FlyBe - 6

[OltonPete]

BHX-AMS

Occams Razor

It should start with the 175 as the first outbound on a Sunday is scheduled with the 175 every week. All other flights are on the Q400.

Seat map shows 88 seats on the first flight with 43 taken thus far (not sure if they block an off on the 175)

Rivet Joint I suppose only time will tell if it was a good move or not. BHX to EDI & GLA pax did fall slightly in the first month of the EMA flights (Sept) but these services have been trending downwards in general in recent times.

Pete

[JobsaGoodun]

but why set up a tiny base at EMA at the expense of a long standing and better airport in BHX?

If the question is why go into EMA? then I would say that the main reason is to prevent anyone else seizing an opportunity to come in, and begin tempting passengers away from Flybe's BHX routes. Far from this being a threat to Flybe's BHX operation, I see it as a way of bolstering this and making it more defendable. At least this way whether the preference for the passenger is EMA or BHX, Flybe gets the revenue!

The EMA routes taken on by Flybe were warm and well supported. It is impossible to know if Baby were using the EMA domestics to subsidise their other EMA services, or the other way around, but Flybe clearly believe that they have the right high frequency business model, with the right fleet to make routes like this work and given that Flybe dominate regional services outside of London within the UK, I'd have to say that they're probably right.

On the subject of BHDIOM, although this was a Flybe branded service, the decision to operate will have been Loganair's. I'm sure there would have been discussion with Flybe but it would have been Loganair that saw and opportunity and bore the operational costs if the route lost money. This is the case in most franchise operations. All Flybe licence or influence is the use of their brand - they would not make the operational decisions.

In respect of LGW, then I guess whatever will happen, will happen. Running 2 Q400 flights per day, one morning and one evening to provide decent business links will cost more than a once a day Airbus service proposed from EZY. As a result, flybe will have to charge more to cover their costs.

For the business user, if Flybe were to dip out then this could result in the end of day-trips to LGW, or much reduced time in London as it would be very likely that EZY would base their aircraft at LGW rather than IOM. Overnight stays would be required with all the associated costs. There will always be those who are happy to pay for the convenience and those who won't. It's impossible to say at this stage what the situation will be.

....but using ABZLGW as an example, this route is being closed by BE, a route that offered 3 flights per day. EZY are continuing their twice daily service but critically, they are not basing the aircraft in ABZ, choosing instead to keep thi in LGW. The first flight ex ABZ will no longer arrive LGW at 0830am, instead it will be 11am with EZY and rather than a choice of return flights to ABZ at 1630 and 1930 there is just one at 1800hrs. Sure the prices are cheaper and for many this is all they will be concerned about but ABZ business travellers can always jump on BA to LHR - in the IOM that choice isn't there.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see but EZY are no saviour and AirLCY raises a valid point that once they have the market, the costs will rise. Are Flybe the cheapest around....no they're not but they do provide local jobs to local residents in the IOM which EZY most likely will not.

[Rivet Joint]

All good points I must say and I would like to stress my opinion is just my own personal one.

I totally agree with the franchises, great way to get your company more exposure with less of the capital risk.

In terms of the smaller neighbouring bases I see the argument for getting in to prevent a competitor setting up on your doorstep but in my view if you have the better airport then just focus on creating that as an overwhelming force to be reckoned with. I am pretty sure many other airlines have created precedents where setting up a small base near by a larger one dilutes the overall yields of the larger base which means the overall operation i.e. ground service costs, number of based aircraft costs etc has to be reduced to fall in line. This inevitably leads to a large base becoming a medium one as the facilities a big base requires become unsustainable. Obviously this is just my opinion but BHX certainly seems to be reducing at an alarming rate?

Also I don't think BE have ever come across as a true low cost carrier, they are mainly about supply and demand.

[Serenity]

With Flybe Finland now in One World, will and when will Flybe UK join??

[CabinCrewe]

Must be a reason they have never been part of OW before, and as nothing has changed ie in terms of UK ownership stakes etc- I cant see it changing anytime soon. As much as I would like it.

[davidjohnson6]

Given the costs involved - both paying membership fees, and also changing back office systems, never mind things like lounges, why would Flybe UK want to join OneWorld when they don't fly to Heathrow ?

[Buster the Bear]

I bet Flybe wish they had the 'balls' to do what the Flyer operation has become at London City for BA. Probably too late now!

[redED]

With Flybe Finland now in One World, will and when will Flybe UK join??

Was under the impression they were only an affiliate members and only on flights they're operating for Finnair.

[VeroFlyer]

Had the "balls" to do what City Flyer have done at LCY? And what exactly do you mean by that and how does it relate to Flybe?!

[JobsaGoodun]

I bet Flybe wish they had the 'balls' to do what the Flyer operation has become at London City for BA.

Perhaps......but is this assuming that Cityflyer are making money at LCY?
Is there any evidence to suggest that they are?

[V_2]

Is there any evidence to suggest that they are?

You mean evidence other than CityFlyer ordering 15 brand new aircraft, starting their own MPL cadet scheme and a 41% increase in PAX numbers last year despite the reccession? I predict they are doing ok.

When Flybe acquired BA Connect, did BA decide to hold onto LCY or Flybe refuse to take it (eg, not fitting with their overall buissiness model)?

[JobsaGoodun]

You mean evidence other than CityFlyer ordering 15 brand new aircraft, starting their own MPL cadet scheme and a 41% increase in PAX numbers last year despite the reccession?

Evidence of a growing business, but not necessarily a profitable one.

V_2 not having a dig and meant as some light-hearted banter. I think you could be very right, Flybe had already been at LCY and perhaps this business was a better fit for the BA model than that of Flybe, but I would certainly say that that the bun fight between Cityflyer and Cityjet will have been a costly one, made somewhat easier for Cityflyer to win with the Embraer coming into the fleet.

[vectisman]

I do hope Flybe are at least looking at the Manchester-Gatwick route. Could do well as a 3 or 4 times daily on an EMB 195. Timed for business, point to point and transfers to BA long haul would help along with a BA codeshare.
I know Flybe and Gatwick are not best pals at the moment but this could be a way forward.
V.

[vectisman]

I have followed the fortunes of Flybe for several years and have flown with them many times. Disappointing to see them retract somewhat recently. Personally I do not think they should give up too easily at Gatwick.
From London's second airport they need to focus more on using EMB 175 and EMB 195s. I am sure Newcastle would grow passenger numbers with improved frequency and product. Concerned they didn't fight more to keep Aberdeen traffic, but at least they seem to be willing to fight for their share of the LGW-BHD market. I know LGW charges do not encourage aircraft with less than 100 seats but the management there must realise that if they want more long haul full service carriers connections from elsewhere in the UK need to be maintained/improved. EasyJet and BA do not have the right size aircraft for some destinations within the UK.
Maybe I just want to see Flybe being more pro-active and acting nmore confidently as a large regional carrier!
V

[davidjohnson6]

Might I point out that the train from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly runs every 20 mins throughout the day and takes under 2h10. Stockport (close to Manchester airport) by train to Euston takes 1h55. From Euston to London Bridge takes 20 mins by tube and then another 30 mins by train to Gatwick.
Flying to Gatwick there is very little possibility to formally connect onto another flight.

Even if flying from Manchester to Sussex is a bit faster in terms of time, the train gives a less interrupted journey and a chance to do something productive.

Along with the increased landing charges, why would flyBE want to run a LGW-MAN route when they've recently cut LGW-ABZ ?

[Aero Mad]

davidjohnson6, have you seen the cost of a London-Manchester return or vice versa? Flybe would often beat it. Also,

Along with the increased landing charges, why would flyBE want to run a LGW-MAN route when they've recently cut LGW-ABZ ?

Perhaps because there wouldn't be the Big Orange sitting next to them competing? Bear in mind that the increased charges are particularly bad for the DH4 but not so much for the E95 due to the latter's greater size.

[VeroFlyer]

Tie up with VA in the pipeline perhaps?!

[Leg]

I know LGW charges do not encourage aircraft with less than 100 seats

It is actually 150 seats hence the tango lot get over the line & have gatters sewn up to the regions

[IOMspotter]

it looks like EZY are turning the heat up again on BE and there IOM routes and increasing their LGW IOM to daily next year. Im not sure the island politicians here understand the need for frequency on mainline routes and that just a 2x daily IOM LGW is no use to businessmen.

[insuindi]

Just saw 3 BE E195 parked up in BHX next to T1/international pier, i.e. where BE wouldn't normally have it's AC idling around. Are they parked for the winter (so far was only in the know about Dashs being parked)?