FlyBe - 6
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, flybe aren't really low cost, in that the costs of their tickets are, well ....high
Overall, I thought it was quite a clever spin on what is clearly a massive strategic retrenchment overall
What do people make of the reduction in the E195s whilst still taking 175s? Is that because they have no choice to take the 175s or is there a compelling reason to have 175s over 195s?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the 195 leases were only for ten years, coming up to that soon for the first bunch.
They are taking 3 or 4 more little 'uns this year then deferring the rest until 2016 according to the latest gumpf. So not so much a replacement but more timing.
They are taking 3 or 4 more little 'uns this year then deferring the rest until 2016 according to the latest gumpf. So not so much a replacement but more timing.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the costs of their tickets are, well ....high
Last edited by G-JNHP; 23rd May 2013 at 22:04.
Norwich Airport boss offers support to struggling regional airline operator Flybe
Eastern Daily Press
Friday, May 24, 2013
Norwich Airport boss Andrew Bell pledged his support to struggling airline Flybe as it made fresh manoeuvres to cut its costs.
LINK
Eastern Daily Press
Friday, May 24, 2013
Norwich Airport boss Andrew Bell pledged his support to struggling airline Flybe as it made fresh manoeuvres to cut its costs.
LINK
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the E175 and E195 are stretched variants of the baseline models, I guess they are more challenged performance-wise when operating from LCY. The E190 also requires some mods that result in a new "SR"-subvariant (the E170 only requires a software modifivation).
Don't see BE operating from LCY anyway. If LGW has become too expensive for them, how could a move to LCY make sense? LCY is - allegedly - one of the most expensive airports in Europe.
Don't see BE operating from LCY anyway. If LGW has become too expensive for them, how could a move to LCY make sense? LCY is - allegedly - one of the most expensive airports in Europe.
Last edited by virginblue; 24th May 2013 at 21:03.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how could a move to LCY make sense? LCY is - allegedly - one of the most expensive airports in Europe.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware of that. But it does not exactly fit Flybe's branding and if there are lucrative routes not served, why shouldn't BACF or Cityjet operate them as well established LCY carriers? The problem for BE is that they simply cannot dump a multi-aircraft operation on LCY as they will not have the necessary runway and apron slots to offer a decent schedule.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it's true that LCY is an expensive airport to operate into. However, we should bear in mind that BE (in the British European days) made much of its LCY losses using -300s and smaller Dash 8 variants; 78 seats on a quieter aircraft is significantly more attractive. In any case there are enough F50, AT4, D38 and DH8 operations from LCY (SI to JER, LG to LUX and EZ to BLL being notable successes) to prove that, although partly due to its runway capacity, the charging regime must make these sorts of ops viable given the inevitably higher yields.
Now I won't get into fantasy timetable land but the following destinations might work, given no current route from LCY and potential use by previous BE LGW passengers as well as some who had used competitors' services to other LON airports (notably LHR) as point-to-point services:
INV: Competition from U2 at LGW/LTN and BA at LHR.
BHD: Competition from U2 at LGW/LTN/STN/SEN, EI at LHR/LGW and BA at LHR.
NCL: Competition from BA at LHR.
GCI: Competition from GR at LGW/STN.
NQY: Competition (thrice weekly) from U2 at SEN.
These on the premise of specific demand by business passengers and a twice or thrice daily service with early morning and evening slots using aircraft based elsewhere. It would allow BE to keep a reduced but notable London presence with higher yields off a lower (DH8) cost-base.
Now I won't get into fantasy timetable land but the following destinations might work, given no current route from LCY and potential use by previous BE LGW passengers as well as some who had used competitors' services to other LON airports (notably LHR) as point-to-point services:
INV: Competition from U2 at LGW/LTN and BA at LHR.
BHD: Competition from U2 at LGW/LTN/STN/SEN, EI at LHR/LGW and BA at LHR.
NCL: Competition from BA at LHR.
GCI: Competition from GR at LGW/STN.
NQY: Competition (thrice weekly) from U2 at SEN.
These on the premise of specific demand by business passengers and a twice or thrice daily service with early morning and evening slots using aircraft based elsewhere. It would allow BE to keep a reduced but notable London presence with higher yields off a lower (DH8) cost-base.
Last edited by Aero Mad; 25th May 2013 at 08:50.
INV: Competition from U2 at LGW/LTN and BA at LHR
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will ask again - how about slots at LCY to do all that?
The problem is that, IIRC, other than STN, there is no London airport where you can schedule a proper operation with, say, 3 or 4 flights to a new destination as there are no slots for arrivals between 0715-0815 (and the resulting departure times). Not at LHR, not at LCY, not at LTN.
The problem is that, IIRC, other than STN, there is no London airport where you can schedule a proper operation with, say, 3 or 4 flights to a new destination as there are no slots for arrivals between 0715-0815 (and the resulting departure times). Not at LHR, not at LCY, not at LTN.
Last edited by virginblue; 25th May 2013 at 09:19.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I won't get into fantasy timetable land but the following destinations might work
INV, BHD, NCL, and NQY have no connection to Canary Wharf and the City. BHD and NQY have both been tried before and both failed, Belfast very badly quite recently. NCL just about worked before the financial crash then once the sweetener route opening period was over, it just wasn't viable on a 29 seat J41. If they can't begin to fill a BE DHD from LGW that sits idle half the day, LCY is not going to make it better. INV will get left to the locos and the only one I think might be worth a bash, is Guernsey.
The issue here that might change matters is some form of sale or consolidation around the fate of CityJet.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 25th May 2013 at 12:28.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
The issue here that might change matters is some form of sale or consolidation around the fate of CityJet.
Originally Posted by scr1
And their [sic] are quite a few business passengers that do this as well as a lot that go down on Monday morning and come back Friday night.
Originally Posted by Aero Mad
NQY: Competition (thrice weekly) from U2 at SEN
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the schedule of WAT-MAN/BHX has changed on the weekly Wednesday flights to:
BHX 07:15 -WAT 08:30
WAT 08:55 - MAN 10:15
MAN 10:50 - WAT 12:10
WAT 12:35 - BHX 13:50
17-Jul-13 - 31-Jul-13
Any reason why or would it just planning ahead for some maintenance?
Does anybody know if WAT-LTN is in the pipeline at the moment?
--
--
Also on fligthglobal is that BE may be looking at switching the deferred E175's to the new re-engined versions, which may be available around 2018. Is there really any need for the Embraer's at all?
BHX 07:15 -WAT 08:30
WAT 08:55 - MAN 10:15
MAN 10:50 - WAT 12:10
WAT 12:35 - BHX 13:50
17-Jul-13 - 31-Jul-13
Any reason why or would it just planning ahead for some maintenance?
Does anybody know if WAT-LTN is in the pipeline at the moment?
--
--
Also on fligthglobal is that BE may be looking at switching the deferred E175's to the new re-engined versions, which may be available around 2018. Is there really any need for the Embraer's at all?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Re-engined versions could be a good bet, presumably not too much more expensive than the current ones, plus better economics and also a slightly longer range would both benefit Flybe.