Originally Posted by
Wycombe
Maybe not entirely. They were constantly having to cancel flights and change/reduce their schedule (sometimes at short notice), at least partly because there were persistent delays with aircraft due for delivery, and coming out of maintenance. Some of the ex-Flybe Mk1 aircraft that they were due to take could not be as they were not in a fit state after 2 years parked on cold/wet European airfields, allegedly.
Had some of those aircraft been available in a more timely fashion, they could have built resilience and a more reliable schedule, which may have delivered more revenue and resulted in less of the costs (which must have been significant) associated with frequent cancellations. Attempts were made to mitigate by bringing in aircraft from LOT, for example, but the damage was probably already done.
Having said all that, some of the route decisions seemed odd to say the least. None of that was the fault of the people operating the service, who didn't deserve the situation that has now transpired.
To make a difference those 17 frames would have to cover their variable costs and make a contribution to the fixed costs. If they had already picked the best routes and weren’t covering the variable costs, where are you going to place the extra frames where they are going to do anything except lose more money? This was the problem with Flybe 1, they were operating aircraft where revenue was less than total cost and eventually the money runs out.
I suspect that if Cyrus had seen aircraft at least covering their variable cost, it would have been a reason to put in more capital to cover the fixed costs and continue increasing the size of the fleet.