Flybe - 7
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey, flyBE have made some odd decisions in the past but taking a punt on LCY up against BA and others when SEN was available with proven demand for EDI and BFS and no opposition seems distinctly risky.........
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless there's no chance of getting the E175 certified, I'm surprised they're not trying to do so rather than operate a Q400. If you take LCY-EDI, do they really stand a chance against BA on one of their best performing routes?
Previous comments in the thread suggest there won't be any competition to DUB but I thought CityJet still flew that route & aren't planning to exit in which case can a Q400 really compete on a route which offers multiple jet operations?
INV & EXT seem strange route choices, whilst BHD sounds a very problematic route so there is a great deal of risk in the new LCY operation which presumably will seek to appeal to a very different market to their old LGW operation.
Time will tell if this is a good move or not.
Previous comments in the thread suggest there won't be any competition to DUB but I thought CityJet still flew that route & aren't planning to exit in which case can a Q400 really compete on a route which offers multiple jet operations?
INV & EXT seem strange route choices, whilst BHD sounds a very problematic route so there is a great deal of risk in the new LCY operation which presumably will seek to appeal to a very different market to their old LGW operation.
Time will tell if this is a good move or not.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dash may compete with the jets in terms of cost but not in terms of passenger appeal. When FlyBe only operated the Dash-8 on the BHX-DUS route I always opted for Lufthansa (Eurowings) and their CRJ-900. I only tolerate turboprops when there's no other choice.
This is an "interesting" move to say the least. 4 x daily with one aircraft on EDI-LCY up against the BA schedule - with three jets serving the route at peak times - looks doomed to fail. Yields on INV and BHD will need to be reasonably good to support a Q400 on that length of sector, and as for EXT-LCY - what was someone smoking when they came up with that one?
The E175 and E195 cannot operate at LCY, essentially with having the same engines but higher structural weights. This will be a Q400 operation only.
I'm also intrigued to see how the new BHX-KEF will work. With a long E175 sector anyway, it must be severely limiting due to availability of suitable alternates in the night for KEF. This was one of the reasons why a couple of airlines pulled KEF services in the past due to the need to take div fuel for Glasgow.
As someone said, I wonder why they didn't consider SEN for the new London routes given vacant routes from GLA, EDI and BHD - all existing Flybe bases. As someone else said, I'm glad I'm not a Flybe shareholder.
The E175 and E195 cannot operate at LCY, essentially with having the same engines but higher structural weights. This will be a Q400 operation only.
I'm also intrigued to see how the new BHX-KEF will work. With a long E175 sector anyway, it must be severely limiting due to availability of suitable alternates in the night for KEF. This was one of the reasons why a couple of airlines pulled KEF services in the past due to the need to take div fuel for Glasgow.
As someone said, I wonder why they didn't consider SEN for the new London routes given vacant routes from GLA, EDI and BHD - all existing Flybe bases. As someone else said, I'm glad I'm not a Flybe shareholder.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting the E175 certified would require spending a large amount of cash! I believe it can only be done by Embraer who I wouldn't have thought were interested unless there was a good financial reason.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDI-LCY is suicide on a prop against the BA schedule. This may actually be the dumbest thing I have seen in recent years, what with Virgin flooding the LHR market with Little Red as well. A Dash 8 from London to Edinburgh or the most generous seat pitch in domestic travel on a CFE ERJ190. Let me think.....
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say if I were flying LCY-EDI I can't think why I'd opt for FlyBe over BA. As already commented on, turboprops have less passenger appeal than jets. Also I presume the journey time will be longer so unless the price is significantly lower, which seems up unlikely I can't see how the route can work.
Given the competition on most of the other planned routes, albeit from other 'London' airports in most cases and on jet aircraft, FlyBe look like facing an uphill struggle with their LCY ops. I have to say, I find the choices made by the airline to be very strange.
Given the competition on most of the other planned routes, albeit from other 'London' airports in most cases and on jet aircraft, FlyBe look like facing an uphill struggle with their LCY ops. I have to say, I find the choices made by the airline to be very strange.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if the fare with Flybe was significantly lower?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nextprop, I did put that caveat in my comment but realistically how much lower than BA can Flybe afford to be? Are operating costs on a Q400 which seeats fewer passengers than the EMB's operated by BA sufficiently lower to enable them to price at a level which will encourage people to use them rather than BA?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DHC8-Q400 is not one for loco fares once you add up the taxes.
British Airways charges very high fares on LCY-EDI. It would appear to be very profitable for them.
Once the restructuring at Flybe has been completed, combined with the use of more fuel efficient, higher density turboprops, Flybe ought to be able to achieve significantly lower fares which reflects a lower average seat cost.
I appreciate there is a lot of skepticism about this new operation. It is a bold move. A bit a healthy competition should be seen as a positive development. The professional judgement of Flybe's management team ought not, in my eyes, be dismissed so drastically.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from schedule, the big challenge in luring away business passengers from BA on LCY-EDI will be the frequent flyer programme.
IAG claims the LCY operation has the highest proportion of Silver and Gold Executive club members compared to LGW and LHR.
As a five year deal has been agreed on landing charges, reading between the lines, I assume FlyBe has got a deal from the airport who must have been concerned about it becoming a BACF stranglehold.
IAG claims the LCY operation has the highest proportion of Silver and Gold Executive club members compared to LGW and LHR.
As a five year deal has been agreed on landing charges, reading between the lines, I assume FlyBe has got a deal from the airport who must have been concerned about it becoming a BACF stranglehold.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In the mines
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to confirm, the only way you will get a 175 into City is to chop off a section of fuselage behind the main gear (also called a 170!!) 
it's not a weight issue.
Secondly. I agree a q400 is cheaper to run than an E Jet. So let make a estimate (these are guesses so please don't pull them apart!!) and say that it is £6 per head cheaper for an EDI LCY flight. If this was therefore £20 vs £14, that is a big percentage saving and worth a look. When you add APD though and this say becomes £74 vs £80, I can't see many people wanting saves those few pennies suffering the seat pitch of a q400 vs the BA 190.
it's not a weight issue. Secondly. I agree a q400 is cheaper to run than an E Jet. So let make a estimate (these are guesses so please don't pull them apart!!) and say that it is £6 per head cheaper for an EDI LCY flight. If this was therefore £20 vs £14, that is a big percentage saving and worth a look. When you add APD though and this say becomes £74 vs £80, I can't see many people wanting saves those few pennies suffering the seat pitch of a q400 vs the BA 190.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe ought to be able to achieve significantly lower fares which reflects a lower average seat cost.