Flybe - 7

[cornishsimon]

Good post scott737

Re the 195s
I would tend to agree that it's odd to store aircraft and still pay lease payments but then bring in 3rd party contractors to operate on flybe's behalf which happen on occasion.

What's the answer, if I knew I would work in the industry but I don't !

However. Some bases are seeing good growth, example being NQY-MAN which is now going to run at 10 weekly this summer compared to 8 last year. However if they have spare aircraft wouldn't it make much more sense to operate morning and evening to allow day trips and decent connection opportunities at MAN ? Currently some flights operate within 2-3 hours.

If MAN & BHX are going to be the focus of BE routes shouldn't they in turn have decent regional connectivity and feed to connect to those banks of euro flights ?

cs

[Rivet Joint]

Cornishsimon

Could this guy have more of a fixation on NQY?

Big deal NQY has an extra 2 rotations a week

If we are talking about growth NQY wouldn't be in the top
20 routes. Stop being a stuck record, 900 odd posts about a fairly insignificant little airport. Maybe take up a sport or something.

[caaardiff]

CWL

(iii) avoid going back on previously declared company policy e.g. the setting up of a 2 aircraft base in Cardiff. I've nothing against Cardiff but this chopping and changing in strategy so soon after the strategy has been declared doesn't really promote confidence. I really can't understand how routes previously pulled when being operated on the lower cost Q400 will make money being operated by a 195.

I'd be very surprised if all of a sudden BE decided that the previously operated routes from CWL were profitable all of a sudden, and then decide to setup a bunch of new routes that mirror BM routes in BRS.
For CWL, competition between BE and WX, and BE and EI is only good news, prices will come down. If EI and WX pull the plug and leave the door open for BE then hopefully BE can make it work, but it would mean the loss of transatlantic connections with EI, something CWL needs.
CWL has been crying out for ORK and FAO to return. WW did very well with FAO during the summer months.
The whole deal doesn't make sense, but throw in the financial power of CWL owners and it may become clearer

[Letsflycwl]

Totally agree, FAO was very popular when operated by WW & ORK also a popular destination.

With the E195's be good to have some more Sun routes like the return of MJV ?? Also very popular with WW.

I'm sure there be more new routes to follow or a chop and change of initial destinations

[WOWBOY]

Just wondering since when did flybe stop EXT to GLA flights?

[CabinCrewe]

Last year I think. New BOH will be the nearest now with BE.
Bournemouth from Glasgow, Exeter from EDI.

[EGTE]

The direct Glasgow service from Exeter was stopped when the hub was set up at Manchester. 4 flights a day operate between EXT and MAN - and onward to GLA which allows for more journey opportunities than when direct services operated.

[stab3.5up]

BHD LCY

Would BHD be the only BE route ex LCY if the talk of DUB being axed is true. Well if BHD is dropped at least they tried.

[WOWBOY]

Thanks for the info, didn't realise they had stopped them. Looks like have to to BRS.

Also it's also surprising to see them return to CWL, when they closed the base there a few years back.

They'd still have EXT from LCY but heard it isn't really doing well.

[cornishsimon]

Are they also dropping the LCY routes to Scotland ?


cs

[TartinTon]

No they are still operating LCY to ABZ and EDI. Not sure why everyone is surprised at CWL...the Welsh government are clearly bankrolling this as part of their attempt to grow the Welsh economy and it fits with the BE aim of connecting the UK despite having flown some of the routes before.

[kcockayne]

I was asked to come up with suggestions for BEE, so here goes (despite this being a very "poisonous chalice").
Given the recent nature of start/stop new routes, closure/re-opening of bases, parallel pax. operations planned from 'HH & 'HI, removal from service/re-introduction to service of E195s, scaling down/scaling up of the DH8 fleet, new colour scheme, redundancy of pilots/re-hiring of same, start of the joint venture in Finland/sale of the joint venture, 'MC venture start/stop ?, entry into 'LC/ pulling out of 'LC/re-entry to 'LC/pulling out of 'LC ?, closing of bases/re-opening of bases, withdrawal of the 'JJ-'HI nightstop/re-introduction of same/re-withdrawal of same etc., it has been my purpose to draw attention to these puzzling inconsistences, contradictions &, apparently, lurching wildly from one thing to another (& back again).
These actions cannot possibly have filled the investors with confidence ! & they must surely have played their part in undermining confidence in the airline & causing financial problems for it.
Some of these decisions were taken by the old management, but most by the new. Therefore, the finger of responsibility must be taken, in the main, by the new management.
Whoever does the route planning & development surely is most responsible. The very top management relies upon their expertise & cannot be blamed too severely for following their advice; or for trying to put it right.
These events have happened & are evidenced by their very actuality. They are a fundamental part of BEE's problems. They cannot be ignored.
It can be readily accepted that the old management took the decisions which led to the airlines dire financial problems (& presided over the airline while things went from bad to worse). But, it can also be seriously argued that , having taken ( & implemented) some painful decisions, the new management, if not totally repeating the old mistakes, are now presiding over the new.
They have, after all, managed, apparently, to get the share price back down to near its old level.
My suggestions, therefore, are:-
1. Review the effectiveness of the decision making processes of the management team by examining all decisions made & how & why they were made & who made them; & improve it where possible; if necessary, get rid of it. In the light of events there certainly seems to be some room for manoeuvre here.
2. Put in place an effective & capable route planning department.
3. Re-constitute the Board, where necessary.
4.Stop painting the aircraft purple.
5. Stop handing out the chocolates.
6. Close all unprofitable routes.
7. Make appropriate redundancies.
8. Reduce pay, especially the Directors etc..
9. Sell/return to lessors unusable a/c (I know they are trying to do this).
10.Cancel the deal for at least some of the new second hand DH8s.
11. Determine whether new routes WILL be profitable BEFORE they start operating, & NOT after.
12.Take on more 3rd. party work (accepted that they already plan to do this).
13.Renegotiate all agreements made with suppliers, services, airports etc.
14. Pull out of 'LC & 'MC.
15. Abandon plan to operate (incl. a base at) 'FF.
16.Abandon plan to operate parallel routes out of 'HH & 'HI.
The buck stops at the management's door. They are the management & they have to put things right. It is all very well to say, as Deano777 does, that "they have taken decisions ( & got some of them wrong), but at least they have taken decisions, rather than do nothing".
What the airline needs is "The Right Decisions" before it is too late.
It's easy for me, not being involved in the running of the airline & in having no responsibility for it & its employees, to spout all these ideas; & I am seriously NOT trying to be a "Know All" here (I admit my ignorance of running an airline); but surely, much of what I have said is common sense & not just "bashing the management".
I do so very genuinely wish the airline, its management & potential passengers well ! But, I could not resist trying to put forward what I perceived as the contradictions, confusion & truth (or at least part of it) as I see them.

[Leg]

Jeez the lunatics have taken over the Asylum...

Kcockayne.... "I admit my ignorance of running an airline" about sums up your ludicrous inane post....

[mockingjay]

I like the purple and the chocolate (now a boiled sweet apparently) is nice. The coloured lighting and music set them apart from other low cost airlines. No these things don't increase the average spend but from a customer perspective it surely goes a way to encourage repeat custom.

If I were an investor I'd be happy that they can adapt quite quickly. For example the chopping of INV and the third daily LCYEXT service. However the starting of new bases and serving two airports so close to one another would have me asking why? Also the bringing back of the 195's. On one hand they seem to know what they're doing, but on the other hand they seem to pick ideas out of a hat. Take the SHUTTLE service. Milk runs went out of fashion years ago, for God reason.

For me however I use them every few months. Their prices are now much more accessible, service reliable and friendly. All the things I was from an airline.

[EI-BUD]

The coloured lighting and music set them apart from other low cost airlines

Would you really describe Flybe as a low cost airline?

[mockingjay]

Absolutely. You get a bare bones product. Any extras you pay for a la carte. They may codeshare on a few routes but they're still low cost. They operate a single class cabin, use dynamic pricing, offer no complimentary catering, are moving toward online check in only, charge for a mobile boarding pass, no window shades on the dash which have the most basic cabin fit and max density, fairly homogenous fleet etc etc. Although none of these factors rule any airline in or out as low cost or not the fact that they use several of these factors commonly associated with LCCs then I think it fair to say they are a low cost airline and I certainly find their prices reasonable.

Taken from their own website in their About Us section '2006 - Becomes first low cost airline to offer passenger choice of including Scheduled Airline Failure Insurance protection as part of booking process'.

Their page name on their home page says 'cheap flights and low cost flight tickets'. So I would certainly describe them as a low cost airline.

[EI-BUD]

Absolutely. You get a bare bones product. Any extras you pay for a la carte. They may codeshare on a few routes but they're still low cost. They operate a single class cabin, use dynamic pricing, offer no complimentary catering, are moving toward online check in only, charge for a mobile boarding pass, no window shades on the dash which have the most basic cabin fit and max density, fairly homogenous fleet etc etc. Although none of these factors rule any airline in or out as low cost or not the fact that they use several of these factors commonly associated with LCCs then I think it fair to say they are a low cost airline and I certainly find their prices reasonable.

The definitions seem to be quite flexible in terms of low cost airline. As an example MOL has said in relation to LH and Eurowings, taking away meals on board does not make for low cost airline. Clearly, BE have had no meals on board for some time, but in my view while you give some very correct factors for defining a low cost airline. Here are some of the reasons that I deem them not to be low cost:

Profitability
They have achieved reasonable loads and collect above average fares, yet they haven't exactly been profitable? Making losses is costly business!

Fleet
They have a mixed fleet of Q400's, 2 similar jet types and now will introduce some ATR's which have already featured in the Nordic operation. So not simplified in terms of fleet. Equally, the noose around their neck is the Embraer leases, they have been trying to off load these owing to cost. No low cost here either. The 175 were a mistake and they admitted as much in terms of saying that the Q400 is a much better aircraft cost wise.

Leadership
More over they have no clear strategy. They don't lead on cost and their recently advised plan is not translating into real life action. London City was their return to London in a serious way and a batch of routes operate head to head wiht BA and pre 9am arrivals at LCY incur enormous charges. Equally, they are chopping and changing their routes at a rate of knots.

They do not lead on any aspect of their offering in my view. They should be sticking to routes that are too thin for real LOCOs and in those markets offer frequency, Manchester Scotland routes and Belfast UK Regional routes are good examples of where they fair well.

You referred to codesharing, in my view this is a strength and a scale of these agreements is impressive.

They have back out of competition against Eastern who are a small outfit who charge high fares.

MockingJay, this is how I see it. I do however, wish them well. There is a sweet spot for them and it is not going head to head with BA Cityflyer or reopening routes that failed before.

[mockingjay]

I would say that it is difficult to lead on cost when you don't have the economies of scale of the jet LCC operators but the prices are reasonable and the product good. There is no reason for them to give the seats away through cheap fares.

I thought the ATRs we're going completely? There is no mention of them in the 2014 trading update I read. The fleet was to be made up of lots of Q400s and a handful of EJets. There are numerous low cost airlines operating mixed fleets but they're still low cost.

I agree they should find their niche and stick with it. I can't see London working for them whatsoever, be it LCY, STN or SEN or which other random airport they pick out of a hat. Regional UK - Regional UK and Regional UK - Nearby Mainland Europe is what they do best. All of the rest is highly competitive.

[toledoashley]

EI-BUD is quite right, Flybe's biggest asset is that it isn't a low cost airline and shouldn't behave like one. They are a regional airline, connecting cities that are otherwise too thin for the locos or have an advantage over the locos (runway length or operation constraints).

LCY should work if they have the correct mix of routes. Doing UK domestic might not be the right strategy on this - and a weekend AMS seems unusual. Going head to head with two established players, even with one wounded, on the same routes was always going to be tough. Having routes out of both Southend and Stansted is never going to help the situation.

[mockingjay]

Well if it is a common misconception that they're not a LCC maybe they should do something to ensure they are not seen as one. Many recent news stories refer to them as a low cost airline, wiki refers to them as a low cost airline and the aforementioned references on tneir website. Maybe some effort to make them more upmarket and more full service.

The general public often see the level of free catering as an indicator of being a low cost airline or not. Surely it can't cost much to give them a free cuppa and some snacks like they did at BRAL. Maybe sell alcohol and snack boxes. All of the American LCCs (and some Euro ones) do this so surely a regional airline could do this too.