SOUTHEND 5
DC3 Dave
As I understand the arrangement it will still be a franchise operation whereby Stobart Air choose which routes to operate themselves at their risk and these are marketed through Flybe under the Flybe brand in the same way that, for example, Loganair operate routes of their choosing under their franchise agreement with Flybe.
It could be the case that coincidentally (and possibly mutually beneficially) Stobart will wet lease on an ACMI basis Flybe E195s to operate some of their routes, although I have no firm evidence that this will be so and cannot quite see that Flybe have the availability to provide these. The commercial lease arrangement would presumably be similar to that which Stobart Air could make with, say, Jota Aviation to operate their flights on an ACMI basis and would be outside the actual franchise agreement between Stobart Air and Flybe.
An alternative would be for Stobart Air to obtain appropriate aircraft, perhaps through Propius, for the new routes and add these to their AOC to be operated by their own crews but still marketed by Flybe under their brand.
As I understand the arrangement it will still be a franchise operation whereby Stobart Air choose which routes to operate themselves at their risk and these are marketed through Flybe under the Flybe brand in the same way that, for example, Loganair operate routes of their choosing under their franchise agreement with Flybe.
It could be the case that coincidentally (and possibly mutually beneficially) Stobart will wet lease on an ACMI basis Flybe E195s to operate some of their routes, although I have no firm evidence that this will be so and cannot quite see that Flybe have the availability to provide these. The commercial lease arrangement would presumably be similar to that which Stobart Air could make with, say, Jota Aviation to operate their flights on an ACMI basis and would be outside the actual franchise agreement between Stobart Air and Flybe.
An alternative would be for Stobart Air to obtain appropriate aircraft, perhaps through Propius, for the new routes and add these to their AOC to be operated by their own crews but still marketed by Flybe under their brand.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems rather simple to me. Stobat Air picks the routes, rents, leases or buys some aircraft and crew, sets the airfares, carries all the risks of the new Southend venture and pays Flybe to use their name and to provide maybe some of the marketing.
As we have seen in the past when it comes to Southend Stobart wants total control, which could be a reason why the Cityjet deal fell through.
Why would Flybe say no to that arrangement? If it all went wrong would it actually cost Flybe much money unless Stobart pays Flybe to wet lease some aircraft and then doesn't pay the bill.
As we have seen in the past when it comes to Southend Stobart wants total control, which could be a reason why the Cityjet deal fell through.
Why would Flybe say no to that arrangement? If it all went wrong would it actually cost Flybe much money unless Stobart pays Flybe to wet lease some aircraft and then doesn't pay the bill.
So either:
1. lease in, so pay somebody else at a rate which allows this other operator to make a profit, plus the franchise fee to BE;
or
2. add a new aircraft type, with all the additional costs that entails, plus the franchise fee to BE.
Makes you wonder how much would be left for Stobart Air?
Suppose beggars can't be choosers, but seems an expensive way to build a market.
1. lease in, so pay somebody else at a rate which allows this other operator to make a profit, plus the franchise fee to BE;
or
2. add a new aircraft type, with all the additional costs that entails, plus the franchise fee to BE.
Makes you wonder how much would be left for Stobart Air?
Suppose beggars can't be choosers, but seems an expensive way to build a market.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, by being a franchise partner the money you pay your franchise partner is only money it would cost to build a website, distribution, get onto global sales platforms, link into codeshares, not to mention the significant marketing push to not only launch routes but also launch a brand.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLYBE franchise flights
SWBKCB,
Not only a very expensive way to operate, but most probably an unprofitable way to operate. Let's not forget that Flybe will not allow any competition on their profitable routes; Stobart Air will have to choose new routes with all the accompanying risk associated with new routes.
And the purpose of this mad exercise in self-aggrandisement? To show that SEN can reach 2.5m pax per annum (most probably to then trigger a sale). Airport operators charge airport users to access the facilities; this takes the form of pax using car parks, tenants renting hangars and airlines paying landing fees for example.
Why on earth would you want to be your own customer? Where is the commercial logic in that? Answer - none!
Some years ago I pointed out the folly of inviting EasyJet to SEN. Their presence stops other airlines from setting up base at the airport (as the EasyJet response to competition is to price cut until the competition is bled to death). And so it has come to pass. Airlines unwilling to base at SEN due to EasyJet's presence, EasyJet removing services at will and the airport forced into running its own airline in a forlorn hope to boost pax throughput with a view to a sale of the asset.
The future looks bleak.
Not only a very expensive way to operate, but most probably an unprofitable way to operate. Let's not forget that Flybe will not allow any competition on their profitable routes; Stobart Air will have to choose new routes with all the accompanying risk associated with new routes.
And the purpose of this mad exercise in self-aggrandisement? To show that SEN can reach 2.5m pax per annum (most probably to then trigger a sale). Airport operators charge airport users to access the facilities; this takes the form of pax using car parks, tenants renting hangars and airlines paying landing fees for example.
Why on earth would you want to be your own customer? Where is the commercial logic in that? Answer - none!
Some years ago I pointed out the folly of inviting EasyJet to SEN. Their presence stops other airlines from setting up base at the airport (as the EasyJet response to competition is to price cut until the competition is bled to death). And so it has come to pass. Airlines unwilling to base at SEN due to EasyJet's presence, EasyJet removing services at will and the airport forced into running its own airline in a forlorn hope to boost pax throughput with a view to a sale of the asset.
The future looks bleak.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
asdf ... you have absolutely no way of substantiating your claim that easyJet at SEN has acted as a barrier to other airlines .. surely easyJet's presence at SEN has made it into a credible regional airport ...?
I'd say without easyJet proving a market, Thomson wouldn't have moved in ...
I'd say without easyJet proving a market, Thomson wouldn't have moved in ...
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB,
Not only a very expensive way to operate, but most probably an unprofitable way to operate. Let's not forget that Flybe will not allow any competition on their profitable routes; Stobart Air will have to choose new routes with all the accompanying risk associated with new routes.
And the purpose of this mad exercise in self-aggrandisement? To show that SEN can reach 2.5m pax per annum (most probably to then trigger a sale). Airport operators charge airport users to access the facilities; this takes the form of pax using car parks, tenants renting hangars and airlines paying landing fees for example.
Why on earth would you want to be your own customer? Where is the commercial logic in that? Answer - none!
Some years ago I pointed out the folly of inviting EasyJet to SEN. Their presence stops other airlines from setting up base at the airport (as the EasyJet response to competition is to price cut until the competition is bled to death). And so it has come to pass. Airlines unwilling to base at SEN due to EasyJet's presence, EasyJet removing services at will and the airport forced into running its own airline in a forlorn hope to boost pax throughput with a view to a sale of the asset.
The future looks bleak.
Not only a very expensive way to operate, but most probably an unprofitable way to operate. Let's not forget that Flybe will not allow any competition on their profitable routes; Stobart Air will have to choose new routes with all the accompanying risk associated with new routes.
And the purpose of this mad exercise in self-aggrandisement? To show that SEN can reach 2.5m pax per annum (most probably to then trigger a sale). Airport operators charge airport users to access the facilities; this takes the form of pax using car parks, tenants renting hangars and airlines paying landing fees for example.
Why on earth would you want to be your own customer? Where is the commercial logic in that? Answer - none!
Some years ago I pointed out the folly of inviting EasyJet to SEN. Their presence stops other airlines from setting up base at the airport (as the EasyJet response to competition is to price cut until the competition is bled to death). And so it has come to pass. Airlines unwilling to base at SEN due to EasyJet's presence, EasyJet removing services at will and the airport forced into running its own airline in a forlorn hope to boost pax throughput with a view to a sale of the asset.
The future looks bleak.
The idea proposed of Stobart Air is nuts. Seriously, wtf
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the truth regarding easyjet, have we not reached the point where there is some degree of balance between them and the airport. Or are they so confident that 800,000 pax p.a. would loyally follow their airframes somewhere else and that no-one else would be interested in operating out of SEN in their place.
Also the way it has developed it seems the good people of Essex have little interest in travelling to the cultural centres of Europe (AMS apart!) they just want to fly to the beaches. So why would easyjet kick-off about smaller aircraft flying to destinations they have abandoned or ones they are unlikely to want to serve?
Airlines need viable airports every bit as much as the other way round.
Does anyone know why flight 7404 was unable to land at SEN? It was about to divert to LGW but that seems to have changed
Also the way it has developed it seems the good people of Essex have little interest in travelling to the cultural centres of Europe (AMS apart!) they just want to fly to the beaches. So why would easyjet kick-off about smaller aircraft flying to destinations they have abandoned or ones they are unlikely to want to serve?
Airlines need viable airports every bit as much as the other way round.
Does anyone know why flight 7404 was unable to land at SEN? It was about to divert to LGW but that seems to have changed
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 16th Dec 2016 at 17:11.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. The Thames Estuary area and extensive hill fog failed to clear as forecast. None of EZY aircraft were at SEN by midday (one diverted to EMA) to operate the remaining schedule so had to give up the ghost i guess.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN now non-ops for 24hrs......is it just a fair weather field as has been proven before?...It`s lack of R/W instrumentation,R/W width & length & clearance are adding to it`s woes in the Winter months......SS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubt there is more the airport can do. The runway is only old school CAT1 while the world has moved on but like London City they are stuck with CAT 1 ILS's due to many reasons.
The difference though between London City and Southend is that there is plenty of money to be made with high airfares to compensate for when City goes below limits. At Southend it is at the other end of the market so adds to the list why maybe some airlines would not want to run services through the airport although fog does not seem to happen that often there.
The difference though between London City and Southend is that there is plenty of money to be made with high airfares to compensate for when City goes below limits. At Southend it is at the other end of the market so adds to the list why maybe some airlines would not want to run services through the airport although fog does not seem to happen that often there.
Last edited by LTNman; 18th Dec 2016 at 16:06.
