FlyBe - 6
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's really as bad as a lot of people are making out. Revenue growth is sluggish and not picking up as expected, but it's not falling. Profits aren't there but the losses are relatively small.
Given that the economy is flat or shrinking and has been in a similar state for a number of years its not surprising that things aren't quite as they could be. However, Flybe are in a good position and as soon as the economy picks up (if it ever does!) things should start to improve fairly quickly.
Of course there are always savings to be made, but the suggestion that their should be a mass cull of routes and aircraft seems like a bit much to me. Holding steady with sensible adjustments is probably the best way to go.
Given that the economy is flat or shrinking and has been in a similar state for a number of years its not surprising that things aren't quite as they could be. However, Flybe are in a good position and as soon as the economy picks up (if it ever does!) things should start to improve fairly quickly.
Of course there are always savings to be made, but the suggestion that their should be a mass cull of routes and aircraft seems like a bit much to me. Holding steady with sensible adjustments is probably the best way to go.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JC25, thats the whole point. If LCC's can't make it work during the down times then they have no business. Especially this tim around since it could be a very prolonged economic slowing.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BHX
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the BHX experiment with Menzies isn't working. 13th August was an unlucky day for Menzies as BE served a 30 day improvement notice. I also hear that the Airport are preparing to take action but haven't had that confirmed yet as the poor service this morning seems to have been the final straw!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 41
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many staff from Jersey European are still at Flybe? Does this have an impact on the culture? They have a good business model and unique set of routes but if they don't have the mind-set of cost control then they will fall at the hurdle that is the longest economic slump in history.
There are a lot of so called managers....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe is not a LCC. It's a niche regional airline that relies heavily on business travellers. Leisure traffic traditionally targeted by traditional LCCs is not a huge part of Flybe's business, although of course it's still an important part of the mix.
Flybe has a good business model. Before the downturn/recession thy were profitable and have posted marginal losses recently. As th economy picks up, there is no reason to suspect that profits will not return. It's just a waiting game.
They have however announced they plan to close the LGW base in October although this affects only one Q400 and 30 crew.
Flybe has a good business model. Before the downturn/recession thy were profitable and have posted marginal losses recently. As th economy picks up, there is no reason to suspect that profits will not return. It's just a waiting game.
They have however announced they plan to close the LGW base in October although this affects only one Q400 and 30 crew.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routes
I am with JC25 on this one, things are tough but they seem to have made some good decisions route wise of late, which certainly should help revenue such as EMA-GLA, EDI, AMS, JER & CDG plus BHX - AMS and the cancellation of BHX-HAM, MAN-BRU which have competitors.
The EMA flights averaged between five and ten thousand a month on 737's, with reasonable fares and hopefully flybe will make money where BMI Baby allegedly didn't (Not sure which routes were the real loss-makers)
I can't comment too much on the cancellation of FRA or NOC-LBA but load factors were not great.
I assume the MAN-BRU aircraft is shifting to GLA to operate the EMA and the next 175 goes to EDI to operate the SOU and the Q400 shifts to to EDI-EMA?
The only surprise is that EMA-AMS doesn't start at double daily and that should indicate that they don't want to prune any other routes to make way for it and would rather wait for further deliveries.
The one department that probably could see expansion is Q400 maintenance. The day I flew out on Monarch to Venice four out of eight early morning BHX departures were delayed with no estimate for departures.
Things have slightly improved and it doesn't seem to be lack of aircraft. BHX had ten 195's through yesterday but a couple only operating between two and four sectors if you take out positioning legs to Finland for one of them.
I would imagine operations also earn their corn with the amount of aircraft changes something probably not lost on Menzies at BHX.
Pete
The EMA flights averaged between five and ten thousand a month on 737's, with reasonable fares and hopefully flybe will make money where BMI Baby allegedly didn't (Not sure which routes were the real loss-makers)
I can't comment too much on the cancellation of FRA or NOC-LBA but load factors were not great.
I assume the MAN-BRU aircraft is shifting to GLA to operate the EMA and the next 175 goes to EDI to operate the SOU and the Q400 shifts to to EDI-EMA?
The only surprise is that EMA-AMS doesn't start at double daily and that should indicate that they don't want to prune any other routes to make way for it and would rather wait for further deliveries.
The one department that probably could see expansion is Q400 maintenance. The day I flew out on Monarch to Venice four out of eight early morning BHX departures were delayed with no estimate for departures.
Things have slightly improved and it doesn't seem to be lack of aircraft. BHX had ten 195's through yesterday but a couple only operating between two and four sectors if you take out positioning legs to Finland for one of them.
I would imagine operations also earn their corn with the amount of aircraft changes something probably not lost on Menzies at BHX.
Pete
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There certainly seems to be an issue with lack of aircraft at the moment and I suspect that is a driving force behind culling some routes that are under performing in favour of new routes or increased contract flying (Brussels Airlines).
Now that there are plans to close LGW base, that will free up an extra Q400 so that may help. They don't only need extra aircraft for the EMA ops, but also two more for Brussels Airlines from Sep/Oct.
Now that there are plans to close LGW base, that will free up an extra Q400 so that may help. They don't only need extra aircraft for the EMA ops, but also two more for Brussels Airlines from Sep/Oct.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Planet Mars
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now closing LGW base! Very sorry to hear that for all involved.
Why couldn't they put a jet in there?!
If they can't make it work at the second busiest airport in the country, what chance. Just rely on marginal regional routes??!
Is this a return to the bad old days, base closures, route cutting, desperate to save money( see lack of pay rises, no new epos, no new uniform as they cant afford it, says the chief pilot), profits falling and staff starting to move on to better companies as the industry starts to recover!!!
Why couldn't they put a jet in there?!
If they can't make it work at the second busiest airport in the country, what chance. Just rely on marginal regional routes??!
Is this a return to the bad old days, base closures, route cutting, desperate to save money( see lack of pay rises, no new epos, no new uniform as they cant afford it, says the chief pilot), profits falling and staff starting to move on to better companies as the industry starts to recover!!!
They have however announced they plan to close the LGW base in October although this affects only one Q400 and 30 crew.
I couldn't find anything from Google, but given the comments from Jim French to Bloomberg last week, it wouldn't surprise me
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Co
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would take a guess that the LGW base is closing due to the costs for landing aircraft, £1400 per aircraft movement no matter weither its a DH4 or A380, seems a bit steep, i would hazard a guess as to this is why they are closing their gatwick base.
(aircraft movement price as per gatwick website)
(aircraft movement price as per gatwick website)
Why close the base though??
Why not put an e jet in?? That alone would encourage more passengers.
Are they not cutting any other flights into Gatwick aswell?
Surely if the price is too high then all flights should be stopped by Flybe rather than just the based aircraft??
Seems like double standards and yet again the hard working Flybe crews lose out again!!!!
Why not put an e jet in?? That alone would encourage more passengers.
Are they not cutting any other flights into Gatwick aswell?
Surely if the price is too high then all flights should be stopped by Flybe rather than just the based aircraft??
Seems like double standards and yet again the hard working Flybe crews lose out again!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you think that BE's Commercial and Operations Departments won't have already crunched the numbers and considered your 'options', very extensively prior to making these decisions/announcements?
I don't work in aviation, but it seems likely to me that a single based aircraft simply lacks 'critical mass' in an operation like BE, where margins are thin, or even non-existent.
Some of their adjustments to the network seem to be driven by the need to redeploy assets to routes with more potential,and don't necessarily mean the lost routes are losing money.
I'd be very surprised if BE pay the rate off the website. They may not have the leverage of EZY but they are still a sizeable player.
I have heard that one of the reasons that LGW don't favour them is that their domestic PAX (like me) don't spend enough money in the dreadful shops and over-priced restaurants.
I don't work in aviation, but it seems likely to me that a single based aircraft simply lacks 'critical mass' in an operation like BE, where margins are thin, or even non-existent.
Some of their adjustments to the network seem to be driven by the need to redeploy assets to routes with more potential,and don't necessarily mean the lost routes are losing money.
I'd be very surprised if BE pay the rate off the website. They may not have the leverage of EZY but they are still a sizeable player.
I have heard that one of the reasons that LGW don't favour them is that their domestic PAX (like me) don't spend enough money in the dreadful shops and over-priced restaurants.
In the last 2 years, assuming a DH4 with an 85% load factor, *published* landing fees at Gatwick have gone from approx £10 per passenger to £22. Swap a DH4 for an E195 and the *published* cost goes down to £15 per passenger. Upgauge to an A319 with 85% load factor and the published landing fee is £11
Presumably this would encourage BE to drop or reduce frequency on a good chunk of the weaker and thinner routes. If you shrink operations to a significant degree, is it still worth the overhead incurred in being a base ?
As an aside, what's the likelihood of Easyjet trying to muscle their way onto the Gatwick-Jersey and Gatwick-IoM routes ?
Presumably this would encourage BE to drop or reduce frequency on a good chunk of the weaker and thinner routes. If you shrink operations to a significant degree, is it still worth the overhead incurred in being a base ?
As an aside, what's the likelihood of Easyjet trying to muscle their way onto the Gatwick-Jersey and Gatwick-IoM routes ?
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 14th Aug 2012 at 14:59.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes you just have to admit that something doesn't work!