Originally Posted by
Flightrider
You are, of course, correct about the relative capacities of the 146-300 and the E195. The difference is really that you could afford to park the former during periods of slack demand given the low capital but relatively high operating costs of the 146. You had to fly the nuts off the 195s to make a high capital cost but low operating cost aircraft work, and if the market demand isn't there to sustain the flying, the economics turn against you pretty quickly.
I suspect if we were to list out all the reasons why Flybe failed, these would be on the list but by no means alone. I am not volunteering to start the list though, nor do I think it is helpful to anyone at this point in time. The Embraer deals were undoubtedly part of the problem and not the solution, but they count amongst many reasons for Flybe's failure.
I wonder how cheap the capital cost if the 146 fleet would have been, at the time? They were a 'current' aircraft and in reasonable demand. As I remember BE were the launch customer for the updated RJX too, which was cancelled after 9/11. I don't think the E-195 is considered an aircraft with a low operating cost? Apparently, like-for-like the per-seat operational costs of a 195 are higher than an A319 and nearly the same as an A320. In an age where even Lufthansa fit 180 seats on their A320s, the cost delta cannot be justified. Especially in price-sensitive markets, which Wizz and FR are cost-leaders in. The irony is that if flyBe had been a retail organisation they could have used tools like CVA or pre-pack administration to stabilise around the Q400s and UK domestic travel. Because the CAA required companies going through such restructurings to surrender their operational licences they could not realign their cost-base to their revenue reality.
The loss of flyBe is a real shame for the UK, although a lot of routes will be replaced, with time. The cost for employees is high.