Originally Posted by
ATNotts
However, I'd suggest that MXP and VRN are feasible - some years ago I did BHX-BGY in a Dash 8 and it wasn't that much of an ordeal, so MXP should be possible as well as TXL.
I think as I said, you have to look at what is realistic and realistically those routes, even though they can be done, are not very realistic on a Q400. MXP especially so due to Alpine Driftdown but also routes over 2hrs on a Q400 would be very selective.
Originally Posted by
PDXCWL45
Ok then explain to me why it's profitable now to run the routes non based when it wasn't 6 years? What's changed? Or will be get Flybe doing the same as they did in 2013 in a few years time.
I didn't really say it's profitable to run the routes non based, I was saying that they have that option should they make money. The stark reality is they may not make money even using out of base aircraft and you'll see them dropped if that's the case. I know that BHD is of particular concern, however it may continue,it may not. The winter schedule when released will be the defining teller.
Originally Posted by
ATNotts
Also Flybe operate other small bases ie Isle of Man and Newquay and Aberdeen and Glasgow yet a 2 to 3 Q400 aircraft base at Cardiff isn't viable like them?
The simple answer is no, clearly they've done the maths and it doesn't work else the base would just swap to Q400s. ABZ is a very profitable route for flybe, particularly the LHR routes so again without stating the obvious it's all down to economics. At the end of the day there could be some profitable routes out of the current list even on the ejets, but there's not enough profitable routes in it's current guise to run CWL as either an ejet or Q400 base, that much is obvious.
Originally Posted by
ATNotts
As a customer what the Flybe withdrawal means is that Flybe will become less of an option for domestic routes especially and Easyjet will become much more of an option.
What I do hope is that the airport will be able to get other airlines on many of the routes that will be lost to minimise the damage.
Amen to that, but looking at the CAA stats can you see the lost routes being viable options for airlines that will have to place more seating capacity on routes that are quite thin, especially for 156+ seat jets? Who knows.
Originally Posted by
SWBKCB
Hmmm - so the airline that bought a fleet of a/c too expensive for their network will have struck a cute deal they can easily get out of?
Remember the history behind the airline. Mr French struck deals with Embraer (or the leasing company, take your pick) that was a) unrealistic and b) virtually impossible to get out of, this was the case for the 175s and for the 195s the deal was literally impossible to get out of. Bye bye Mr French, hello Mr Hammad. Mr Hammad took a look at the lease deals and said "wtf?". It was Mr French who bough the aircraft and Mr Hammad who then struck the deal with the knowledge of what Mr French tied Flybe into for 13 years +.