 class configuration) up to 2950nm using only 4800ft at MTOW for takeoff and 4449 ft at MLW.  Even if there is a slight variation of these proposed specs ahead of the 2015 Q1 launch date, that's still pretty good!  Of course we will cross that bridge when we get there.

 

E190v2 - Very similar to E190v1 with a refreshed interior and cockpit, slight increases to capacity and range.  Boasting a  5900ft takeoff run at MTOW and 4100ft landing run at MLW.  This aircraft only increases capacity by 2 in a 2-class configuration but increasing range from 1800nm to 2800nm.  That's an insane improvement on fuel range.

 

At the end of the day I don't think it's very cost efficient and good business judgement at this stage to open up a 2nd base of operations in the same city to accommodate a new aircraft to the fleet.  Considering we are a new airline, it would be good business judgement at the end of the day to use what we have to achieve our goals.

Those new Bombardier CS100 and 300s look seriously sexy! Perhaps an all Bombardier fleet will help keep training costs down too.

 

Hopefully those Wiley Canadians can sort us out a discount hey Paul? ;)

Just curious, boys. But why not to consider the good old ship BAe 146/Avro RJ? Choice is either CLS or QW - both worth to fly and LCY approved... ;)  To me, this looks much better than CRJ 700/900 X. Just my personal feeling.  :P


with regards,


Petr

We considered and discussed several other types at length in other threads (such as http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500 (http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500)) and came to the conclusion that the Avro RJ, Fokker 70/100 and even the CRJ are long in the tooth; European operators have or are retiring them in favour of more modern designs (e.g. BA, BE, LX, TF).

As a Briton I am rather fond of the Avro RJ, but getting a fleet of 20 year old, four engined jets just doesn't fit with our realism ethos. BAe realised this in 2001 when they cancelled the RJX.

Oh, I see. Good point and sure I agree with you, Chris. Anyway, I am totally happy with this Q400 and nothing could make me happier.  ;)
Enjoy the weekend!
Petr

hey guys new hire here...already off to no good  8)


to bring the discussion back to the A320 and to what mr. liu said previously about the aerosoft AXE and the FSL:


why not simply use both addons? i mean from a purley operational and flying standpoint there will be pretty much zero difference between the two..but it would give people a choice of what addon they wish to use




from what i can tell we already did that in the past with the Q400 (the old dreamwings) so having both addons gives us greater choice and flexibility...


just my 2cts on the matter  :)


regards
Tobias

Welcome aboard Tobias  :)

You raise a good point, which I've discussed at http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500 (http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500) but to summarise:

QuoteIf we added the A319/A320 we would support both FS Labs and Aerosoft (probably Wilco and Project Airbus too), but the intention would be to "ride the momentum" of the FSL release, as we did with the Majestic Q400.

QuoteWe'll take our time before we finalise a decision (taking in to account discussions with our existing pilots of course), because I've only got it in me to add one type this year, so it needs to be the right choice!

I love turboprops :  Why do we need any type of Jet here?  Can we consider the Twotter or The BN and open up Scotland perhaps?  Just a thought after all said and done there are loads of VAs for Jets but afer all the is only ONE Intercity!!  Props paradise!!!! ;D ;D

To be honest, I'd never really thought of going smaller than the J41 (which is 29 seats). I'm not against the idea in principle but it would be something of a scheduling nightmare, especially at Barra because the tides come in to it; so I'd have to weigh up the time invested against the somewhat limited appeal in the VA marketplace.

I'd quite like a Dornier 228 if a decent one came out, it's a 19 seater like the B1900C/D but you get STOL and rough field capability, plus it has TPE331 engines like the J41.

However in the short term we really need to size up a bit to broaden our appeal and enable longer routes; regularly flying a Q400 from Edinburgh to Lisbon isn't realistic. It all goes back to what I said in http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg498/#msg498 (http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg498/#msg498) essentially

Quote from: Chris Liu on Feb 14, 2014 09:57
...there are too many indistinguishable VAs out there and I'm glad we're distinctive. However, owing to a 100 KTAS deficit versus jet aircraft, actively pursuing a prop only policy seriously limits route expansion opportunities from our existing operating bases. As it stands, we can't reach beyond Northern Spain from any of our bases because props just don't cut it on routes in excess of 700 nm as the flight durations get lengthy. However, I would like to stress that if Intercity gets some jets, they will be used for expansion, not replacement...

...I've no intention of taking Intercity beyond shorthaul, narrowbody territory and that we will always remain essentially a regional airline, even if we do end up with a smattering of mainline jets to give us better reach. I hate longhaul flying and I do not want to preside over a VA that does long flights!

Yeah I guess routes could be a problem, but no more than planning for a A320.   The other thing that interests me is; why do you think you'd get more members if you introduce a jet airframe here at Intercity.  The Twotter has a large following; I think.  I believe many virtual pilots like to fly for a known airline, I am also a member of a VA that has around 2000 members, recently we've lost the all the cargo flights and frames,  and soon we'll lose the B737...but, oh and we had the Dash3-300 that went too, all of that change has not stopped a waiting list of around 288 with 12 vacancies as I write this, my point is people seem to like flying for a known airline no matter what....in short I don't think adding a jet here will make that much difference to membership.  But, having interesting routes with difficult landings etc and different/unusual airframes,if compared to the rest, couple that with a well run and organised VA, I think, will interest a select bunch of simmers not in the thousands but it'll be a great bunch and VA all the same.  Just my thoughts. 

By the way Steve, we already have a limited Highlands and Islands service from Edinburgh using the Jetstream 41, so in the meantime you could give those a go :) There's daily flights to Orkney, Shetland, the Outer Hebrides and Inverness.

To be honest, our experiences with the J41 is what's deterring us getting smaller aircraft; the J41 makes up over 20% of scheduled flights but not even 5% of those actually logged! This is despite the fact a high quality PMDG rendition is available for FSX, which has a loyal following. And they are more work to schedule because they fly shorter legs and some airports aren't big enough for daily service, so instead of flying one schedule most of the week they can require a different one each day!

how about waiting till aerosoft releases the A318 instead of using the 19 or 20? or even the 737-600...they're jets but pretty much as small as it gets in that realm...lufthansa still uses a massive ammount of -300s and -500s of the 737 on their regional routes and they plan to keep them for a long while to come so it wouldnt be too far off the mark


we also always have to consider the availability of addons for flightsim...and i doubt very much that there will be any sort of good bombardier C-series or Embraers (except for the god awful wilco) coming anytime soon








also...to play devils advocate here....a certain japanese airline had great success running domestic operations with 747-400Ds a while ago soooooo..... :-X
(kidding of course!)


Tobias

In terms of sim considerations, I think the Aerosoft A318 is being sold as an expansion to the standard AXE package, which I worry will make it expensive with a resultant low uptake. The 737-600 is part of PMDG's NGX basepack and there's always the iFly for the FS9 guys so it's a better choice from a sim perspective.

As for real-life considerations, neither the A318 or B736 are popular, with less than 100 of each built. Essentially they're a shrink too far and hence uneconomical; they're burdened with a superstructure designed for a much higher MTOW so you end up with full-size costs but regional jet capacity. That's why the E190/195 has outsold them both by an order of magnitude, but as you've mentioned the downside is that the Wilco/feelThere versions aren't that brilliant.

So that puts us back to choosing between the A319 and E190/195

yeah fully agree on the 318 and 736...fun to fly but not very famous with airlines




as for aerosoft: the A319 and A318 will be a single expansion pack for the AXE wich is currently in development so you end up paying for it regardless...however if you already own the AXE you will get the 18/19 expansion at a discount




regards
Tobi

With Aerosoft releasing their A318/319 package next week (Sept 22) I thought I'd resurrect this thread.

I guess the points made about the A318 a couple of posts back by Chris are still vaild, although the Aerosoft A318/319 will be sold as a separate standalone package and not as an expansion to the A320/321 package (an upgrade price will be available though to existing A320/321 customers). The A318 also fly's in/out of London City (not sure if it did back when this thread was first created).

As it's been a while has any more thought been put towards the plans for a future jet aircraft? Would a decision to introduce a jet tie in with the next schedule update for Autumn?

Cheers,
Serge

Quote from: Sergio De Ceglie on Sep 16, 2014 02:29
As it's been a while has any more thought been put towards the plans for a future jet aircraft? Would a decision to introduce a jet tie in with the next schedule update for Autumn?

That's the plan but at the moment I am struggling to find time, I've made a start on the demand calculations for new destinations but nothing has been scheduled yet. It will be Airbus A319/A320 out of Düsseldorf to start with, other airports to follow. Decision on LCY has been deferred but the A318 is unlikely, for reasons discussed previously. I've also got to paint the Aerosoft A319/A320 models and I'll probably do the BBS and Project Airbus later.

Yeah, never enough time is there! Sounds like a fair bit of work ahead of you.

You mention A319/320. Does that mean either the A319 or A320 will join the fleet (you're still yet to make a decision) or both types?

I should probably stop asking questions so you can get on with it.  :D

Cheers,
Serge

Good thread! Always an emotive issue. I joined the VA for the Dash and JS41. If the 'jet age' is to come, then let's not ignore the PMDG 737 700 also. (Couldn't resist, sorry).

Looking at other VAs, the E190 has not been greatly successful as they have bigger aircraft included such as 777 (and the new PMDG 777 ER). So I  can understand this.

We are a small VA with two great aircraft. If we are to expand, I would prefer to see hubs in say Italy and Spain (Bologna and Barcelona ) to enable more destinations. I am sure many of our members have purchased payware airports that are not available for Intercity. This would introduce more variety in the timetables and, more importantly, advertise our VA (online flying) in more countries. We could still keep flights to two hours but then include airports such as Malta who have recently launched their own IVAO region.

In any event, whatever jet aircraft is decided, we could have a review in say six months to see how popular it is amongst the pilots.

Keith

Like you Keith, I also joined because of the VA offering a couple of great turboprops. The selection of routes was also enticing. I've been around for a few months now and although I'm still enjoying what's on offer I get the occasional feeling of wanting something new, whether that be a new aircraft added to the fleet or new destinations to fly to.


I own the PMDG 737NGX so if I was to be selfish my preference for a new jet aircraft would be the 737-800 however I understand and accept the reasons for not adding this aircraft. As long as there is an excellent payware model available for whatever aircraft is chosen I will be happy and it looks like that will be the case with the A320 as the Aerosoft A320 looks to tick that box along with the yet to be released FSLabs version.


Looking at the smaller side of things, I thought the Twin Otter was an interesting suggestion especially as there is an excellent payware model available from Aerosoft and it keeps with the turboprop theme of the VA. Again, I understand and accept the reasons for not adding this aircraft but I can always hope.  :)


I like your suggestions of additional hubs at Bologna and Barcelona Keith to open up some great Mediterranean airports on offer. I reckon another in Athens would also be cool as there are some excellent payware sceneries of Greek Island airports so some Q400 island hopping would be cool. We're probably getting ahead of ourselves here though as only a fraction of the current flights are getting flown so imagine flooding the schedule with even more. On the flipside it may attract more pilots.


Anyway, it looks like Chris is striving for quality over quantity which is what makes this an excellent VA. I look forward to what lies ahead.


Cheers,
Serge

Barcelona and Milan are both on the future hub short list, but new bases will come after the new jets

It's always an interesting debate about expanding bases and adding aircraft.  When Chris went to create this VA, the two Chris' and I agreed that  we wanted this VA to be realistic (follow real-world rules and guidelines - believe me Chris Liu wouldn't have it otherwise), be believable in the sense that you could see this VA as a real airline in the real world, follow business principles (operating routes that make sense, that would bring in a profit), and be an airline that real world passengers would use and admire.  This airline would be an airline that was affordable but always had a sense of class.  It would have capable and passionate pilots.  We would offer the best to the best to be the best.


That said, growth is a great thing but too much growth or growth for the sake of growth is not a good principle in the real world.


The thought of adding a 3rd aircraft to the fleet has been ongoing for a while.  It was agreed that a jet would be a good candidate and that sentiment seems to be echoed with the members at Intercity.


Nothing that will be done in the this airline will ever be done without putting a proper full effort into it.  Both Chris Liu and Chris Hulme put a tremendous amount of effort to making this virtual airline something to be proud of.


I look forward to sharing this next chapter of this great VA with the great pilots in this VA.  Your stories, pictures, and day to day is what makes this airline worth operating.  It's exciting to see the continuing growth and participation.  Keep the comments coming as your inputs are always heavily regarded in any decisions that are made. :)

Hello everyone,

why not taking into consideration the CRJ700. Almost everybody has one (FSX standard aircraft) and there is as well a payware version out there. I don't know whether the payware is good or bad.

Yves

Quote from: Yves Kaulitz on Sep 17, 2014 15:06
why not taking into consideration the CRJ700. Almost everybody has one (FSX standard aircraft) and there is as well a payware version out there

We did consider the CRJ700, but the payware version is very average and it's not approved for London City operations, more info at http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500 (http://viaintercity.com/forums/general-discussion/adding-the-upcoming-aerosoft-crj700900/msg500/#msg500)

We'll probably get some variety of regional jet later to expand London City, but I need to sort the Airbus out first.

It looks now like the Aerosoft A319/18 will be purchasable as a standalone, if that has any sway on your model choice. I know that expanding out EGLC ops right now is not a high priority, but it sure would be fun to do steep approaches in an Intercity painted baby bus!

Flying the bus into EGLC would be fantastic.  However I do fully understand that the undertaking of adding new aircraft and routes is no small task.


I have just recently passed my student exam for VATSIM ground control at EGLC, so with the new bus released I should see a bit more traffic while people are trying out those steep approaches.

I looked at ServInfo earlier and there were 3x A318 sat at EGLC (which is more than real life)! I can't see the fuss lasting long though, it flies pretty much the same as the larger and more popular A319.

Quote from: Dean Farley on Sep 22, 2014 19:05
I have just recently passed my student exam for VATSIM ground control at EGLC, so with the new bus released I should see a bit more traffic while people are trying out those steep approaches.

Congrat's on the rating Dean. I'll keep an eye out for you when I'm on Vatsim.

Cheers,
Serge

Quote from: Chris Liu on Sep 22, 2014 20:50
I looked at ServInfo earlier and there were 3x A318 sat at EGLC (which is more than real life)! I can't see the fuss lasting long though, it flies pretty much the same as the larger and more popular A319.

All things considered though, A318 can make it in and out of EGLC fairly easily.  Doesn't make sense to operate this solely out of all hubs, but it is an approved aircraft to land in EGLC and is probably a better option to the E190.


A318 still provides a 50% load increase over the Dash8 which would allow us to reduce frequency of flights out of EGLC in favour of adding new routes.  I can see Chris cringing inside at the thought because the A318 does not sport RR or IAE engines.


A320 could be operated out of all other hubs as a more revenue efficient aircraft.

Quote from: Paul Regimbal on Sep 24, 2014 22:03
A318 still provides a 50% load increase over the Dash8 which would allow us to reduce frequency of flights out of EGLC in favour of adding new routes.  I can see Chris cringing inside at the thought because the A318 does not sport RR or IAE engines.

A320 could be operated out of all other hubs as a more revenue efficient aircraft.

Out of interest, would operating a mixed A318/A320 fleet cause any issues?  The A320 family (ie. A318/319/320/321) hold the same pilot type rating so a pilot can fly any of the models however from an operations side of things is the difference that significant to cause problems (eg. maintenance, spares, etc)?

Sorry, I don't mean to flog a dead horse here, just a pleb pilot trying to get an understanding of operational matters. Also, a couple of years ago I flew from London City to Florence (LIRQ) on an RJ85 so I'm thinking of all the great routes that could open up with jet operations out of EGLC (and the other hubs of course).  :)

Cheers,
Serge

Quote from: Sergio De Ceglie on Sep 25, 2014 01:24
Out of interest, would operating a mixed A318/A320 fleet cause any issues?  The A320 family (ie. A318/319/320/321) hold the same pilot type rating so a pilot can fly any of the models however from an operations side of things is the difference that significant to cause problems (eg. maintenance, spares, etc)?

Sorry, I don't mean to flog a dead horse here, just a pleb pilot trying to get an understanding of operational matters. Also, a couple of years ago I flew from London City to Florence (LIRQ) on an RJ85 so I'm thinking of all the great routes that could open up with jet operations out of EGLC (and the other hubs of course).  :)

Cheers,
Serge

I don't personally see any real issue with operating the two aircraft in tandem for the purposes of training and pilot operation. 


From a practical stand point, it would make one more livery for to paint.  It would be one more aircraft to process through Chris' exhausting scheduling process.


I agree, having jet operations is an exciting thought as it would give a lot more options for routes and destinations.  Don't worry, Chris and the rest of the management are sold on adding a jet for sure.


From the business side of things, they are more money to operate which is a consideration.  Jet operated routes are more lucrative if you can maintain a certain seat sold ratio which from our view point we just need to buy into the idea that how we are scheduling it is viable as we don't have a real means to measure by (no virtual passengers  ;D ). This is where it becomes tricky as you don't want to be too big as it can lead to a lot of empty seats in a flight.


Having the A320s would be a no-brainer but I'm not sure Chris is sold on the idea of having A318s in the fleet because they are very niche type aircraft that are typically only viable in its niche (hence why so few have sold).  I remember that when the A318 was first released, the engines were so very underwhelming compared to the A319.  With the newer PW engines it should have a lot more pep in the climb and go-arounds.

Operationally mixing A318s with A320s is very easy, as they have a lot of common parts, a common type rating and similar performance. However, as Paul mentioned, there is a reason only 50ish A318s are in airline service.

When Airbus developed the A318 they relied on airports treating it as a regional jet, oil prices remaining steady and the PW6000 engine being very efficient; none of that happened and as a result A318 operating costs are similar to an A319.

The A318 and B736 have both come to be described as a "shrink too far", crippled by a superstructure designed for much higher MTOWs; the A318 and E195 are similarly sized but one is 39.5 t empty, the latter only 29 t!

Just look at British Airways for evidence, they only have 2x A318s but 17x E-jets and 44x A319s. BA knew that the cost of introducing the new E-jets type far outweighed the savings of retaining commonality with their A32S fleet; E-jets offer everything the A318 can at a fraction of the purchase and operating cost (with the notable exception of transatlantic range, which is why BA got two A318s for the LCY-JFK route. Intercity has no intention of doing longhaul from any airport though, let alone LCY).

Right now I'm busy painting and scheduling the A320s from Düsseldorf, Edinburgh and Birmingham in time for the Autumn schedule, but following that we will definitely look to deploy some jets from London City. However, I feel it would very difficult to reconcile our ethos as a highly realistic VA when operating an aircraft that's 10 tonnes heavier than it needs to be.

My two cents for what they are worth.
I have been flying flight sim since the days of Commodore 64 and progressed through FS4, FS9,up to FSX. I even flew on software called ATP if I remember correctly by Sublogic. In reality according to poorly kep log I have over 11,000 hours. However the very first VA I joined is Intercity. I was just never attracted to the many that have come before, no matter whether they carry big names etc.
I joined Intercity because as an airline/airport operations person for the past 30+ years, I see realism with a selected fleet that is very appropriate for the routes that are flown. I love turbo props and will always fly them. maybe I am old school. Expanding is always a good idea as it may attract new pilots to the airline from different airports and/or cities.
I just hope that we maintain the realsim and the somewhat "detailed simplicity" of Intercity if you understand what I mean.
It would be great if at sometime we could actually get a way of having financials by route and aircraft type calculated so we can perhaps make some serious judgement calls on such. e.g. are there any routes that perhaps noone ever flies or maybe only fly once or twice over a period of time.
All in all I like it the way it is but of course still appreciate he need for upgrade along the way.
Thanks

As far as I know BA operates the A318 in an all business class layout and they even have to refuel at Shannon before they move on to JFK. Taking off from EGLC is only possible at the lowest take off weight, without cargo, only a few passengers and almost no fuel!
To me it wouldn't make sense to operate the A318 out of EGLC. Maybe not even at all. As Chris stated, the real life operating cost of an A318 are far too high compared to the size of the aircraft.

Quote from: Graham Bannister on Sep 25, 2014 13:49
are there any routes that perhaps noone ever flies or maybe only fly once or twice over a period of time.
All in all I like it the way it is but of course still appreciate he need for upgrade along the way.
Thanks

When planning the routes, Chris does a lot of background work, calculating demand and then covering a set percentage of demand, I think this is what sets us apart from other airlines and gives us the realism. I dont see any reason why in the future we wont look to see what routes are flown and which are not when looking at expansion, as there is little point in keeping routes that nobody flys!

Quote from: Yves Kaulitz on Sep 25, 2014 15:44
As far as I know BA operates the A318 in an all business class layout and they even have to refuel at Shannon before they move on to JFK. Taking off from EGLC is only possible at the lowest take off weight, without cargo, only a few passengers and almost no fuel!

Correct, thus the stop at Shannon to refuel!

Quote from: Yves Kaulitz on Sep 25, 2014 15:44
To me it wouldn't make sense to operate the A318 out of EGLC. Maybe not even at all. As Chris stated, the real life operating cost of an A318 are far too high compared to the size of the aircraft.

Totally agree. BA only have 2 A318s based there, and AFAIK there are only 4 stands that can accommodate them, so in terms in realism, where would we keep ours?

This really is a balancing act. We have the real world constraints Intercity is attempting to emulate, we have the limitation of our flight simulators with what *good* aircraft models are available and finally we have the consideration of the pilots along with trying to attract more of them. I'm all for realism, however when trying to emulate a real airline through the constraints of a simulator with a broad cross section of pilots I believe compromises need to be made.

Playing devil's advocate here....  ;)

While operating the A318 out of EGLC isn't totally realistic as has been mentioned it also isn't totally unrealistic either. Sure, BA only has a couple of them and use the E-Jet instead however Air France has about 18 A318's running routes from Paris in similar lengths to what Intercity run.

Also, speaking of realism, back on page 1 Chris mentioned that the A320 may be too big an aircraft to fill. Paul touched on this again a few posts back. Is jumping in size from a Q400 to an A320 a risk? Will they be able to be filled enough to be economically viable? Perhaps starting off a little smaller, such as with an A319 may have been more realistic.

From my *limited* point of view as a pilot looking in and also thinking about what I would enjoy doing I feel an A318/319 combination would have been great with the A319 as Intercity's main narrow body operated out of all hubs except EGLC and the A318 operated out of EGLC. Sure, it's been mentioned that the A318 is a niche aircraft, however Intercity is a niche VA so I think it would have fit in nicely (perhaps even help attract more pilots too, similar to the JS41 and Dash8 attracting me here).

Advantages of this include both the A318/319 being available in a single payware package by Aerosoft that appears quite good (probably sits between the PMDG JS41 and Majestic Dash8 quality wise). It simplifies the fleet with both airframes having the same type rating so easy for pilots to learn both aircraft. No need for a completely different jet type (eg. E-Jet) just for EGLC and no need to create another London hub to use a bigger jet (as has been previously mentioned by Chris on page 1). Also, VA specific tasks, such as repaints and modifying the ACARS should be simpler with this aircraft combination rather than two completely different models.

Now, please don't take this as an objection to the current plans. I respect the decisions being made and will still enjoy the opportunity to fly the A320. I also look forward to the new schedule and new hubs in the future. Again, this is just a pilot thinking out loud and sharing what he thinks would be enjoyable for him.

Cheers,
Serge

This is all very exciting to see the flowing of ideas from our members :)  I'm going to recap what we know so far about A318 and E190 in a more concise format since it's scattered across 3 pages at this point.


So here are a few tidbits of information:

- While intercity does cater to business class, we haven't operated exclusively business class
- A318 operated by BA serves 32 passengers all business class (32 passengers is less than 50% of the capacity of the Q400)
- A318 operated by AF serves 131 passengers all economy  ( http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Airbus_A318_A.php (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Airbus_A318_A.php)); it is not possible to take off with this amount of weight out of EGLC; Intercity would have to limit the passengers as well (we would have to operate single class to maximize revenue - which we don't do on our existing aircraft)
- A318 Operating Empty Weight (as Chris was touching on before) is 39,500 kg (87,100 lb) while the E-190 is 28,080 kg (61,910 lb).  That means that the A318 has 29% more weight without anyone in it.  That amount of weight alone is expensive per nm to operate.
- Both aircrafts are unable to takeoff out of EGLC at max takeoff weight: A318 = 1,828 m (5,997 ft); E-190: 2,056 m (6,745 ft); EGLC rwy 09/27 = 4910.4 x 98 ft (1497 x 30 m)
- However because of the difference in OEW 11,420 kg (25,190 lb) that equals 134  theoretical passengers (at 85kg each) more that can be carried in the E190 not including fuel and luggage into the equation.  This amounts to quite a bit of maneuvering for the airline between passenger load count and range.
- E190 is more aerodynamic sporting a lower fuel burn per nm than the A318 while being able to carry more passengers.
- BA operates these aircraft with 98 seats in a 1 or 2 class configuration which is 3x the number of passengers they are able to accommodate in the A318.  This translates into a higher revenue stream with lower operating costs.  Even with the higher training costs, it appears to still be worth it in the long run to operate an E190 out of EGLC.


A newer version of this aircraft is in the works E190E2:

- which at this time appears to keep same passenger capacity while decreasing takeoff run at MTOW 1,800 m (5,900 ft).
- a flight of 500nm length with full pax (single class with 100kg pax) requires about 1,250 m (4,101 ft) of runway length (theoretically possible to take off with full aircraft at EGLC for 1h flights).
- this won't be ready for 4 more years but may be possible to retrofit existing aircraft;
- we could hold off on adding jet aircraft for 4 years out of EGLC and "save" the cost associated of buying E1 jets
- performance savings of 16% per pax from E2 to E1 jets

Curious about the destinations where the A318 operates?  Look here: http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240057/where-does-the-a318-fly-march-2014-network-update/ (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240057/where-does-the-a318-fly-march-2014-network-update/)

I'm not familiar with all the destinations in those lists as far as runway length but I see a lot of large airports mentioned which would allow you to fill the A318 to a proper load to make it more viable.  That said, compared to A319 or A320 the A318 doesn't maximize the revenue per passenger per nm like the A319/A320.

A318 is not receiving a New Engine Option at least not yet.  So while E190 is receiving a revitilization, the A318 is not.  See the following links:
- http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/ (http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/)
- http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-could-eventually-offer-neo-version-of-a318-leahy-350386/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-could-eventually-offer-neo-version-of-a318-leahy-350386/)

That is all the technical aspect of the business operations.

The only E190 payware aircraft I'm able to find online (quick search I might add, not an exhaustive search) for this aircraft is made by Wilco (http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/e-jets-series.html (http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/e-jets-series.html)).  I haven't tried this add-on but if anyone has, I would be very curious about any experiences.  It would appear that this a fair bit older dating as far back as 2008.

The new A318 payware aircraft has a lot of good reviews, and up to date textures.  Anyone that has purchased this aircraft please give us your experience of this aircraft.

Additionally, if there are any other jets on the following list:

- http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/ (http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/)

Please let us know your thoughts.

My sources are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family)
http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/Pages/Ejets-190-E2.aspx (http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/Pages/Ejets-190-E2.aspx)
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Airbus_A318_A.php (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Airbus_A318_A.php)
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/airbus-318-100 (http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/airbus-318-100)
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240057/where-does-the-a318-fly-march-2014-network-update/ (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240057/where-does-the-a318-fly-march-2014-network-update/)
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/embraer-190 (http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/embraer-190)

As far as the virtual airline and realism:

We understand that sometimes certain ideals may need to be bent in the virtual world but we also founded the airline based on them and we would like to try and hold onto them wherever it makes sense.

That said, does it really make sense to operate a 32 seat A318 out of EGLC or a 98 seat E190 out of EGLC?  There is potential to increase seats from 98 by 16% to 113 in the future (all be it theoretical and 4 years out).  We do know that the A318 isn't being updated (at least no definitive news) and that 32 seats is 32 seats (all be it a Long Haul configuration).  We are not sure what a Short Haul configuration would be on an A318 but no airline has attempted to do it so we don't really know the answer to that question.  But that in itself should say something.  At least that is the thinking.

I encourage you to take a look at this link:

http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/ (http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/)

See what airlines are flying out of EGLC and see what you think.

I love this dialogue about what should be done about EGLC ... keep it coming.  I just wanted to kind of want to lay the facts out a little more concise as opposed to all across 3 pages to help encourage ongoing meaningful dialogue.

QuoteThe only E190 payware aircraft I'm able to find online (quick search I might add, not an exhaustive search) for this aircraft is made by Wilco (http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/e-jets-series.html (http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/e-jets-series.html)).  I haven't tried this add-on but if anyone has, I would be very curious about any experiences.  It would appear that this a fair bit older dating as far back as 2008.

I have E195 from http://www.feelthere.com/en/product/22_embraer-e-jets-v-2-embraer-175-and-195.html (http://www.feelthere.com/en/product/22_embraer-e-jets-v-2-embraer-175-and-195.html) - it is newer version of this addon, and almost no difference to E190. It is often on 50% or more sale. There is CALL! - interactive checklist - maybe not FS2Crew, but still better than nothing.

Maybe we should not focus to much on EGLC but trying to expand the other / new hubs? If we replace the J41 / DH8 on existing routes by - let's say A319 - it would give us the possibility to relocate this "spare" aircraft to EGLC and create new routes.

Great post Paul. A fair bit of effort must have gone into that.

Quote from: Paul Regimbal on Sep 26, 2014 19:02
Additionally, if there are any other jets on the following list:

- http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/ (http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/)

Please let us know your thoughts.

Looking at that list there isn't much choice as you would expect with the limitations of operating a jet out of London City.


A318 - has payload limits and increased operating costs however there is a great model available from Aerosoft.


RJ's/146's - are getting old now with increased operating costs. I believe there is a decent model available from Qualitywings though.


E190 - seems the logical choice as far as economics go. The Wilco model looks a bit dated though. The Feelthere model of the E195 looks better but I'm not sure an E195 is certified to operate out of London City.


I think Yves has a point. Probably best not to worry about operating a jet from London City for now and just stick to the props.


One final thought. My personal opinion is that for any aircraft selected there should be a quality model available just as there is for the JS41 and Dash8. That's one of the main attractions for me. I'm sure the A320 will be popular because there's a good Aerosoft model available (an improved updated version is due in October) with another one from FS Labs on the way. I worry that if an unpopular aircraft is selected then it may not be flown much.


Certainly makes for an interesting discussion.


Cheers,
Serge

There hasn't been many thoughts added to this thread since Paul's excellent post so to put a bit of weight  behind the A318 (<- see what I did there  ;) ) I ran some numbers through PFPX using the A318 with CFM engines (I was also a bit bored today). So far when discussing the A318 out of EGLC it has been compared to the 32 seat version operated by BAW. This isn't a fair comparison as Intercity won't be operating it trans atlantic (I am aware it stops at Shannon on the way though) and won't be operating 32 business only seats. I planned a route that Intercity may use a jet on (London - Rome) and a realistic passenger count. I assume operating a Jet out of EGLC will make Intercity attractive for business customers (which is where the $'s are) so running a 2 class configuration of Y99 & J8 would seem to make sense. The results from PFPX....

EGLC - LIRA

OFP ROUTE (Validated):
-EGLC/09  N0378F230 DVR5U DVR L9 KONAN/N0441F370 UL607 KOK/N0443F390 UL607 UTABA UM738 TIRUL Y740 NATAG UM738 AMTEL UL995 GIKIN GIKI2F LIRA/33
-DIST 879-

EET: 2:09
DOW: 39500
Payload: 9523 (107 passengers - 2 class)
ZFW: 49023
Fuel: 6181 (includes reserves and alternate)
TOW: 55205 (from a performance table available on the Airbus website I believe about 56700kg is the limit for an A318 on EGLC's runway)

From this it appears the A318 can be operated out of EGLC with a realistic payload and stay within the takeoff weight limitation. If we charge enough for those business seats it may even be profitable.  :)

Cheers,
Serge

Serge,

Does PFPX have a profile for the E-190 or E195 so we could do a comparison (I know the passenger load will be slightly less than the A318)

Hi Chris,

PFPX has profiles for the E190AR and E195AR, both with GE CF34 engines. I have run the numbers using the same route as my previous post. I have also re-run the numbers for the A318 so that all 3 outputs have the same weather (in this case an average headwind of 3 knots) and same alternates. I derived the seat configurations from the manufacturers websites and the maximum takeoff weights from performance charts from the following sources (I assumed runway length of 1200m and ISA conditions at sea level):

A318
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A318_May2014.pdf (http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A318_May2014.pdf)
E190
http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/AMPS/APM_190.pdf (http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/AMPS/APM_190.pdf)
E195
http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/AMPS/APM_195.pdf (http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/AMPS/APM_195.pdf)

The results from PFPX are as follows:

EGLC - LIRA

OFP ROUTE:
-EGLC/27  N0377F230 DVR5T DVR L9 KONAN/N0441F370 UL607 FERDI/N0442F390 UL607 UTABA UM738 TIRUL Y740 NATAG UM738 AMTEL UL995 GIKIN GIKI2F LIRA/15
-DIST 880-

A318

EET   2:10
DOW  39500
PYLD  9523 (107 passengers including baggage - Y99, J8)
ZFW  49023
FUEL  6223 (block - includes reserves and alternate, actual trip fuel 4577)
TOW  55246 (max takeoff weight for EGLC = 56700)

E190AR

EET   2:11
DOW  28207
PYLD  8544 (96 passengers including baggage - Y88, J8) 
ZFW  36751
FUEL  5536 (block - includes reserves and alternate, actual trip fuel 4144)
TOW  42287 (max takeoff weight for EGLC = 42200)

E195AR

EET   2:11
DOW  28807
PYLD  8900 (100 passengers including baggage - Y88, J12)     
ZFW  37707
FUEL  5721 (block - includes reserves and alternate, actual trip fuel 4239)
TOW  43428 (max takeoff weight for EGLC = 43100)


From this both the E-Jets are over the maximum takeoff weights for EGLC with a maximum passenger load in a 2 class config with the A318 being slightly under. The block fuel for the A318 is 700kg more than the E190 and 500kg more than the E195 however the actual fuel burn difference for the trip is less at 400kg and 250kg respectively.

I can't verify these numbers as I don't have these aircraft for FSX however I do have the Dash8 (Majestic) and B737-800 and 777-200LR (both PMDG) and when using the PFPX profiles for these aircraft the numbers are pretty good.

Cheers,
Serge

Quote from: Sergio De Ceglie on Sep 29, 2014 04:39From this both the E-Jets are over the maximum takeoff weights for EGLC with a maximum passenger load in a 2 class config with the A318 being slightly under.  The block fuel for the A318 is 700kg more than the E190... however the actual fuel burn difference for the trip is less at 400kg.

Thanks for that Serge, your numbers confirm what I thought; 400 kg on one sector is quite a lot, imagine you fly 3 legs like that each day and that's over 400,000 kg a year! I appreciate the A318 seats 10 more, but it also costs a lot more to buy (before discounts anyway)

I've quoted the E190 figures as I don't think there's an SR (Steep Runway) version of the E195, and the payload penalty for the latter on a Rome sector is pretty hefty, although Rome is probably one of the longest legs I'd consider from EGLC.

For the record, we have considered the following types so far (some of these got ruled out pretty quickly, but none the less we did consider them): Airbus A318, Antonov An-148/An-158, BAe Avro RJ, Boeing 717, Bombardier CRJ700/900, Bombardier Cseries, COMAC ARJ21, Embraer E-jets, Fokker 70, Mitsubishi MRJ90, Sukhoi SSJ100 and Tupolev Tu-334. If I had my way we'd have Fairey Rotodynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SFF_002-1055526_Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg) or Dornier 928s  ;D

Quote from: Sergio De Ceglie on Sep 27, 2014 10:47My personal opinion is that... there should be a quality model available just as there is for the JS41 and Dash8... I'm sure the A320 will be popular because there's a good Aerosoft model available... with another one from FS Labs on the way. I worry that if an unpopular aircraft is selected then it may not be flown much.

And therein lies the crux of the matter; it's a tough balancing act selecting an aircraft that is realistic but also well represented in flight simulator; based on that we're left with the QW Avro RJ, feelThere/Wilco E190/195 and Aerosoft A318. Aerosoft are developing a CRJ700/900 that should be out soon but it won't make the LCY approach (http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/Types%20of%20Aircraft_and_Concessions.pdf) (and the cabin is horrid)!

Quote from: Chris Liu on Sep 29, 2014 09:46
And therein lies the crux of the matter; it's a tough balancing act selecting an aircraft that is realistic but also well represented in flight simulator; based on that we're left with the QW Avro RJ, feelThere/Wilco E190/195 and Aerosoft A318. Aerosoft are developing a CRJ700/900 that should be out soon but it won't make the LCY approach (http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/Types%20of%20Aircraft_and_Concessions.pdf) (and the cabin is horrid)!

Avro RJ I thought was ruled out because it utilized 4 engines?  Which equated to extra fuel burn.

Here's a math calculation for you Chris, how much fuel would you save by consolidating some Dash 8's into A318s, and would that offset the cost of operating it on new destinations?

Of course, keep in mind it has been suggested by two members prior, that it makes equal business sense to not operating a jet out of EGLC for the time being.  Which I think adding a jet to this hub requires some careful planning as there is bound to be drawbacks no matter what we decide.

Quote from: Chris Liu on Sep 29, 2014 09:46
Thanks for that Serge, your numbers confirm what I thought; 400 kg on one sector is quite a lot, imagine you fly 3 legs like that each day and that's over 400,000 kg a year! I appreciate the A318 seats 10 more, but it also costs a lot more to buy (before discounts anyway).

Yeah, that fuel difference will add up. Will the extra seats though (I will assume around 13 or so as the E190 is at max takeoff weight with a full load so will need to shed some payload) offset that? Throw in the savings from commonality with the A320, training, maintenance, etc and that will help a bit. Also, how good are your negotiating skills? If you're purchasing A320's, surely you can get Airbus to sweeten the deal a bit with some A318's at a good price.  ;D

Quote from: Chris Liu on Sep 29, 2014 09:46
And therein lies the crux of the matter; it's a tough balancing act selecting an aircraft that is realistic but also well represented in flight simulator; based on that we're left with the QW Avro RJ, feelThere/Wilco E190/195 and Aerosoft A318.

These are the same three I mentioned back at the top of the page. I guess that's why I'm pushing the A318 as IMHO it's the pick of the bunch as far as flight simulator is concerned.

Another thought. Are you doing the calc's based on purchasing the aircraft or leasing them? If you haven't considered leasing perhaps this may be a short term avenue to look at. Maybe lease some A318's for a year to see how they work out.

Cheers,
Serge

Quote from: Sergio De Ceglie on Sep 29, 2014 13:08
I guess that's why I'm pushing the A318 as IMHO it's the pick of the bunch as far as flight simulator is concerned. Are you doing the calc's based on purchasing the aircraft or leasing them?

In reality there are no A318s available to lease, so they'd have to be new build aircraft and then the lease is expensive because the resale value of the A318 (and number of potential lessees) is small. A similar problem afflicts the A340-500.

My concern with the A318 in FSX is that it could be a fad, I'm not sure it will have lasting appeal like the J41 and Q400; whereas they are unique, the A318 is just another narrowbody Airbus and I think many people currently flying the Aerosoft A318 on VATSIM will back in the A319 and A320 in a few months, once the novelty has worn off; I've seen it happen before with PMDG's 737-600 NGX.

Quote from: Chris Liu on Sep 29, 2014 14:06
My concern with the A318 in FSX is that it could be a fad, I'm not sure it will have the lasting appeal of the J41 and Q400. I think many people currently flying the Aerosoft A318 on VATSIM will back in the A319 and A320 within a few months; I've seen it happen before with PMDG's 737-600 NGX.

Fair concern Chris and I agree that the A318 is probably going through a popularity phase at the moment as it's a new release. I'm sure it will drop off even further once Aerosoft release the updated A320/321 in October and FS Labs finally release their A320. Unfortunately it also appears most of the small jets just aren't popular on Vatsim. Having a look what is currently online now and there are 13 A318, 1 B736, 1 RJ, 5 E170/5, 0 E190/5 and 1 CRJ. As a comparison there are 69 B738 and 29 A320 online.

Now considering that the current Intercity statistics show about 37% of flights are flown online with the majority being flown offline and I'm not sure the popularity of an aircraft type on Vatsim is critical (although I guess it can be used as a gauge). For reference looking at the props and there is 1 JS41 and 5 DH8D online. That doesn't reflect the popularity of these aircraft at Intercity although strangely enough the ratio nearly matches the Intercity statistics (20% JS41 and 80% Dash8 flights flown by aircraft type).

I guess what we can take from all this discussion is that no matter which jet is selected to operate out of EGLC it's going to be a challenge both economically and popularity wise to make it work.

Cheers,
Serge