FlyBE - 5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To (fly) be or not to (fly)be!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7321306.stm
oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Well with RSC part-closed (in SOA) for refurb I suppose there should have been some spare actors around.
I would not have thought Norwich could afford to upset flybe.
Pete
oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Well with RSC part-closed (in SOA) for refurb I suppose there should have been some spare actors around.
I would not have thought Norwich could afford to upset flybe.
Pete
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLYBE represent what is the sad state of aviation...everything done on the cheap,any scheme to save a few quid here or there.air travel is now just down market,public transport,many carriers offering the same service as a discount bus company.won't be long before a few of these operators disappear altogether.can't say i will be sorry to see them fold.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd blame the airport, at least in part. They put the rule in, FlyBe worked out that it was cheaper to put some fake passengers on than pay the penalty. Stupid rules often generate stupid workarounds.
Hey, I'd have gone for a week in Dublin if they'd paid me to take the flights
Hey, I'd have gone for a week in Dublin if they'd paid me to take the flights
Paxing All Over The World
But they did NOT do so in the end. From the BBC
Under the terms of the deal between the airline and the airport, the latter would impose a £280,000 penalty if Flybe did not carry 15,000 passengers on the Norwich to Dublin route during the 2007/2008 financial year. Flybe, which is based in Exeter, was 172 passengers short with the 31 March deadline approaching and the two sides could not reach a compromise.
Full story from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7321306.stm
Under the terms of the deal between the airline and the airport, the latter would impose a £280,000 penalty if Flybe did not carry 15,000 passengers on the Norwich to Dublin route during the 2007/2008 financial year. Flybe, which is based in Exeter, was 172 passengers short with the 31 March deadline approaching and the two sides could not reach a compromise.
Full story from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7321306.stm
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northern England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those being critical of the airport operator, there may be another angle to consider here. Were Flybe given improved commercial terms for operating through the airport based upon these passenger figures? Almost certainly they were and in reality they were no doubt negotiated based upon Flybe expecting to more than deliver on 15,000 passengers.
The fact that they didn't might be Flybe's fault due to their commercial planning being off the mark. Leaving it to the last minute suggests a bit of arrogance on Flybe's part that it wouldn't be an issue. Fair play to Norwich if this was the case, otherwise the contract is worthless.
The fact that they didn't might be Flybe's fault due to their commercial planning being off the mark. Leaving it to the last minute suggests a bit of arrogance on Flybe's part that it wouldn't be an issue. Fair play to Norwich if this was the case, otherwise the contract is worthless.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Diss, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Norwich Airport have to be very careful what they do, because if they don't i think Flybe might be out of there fairly soon, which would leave NWI in a very bad position, with only a few flights to Aberdeen and Amsterdam.
Altough i should think Flybe have got all the passengers they need with 4 flights today.
but i think there deal runs out on Monday, so it will be interesting to see what they agree this time.
Altough i should think Flybe have got all the passengers they need with 4 flights today.
but i think there deal runs out on Monday, so it will be interesting to see what they agree this time.
Fit like min?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as Flybe have just increaed their presence at ABZ today, I look forward to my free tickets!!
Seriously, why did the airport impose a limit & a penalty & why did Flybe agree to it?? You would think the airport needs the operator (talking generally) & not the other way around?
Seriously, why did the airport impose a limit & a penalty & why did Flybe agree to it?? You would think the airport needs the operator (talking generally) & not the other way around?
Apparently there are a few more details of the reasons behind the free (plus the £3 airport development fee
) flights in this article:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/...A25%3A11%3A687
) flights in this article:http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/...A25%3A11%3A687
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Diss, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe have got it in one.
“Flybe will 100pc offset the carbon caused by this flight and looks forward to remaining the biggest airline operating out of Norwich, even though the airports attitude to its largest customer puts this situation at risk.”
Be warned Norwich
“Flybe will 100pc offset the carbon caused by this flight and looks forward to remaining the biggest airline operating out of Norwich, even though the airports attitude to its largest customer puts this situation at risk.”
Be warned Norwich
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an airport to actively seek to go out and drum up bad publicity against an airline operating from it has to be a devastatingly bad move.
Why on earth would you do that to a customer?
This of course done by an airport that introduced a retrospective admission fee for customers, which they then have to claim back at a later date...
Why on earth would you do that to a customer?
This of course done by an airport that introduced a retrospective admission fee for customers, which they then have to claim back at a later date...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Barton Upon Humber
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Norwich Airport have to be very careful what they do, because if they don't i think Flybe might be out of there fairly soon, which would leave NWI in a very bad position, with only a few flights to Aberdeen and Amsterdam.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Newcaslte upon Tyne
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely there must have been some sort of financial incentive that norwich gave to flybe in the form of reduced landing charges perhaps if flybe get so many people through the doors...norwich should be doing everything thing that it can to keep airlines like flybe there because there are other airports around the country that would love just a slice of the action.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe Incurs the wrath of the Green lobby
Seems that the true extent of Flybe's environmental committment is not quite what its publicity machine would have you believe.
Apparently the Green Party are alleging that in order to pretend its flights are commercially subscribed they have been flying around staff and paid members of the public to masquerade as passengers in order not to incur penalties. The apparent rationale is that having failed to interest sufficient residents of Norwich to use the company Flybe are artificialy increasing pax loads so as to achieve performance targets!!!!!
Said lobby are so incensd by this revelation that it has questioned the fitness of this airline to operate and made a complaint to the CAA!
Apparently the Green Party are alleging that in order to pretend its flights are commercially subscribed they have been flying around staff and paid members of the public to masquerade as passengers in order not to incur penalties. The apparent rationale is that having failed to interest sufficient residents of Norwich to use the company Flybe are artificialy increasing pax loads so as to achieve performance targets!!!!!
Said lobby are so incensd by this revelation that it has questioned the fitness of this airline to operate and made a complaint to the CAA!
Flybe -Norwich
As usual there appears to be two sides to this.According to local TV reports Flybe had an agreement with NIA whereby they would recieve a £260k rebate if 15,000 passengers used NIA-Dublin within the year to 31/3. As they were projcted to reach 14,800 or so Flybe paid 200 people £80 each to take a free flight.As far as I can see although this is a less than desirable situation Flybe did nothing wrong.They merely adjusted their trading to meet the criteria.Had they offered reduced price flights a month earlier nothing would have been said and the number of flights would have been reached.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It almost beggars belief!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200803...s-116e0fe.html
Hey, if the route isn't viable, it isn't viable! Maybe the new slogan is "low cost, whatever the cost"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200803...s-116e0fe.html
DUBLIN (Reuters) - Flybe has given the term low-fare airline an entirely new meaning: it is paying 172 people to fly back and forth across England and the Irish Sea to help it meet a target for passenger numbers at Norwich airport.
Flybe was narrowly falling short of a target to deliver at least 15,000 passengers on the Dublin-Norwich route in the 12 months ending on Monday, which meant it would have to forego a 280,000 pound ($550,000) rebate from the airport.
After the airport rejected a request for a partial rebate for almost hitting the target, Flybe hired 172 temps for 30-40 pounds each, plus a free bar and in-flight entertainment, though it admitted "it probably sounds like an early April fool."
But Richard Jenner, managing director of the airport in eastern England, called the British carrier's move "ludicrous" and said the target had to be met by regular fare-paying passengers.
"The ludicrousness is on the Norwich side who in essence have tried to hold us to ransom, putting at risk routes into Norwich," Flybe Chief Commercial Officer Mike Rutter replied in a joint interview with Jenner on Irish public broadcaster RTE
Flybe was narrowly falling short of a target to deliver at least 15,000 passengers on the Dublin-Norwich route in the 12 months ending on Monday, which meant it would have to forego a 280,000 pound ($550,000) rebate from the airport.
After the airport rejected a request for a partial rebate for almost hitting the target, Flybe hired 172 temps for 30-40 pounds each, plus a free bar and in-flight entertainment, though it admitted "it probably sounds like an early April fool."
But Richard Jenner, managing director of the airport in eastern England, called the British carrier's move "ludicrous" and said the target had to be met by regular fare-paying passengers.
"The ludicrousness is on the Norwich side who in essence have tried to hold us to ransom, putting at risk routes into Norwich," Flybe Chief Commercial Officer Mike Rutter replied in a joint interview with Jenner on Irish public broadcaster RTE
Yes it might understandably wind-up the environmentalists, but FlyBEs action seems to have made good business sense. Why lose a significant rebate just because they were just over 1% off an imposed target? If you were in a similar situation, wouldn't you seriously consider doing likewise?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Timbucktoo
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can almost understand the economic sense of this game playing............its just the cynical shallow hypocracy of an Airline that has hijacked the green moral high ground that sucks.
But why should one be surprised?
But why should one be surprised?