The Virgin domestic services will be run on whatever Branson can get his hands on at the best possible price (but not a prop, London pax hate those). However, as always the problem will be, who makes the money? Any feeder service being ticketed by the long haul operator will never make any cash. I believe the old BA-CityExpress/BAconnect set up used to go like this: Ticket (for instance) Aberdeen to LA Via LHR, Total distance about 5800 miles, ticket cost, one way, say 300 pounds for arguement's sake. But, distance from ABZ to LHR is about 400 miles which is about 7% ish. So BA hand over to Cityexpress/BAconnect 40ish quid for their share of the journey (full service remember), no wonder they never made any geld.
I can't believe it would be any different under Virgin but it makes sense that Branson will use someone else on a wet lease for the first few years.
Probably worth clarifying that Flybe have only been flying into LHR recently as part of the Brussels Airlines wet lease.
It's a Brussels Airlines flight which operates into LHR. It just so happens that Brussels Airlines use the Flybe Q400 in Brussels Airlines livery operated by Flybe crew.
The Virgin domestic services will be run on whatever Branson can get his hands on at the best possible price (but not a prop, London pax hate those). However, as always the problem will be, who makes the money? Any feeder service being ticketed by the long haul operator will never make any cash. I believe the old BA-CityExpress/BAconnect set up used to go like this: Ticket (for instance) Aberdeen to LA Via LHR, Total distance about 5800 miles, ticket cost, one way, say 300 pounds for arguement's sake. But, distance from ABZ to LHR is about 400 miles which is about 7% ish. So BA hand over to Cityexpress/BAconnect 40ish quid for their share of the journey (full service remember), no wonder they never made any geld.
What you describe is a "straight rate prorate" which indeed never makes money for the short haul operator, and that's why typically either the formula is tweaked to give more to the operator of the shorter sector, or there is a "proviso" or minimum amount payable. I can't speak to the particular BACX prorate setup, but within one parent company there could be reasons to make one or other part of the organisation look good or bad
As Boing 7117 confirms I was talking about flybe selling seats and actually operating the Flybe 'product' into LHR. I am aware of the crews doing the Brusssels Airlines wet lease into LHR would love a shot at that although can't see it happening.
Cornish Simon...I would love an airbus TR but realise we have none. Was purely posing the question is there a signed airbus contract somewhere for an operator to do the virgin work or will they give airlines the opportunity to bid for it?
Surely the ejet is perfect size wise? Could then expand the agreement if virgin got the edi abz routes and have the short haul network from one provider with a mixture of 175 and 195 to suit demand. Not sure if BA would have a say in it though can they with just 15%??? Can't see WW would be too happy Flybe operating for Virgin.
Anyway just posing the questions for a debate.......
[QUOTE]Not sure if BA would have a say in it though can they with just 15%??? Can't see WW would be too happy Flybe operating for Virgin./QUOTE]
I was having a think about this. Virgin are going ahead with the plans regardless of who operates the wet lease so I think it may be foolish for BA to hinder Flybe winning any contract (if this opportunity even exists). I would much rather the company I own 15% in having the contract and making me some money over another airline I own 0% in operating it for Virgin and making me nothing.
Totally agree though that the 175/195 would be ideal for it.
I don't think BA would have much interest in who operated the flights for VS, Flybe or not. And more importantly, BA have no representation on the BE board. As the board has an obligation to try and maximise returns for share holders, they surely wouldn't turn down potential revenue incase the upset a minor shareholder.
This could work if both airlines sold tickets on a code-share basis. Or if Branson pays for 50% of the seats with an option on more, and FlyBe operate the service and sell the rest.....
As CaptainDoony has stated the Denim has been in and out for about three months covering the IOM incident and the WDL 146 today I trust was covering the Rennes incident.
At other times the BHX spare 195 covers one of the Q400's but this is not always possible. The Denim has been used on IOM, ABZ, WAT, INV, and EDI to name but a few.
The WDL was on the 175 GLA flight tonight with the 175 going on the ABZ.
"CI" seems to be back in service now at BHX since 1/9/12 - I believe this was the tail-strike aircraft, so it was out for just over a week.
Gatwick
From the Aberdeen thread it is indicated that LGW-ABZ will cease after summer and aircraft placed on BHX-ABZ. LGW-ABZ is zeroed out already by the look of it and do we know if the 175 will be BHX based or remain in Aberdeen with timetable changes put in place?
I am not sure if it has been mentioned before or standard practice for winter but BHD-LGW is showing four daily for winter compared to the five daily in the week during summer.
The flight that has disappeared matches the schedule for the re-timed BHD-BHX BE405, which was a BHX based 175/195 and is now a BHD based 195.
BHX-INV also now showing in winter, as an Inverness based Q400 despite BHX's Q400's virtually doing nothing in the day other than the four a week WAT.
I did a rough calculation a week or two ago for the first week in November and it showed 62 aircraft required to operate the schedule with a fleet total of 65-68 depending on 175 deliveries and "CH" flying again but things seem to fluid to say the least.
The 5th rotation on BHD to LGW was operated by a dash daily. Although bhd is getting a 3rd 195 for the winter apparently, so will prob be op by that aircraft if it is bhd based. Apparently it's coming from SOU.
