ISLE OF MAN
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY x 6 daily to wherever, equals 56,000 seats a month. Not much trade left there for anyone else. Manx2 might retain a few scraps into their niche markets, but likely there'd be no other IOM based aircraft; no red eyes to anywhere; no late evening flights back; no meaningful competition; little choice; no local airline jobs.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
Last edited by Tonyq; 23rd Apr 2012 at 19:27.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Easyjet did operate IOM to LPL, MAN and LGW twice daily, Flybe would not remain and there would not be customer choice on those routes. No chance both airlines could profitably operate with those kind of schedules.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree... recent States of Guernsey study stated the obvious and showed that high frequency, fewer seats is essential for such islands to remain competitive in terms of good links. easyJet is a lovely idea but they are contrained by demand to IOM and also slots available at LGW. Having Dash 8s and Embraer 175s on key routes to London, Liverpool and Manchester seems a better idea than flooding the market with a glut A319 seats, or just having fewer frequencies.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: westone
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big fat director spent £46m of tax payer’s money on a runway extension to attract “Bigger Aircraft”.
Oh dear what a silly innocent waste of public money, she will now reap the reward of an Easy Jet dominated Isle of Man at the expense of locally based tax paying crew, passengers and operators.
Please sack her before she turns Ronaldsway into another Sheffield airport.
Oh dear what a silly innocent waste of public money, she will now reap the reward of an Easy Jet dominated Isle of Man at the expense of locally based tax paying crew, passengers and operators.
Please sack her before she turns Ronaldsway into another Sheffield airport.
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
She didn't do it on her own, westone. There will be board members and govt equally as supportive of the plan.
It's just that, Standard Operating Procedures for anyone with teh title 'MD' or 'CEO' is BIGGER. They cannot help themselves. The era of slow, steady expansion whilst not upsetting the applecart was torched in the 1990s.
It's just that, Standard Operating Procedures for anyone with teh title 'MD' or 'CEO' is BIGGER. They cannot help themselves. The era of slow, steady expansion whilst not upsetting the applecart was torched in the 1990s.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The era of slow, steady expansion whilst not upsetting the applecart was torched in the 1990s.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy IIRC it was her predecessor who uttered the phrase "to do nothing is not an option" when the scheme was first announced. I still remain puzzled though as to how other airports with more challenging surroundings will create RESAs - JER and LCY come immediately to mind.
lfc84 That's an interesting link. It is the first time I have seen a firm statement that the runway was extended. Albeit with the use of starter strips. Also interesting is the comment that the new structure now meets the full recommendations of CAP168 ch3 p5 "which sets out the recommended dimensions..". My italics, but note "recommended" not "mandatory".
So Easyjet are now going to help themselves to more of the low hanging fruit. Let's hope Tonyq's point that the additional seat capacity at about the same as the now lost LCY traffic means that FlyBe's loads (and importantly yield) are not adversely hit, and that they maintain frequency. However I could see LTN loads suffering - much of that traffic is no doubt price sensitive.
Cloud1 I think the "willy nilly" cancelation comment by S1K may have been inspired by the removal of some services from the timetable beyond the usual February/early March period. For example the 0950 Tuesday and 1355 Wednesday LGW rotations have been dropped til 1 May. For those of us who travel often it is frustrating to plan a trip and then find that the flight you want to take isn't running because there's not an "r" in the month or something. And of course the reduction in frequency means fuller planes, which the booking system translates into higher fares which the public and Tinwald rightly criticise.
Punctuality remains most important. Comment has been made before concerning the removal of one airframe from the island and the impact that this will have on punctuality. And specifically by serving BHX by a BHX based aircraft will cause problems. Yesterday the BHX morning service was 3 hours late presumably due to a tech aircraft at BHX. That's on a Monday when your business travellers are starting their week, and they won't be happy having to rearrange their schedules or incurring extra costs because of failure to catch onward flights. Under the old regime there was a gap in the schedule of the Island based airframes to deal with such a problem. Oh and the early morning inbound LGW was nearly 4 hours late. There just doesn't seem to be any slack in the daily flying programme or sufficient standby aircraft to cope with the (inevitable) tech Q400.
I said in an earlier post that I don't particularly like FlyBe. That is not to say I don't like their people - without exception so far I have found those who present the public face of FlyBe to be pleasant and good ambassadors for the organisation. But I do find some of FlyBe's business practices annoying - tinkering with the schedules, constructing the charging system to extract the maximum amount of dosh from the less worldly wise, for example. I'm sorry if that upsets the guys and gals working hard to make FlyBe a success. But management can't operate what you refer to a "lifeline" only when it suits them to do so and then expect praise.
lfc84 That's an interesting link. It is the first time I have seen a firm statement that the runway was extended. Albeit with the use of starter strips. Also interesting is the comment that the new structure now meets the full recommendations of CAP168 ch3 p5 "which sets out the recommended dimensions..". My italics, but note "recommended" not "mandatory".
So Easyjet are now going to help themselves to more of the low hanging fruit. Let's hope Tonyq's point that the additional seat capacity at about the same as the now lost LCY traffic means that FlyBe's loads (and importantly yield) are not adversely hit, and that they maintain frequency. However I could see LTN loads suffering - much of that traffic is no doubt price sensitive.
Cloud1 I think the "willy nilly" cancelation comment by S1K may have been inspired by the removal of some services from the timetable beyond the usual February/early March period. For example the 0950 Tuesday and 1355 Wednesday LGW rotations have been dropped til 1 May. For those of us who travel often it is frustrating to plan a trip and then find that the flight you want to take isn't running because there's not an "r" in the month or something. And of course the reduction in frequency means fuller planes, which the booking system translates into higher fares which the public and Tinwald rightly criticise.
Punctuality remains most important. Comment has been made before concerning the removal of one airframe from the island and the impact that this will have on punctuality. And specifically by serving BHX by a BHX based aircraft will cause problems. Yesterday the BHX morning service was 3 hours late presumably due to a tech aircraft at BHX. That's on a Monday when your business travellers are starting their week, and they won't be happy having to rearrange their schedules or incurring extra costs because of failure to catch onward flights. Under the old regime there was a gap in the schedule of the Island based airframes to deal with such a problem. Oh and the early morning inbound LGW was nearly 4 hours late. There just doesn't seem to be any slack in the daily flying programme or sufficient standby aircraft to cope with the (inevitable) tech Q400.
I said in an earlier post that I don't particularly like FlyBe. That is not to say I don't like their people - without exception so far I have found those who present the public face of FlyBe to be pleasant and good ambassadors for the organisation. But I do find some of FlyBe's business practices annoying - tinkering with the schedules, constructing the charging system to extract the maximum amount of dosh from the less worldly wise, for example. I'm sorry if that upsets the guys and gals working hard to make FlyBe a success. But management can't operate what you refer to a "lifeline" only when it suits them to do so and then expect praise.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe do change things around after published time. I know things do change with schedules but I have family coming over for TT and had schedule changed 3 times by Flybe, even trying to make them pay more after it was fully booked. A quick quote of European Law and they backed down but just because the TT will be a cash cow for them, I do find this very bad customer relations.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Isle Of Man
Age: 40
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe are definitely having it away on LGW now that LCY & SOU have finished
. Loads have jumped and fares are through the roof but I suppose this makes up for the hit on LPL
When do we get a jet on LGW from FlyBe? shurely it will be before EZY start up
. Loads have jumped and fares are through the roof but I suppose this makes up for the hit on LPL When do we get a jet on LGW from FlyBe? shurely it will be before EZY start up
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe. It was thought that Flybe BRS-IOM was not going to operate this summer and was going to be axed along with the SOU.
Incidentally, some believed that when Eastern ceased flying BRS-IOM a few years ago shortly after Manx2 commenced the Gloucester route it was because the Manx2 fares were considerably lower than Eastern's.
I flew with Flybe from BRS to IOM last week and was chatting with an IOM-based couple on the flight who, in conversation, said they were using the BRS route because Manx2 from Gloucester was significantly more expensive.
Have the fares risen substantially?
Incidentally, some believed that when Eastern ceased flying BRS-IOM a few years ago shortly after Manx2 commenced the Gloucester route it was because the Manx2 fares were considerably lower than Eastern's.
I flew with Flybe from BRS to IOM last week and was chatting with an IOM-based couple on the flight who, in conversation, said they were using the BRS route because Manx2 from Gloucester was significantly more expensive.
Have the fares risen substantially?
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
I was very surprised that the original BRS service closed. It provided better acces to the South West than having to use EXE/MAN/IOM or, back in the day, PLH. It was a niche certainly but had a very wide catchment and I always thought that the route had more pax in it than it was carrying. Perhaps the cost of finding that niche was just too great but routes take time to build - as anyone in the airline world knows.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Middle of Nowhere!
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard rumours that easy will start night stopping a 319 next summer? Mmmm early LGW perhaps?
They are rumoured to be lookin at Man IOM as 170,000 PAx carried on that route last year.
Flybe have had it too good for so long, time for a taste of there own medicine
They are rumoured to be lookin at Man IOM as 170,000 PAx carried on that route last year.
Flybe have had it too good for so long, time for a taste of there own medicine
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyBe are really stuck between a rock and a hard place, aren't they?
Aer Arran's pullout means there are now some 5000 of their former pax wanting to go to/from London who have no choice but to use FlyBe. Does FlyBe have the capacity to carry them? Dunno, but when EuroManx closed it became next to impossible to get seats on some rotations, even at full price. The Friday afternoon/evening rotations were a particular problem. And because the loads will be higher so will the ticket price. So the Manx public will no doubt become vocal in their criticism, and the politico's will jump on the bandwagon and demand FlyBe provide more capacity.
But these are the same public and politico's who have encouraged Easyjet to start on the LGW route in October. Even if FlyBe could find an additional airframe and a pair of LGW slots, why on earth should they bother?
Of course they might deploy an E195, but there isn't one available, and the locally based crews aren't (I assume) qualified to fly it. Maybe they could use one to operate the mid morning/lunchtime rotation from LGW, and use the local Q400 to replace whatever the E195 was doing before. But that would screw up the rostering.
It will be unfortunate to see FlyBe's reputation suffer during this summer at a time when they need all the goodwill they can get to deal with the soon to arrive Easyjet competition.
Aer Arran's pullout means there are now some 5000 of their former pax wanting to go to/from London who have no choice but to use FlyBe. Does FlyBe have the capacity to carry them? Dunno, but when EuroManx closed it became next to impossible to get seats on some rotations, even at full price. The Friday afternoon/evening rotations were a particular problem. And because the loads will be higher so will the ticket price. So the Manx public will no doubt become vocal in their criticism, and the politico's will jump on the bandwagon and demand FlyBe provide more capacity.
But these are the same public and politico's who have encouraged Easyjet to start on the LGW route in October. Even if FlyBe could find an additional airframe and a pair of LGW slots, why on earth should they bother?
Of course they might deploy an E195, but there isn't one available, and the locally based crews aren't (I assume) qualified to fly it. Maybe they could use one to operate the mid morning/lunchtime rotation from LGW, and use the local Q400 to replace whatever the E195 was doing before. But that would screw up the rostering.
It will be unfortunate to see FlyBe's reputation suffer during this summer at a time when they need all the goodwill they can get to deal with the soon to arrive Easyjet competition.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of questions:-
- Do EZY routinely night stop aircraft and crews down route, with associated costs?
- Would their model support chasing a passengers group who include a proportion requiring assistance, lift on/lift off etc, and accomodate frequent booking changes, often at short notice?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubt it Tony Q.
Flybe opening new base in EMA, where will those a/c come from? If you get your wish on the island and EASY get those routes , prices will go sky high, A319's aren't fuel efficient on those short sectors!!!! You will also never get the convenient flight times that you get from locally based a/c !!!!
Careful what you wish for Flybe haters!!!!!
Flybe opening new base in EMA, where will those a/c come from? If you get your wish on the island and EASY get those routes , prices will go sky high, A319's aren't fuel efficient on those short sectors!!!! You will also never get the convenient flight times that you get from locally based a/c !!!!
Careful what you wish for Flybe haters!!!!!