Flybe - 8
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree in principle, I am still surprised how often otherwise money-pinching airlines splash out money for re-branding. I am not an economist, but I doubt that most of these re-branding exercises result in increased profits once all the expenses for consultants, trashing or remodeling the existing branded hardwear etc. is taken into consideration.
I look at corporate decisions like that fugly Flybe colour scheme and think about all the papers, presentations, meetings that led up to it and then walk into work with a spring in my step thinking "YES - there are others just as bad..." 
The worst scheme since that BWIA turquoise conch shell scheme which even made the TriStar look ugly
The worst scheme since that BWIA turquoise conch shell scheme which even made the TriStar look ugly
While I agree in principle, I am still surprised how often otherwise money-pinching airlines splash out money for re-branding. I am not an economist, but I doubt that most of these re-branding exercises result in increased profits once all the expenses for consultants, trashing or remodeling the existing branded hardwear etc. is taken into consideration.
So far as I can see FlyBe is pretty good at this. In the first pace they have put forward a slogan suggesting that they (FlyBe) are faster than road or rail which like most slogans is catchy, yet at the same time not entirely true - when you take the attendant hassle of flying into account. In the second, they have colour scheme which is easily identifiable from the ground, so when people see a purple plane approaching their nearby airport, it's not "just another plane" but a purple (FlyBe) one.
DHL and UPS are similarly eye catching from the ground - and I don't think that was an accident either.
Personally, I think the purple makeover is attractive, and will do no harm to "brand FlyBe" - and how ever much people criticise them, the management is turning the corner financially, judging from recent figures.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can talk about the rights and wrongs of the colour scheme all we like regarding the corporate image, but we're still allowed to talk about whether we like or dislike it. Personally I like it on the dash, but that Embraer looks hideous.
Can someone also confirm the plane in question is G-FBEM, because if you zoom in the registration is FBEN. I know for a fact it isn't FBEN because I flew it a few days ago so it appears like we have two FBENs hanging around.
Can someone also confirm the plane in question is G-FBEM, because if you zoom in the registration is FBEN. I know for a fact it isn't FBEN because I flew it a few days ago so it appears like we have two FBENs hanging around.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ainsdale
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone also confirm the plane in question is G-FBEM, because if you zoom in the registration is FBEN. I know for a fact it isn't FBEN because I flew it a few days ago so it appears like we have two FBENs hanging around.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair play to Flybe on this one though, the new livery on the Embraer cannot get any worse so this is actually an improvement and this must have made that kid's day, week, month and year! I'm usually an old cynic but the thought of that makes me smile.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-FBEB
Sadly, it looks like the end of the line (quite literally) for G-FBEB, which - while being operated by Indonesian carrier Kal Star - ran off the end of the runway at Kupang - another victim of ungrooved runways.
Today:
Accident: Kalstar E195 at Kupang on Dec 21st 2015, overran runway on landing
... and in happier times:
Photo: G-FBEB (CN: 19000057) Embraer 190-200LR by John Fitzpatrick Photoid:5991859 - JetPhotos.Net
Today:
Accident: Kalstar E195 at Kupang on Dec 21st 2015, overran runway on landing
... and in happier times:
Photo: G-FBEB (CN: 19000057) Embraer 190-200LR by John Fitzpatrick Photoid:5991859 - JetPhotos.Net
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOH
Shamrock, there is more to the BOH decision.
We know that Flybe was seeking a better deal from Southampton for the large base there. We also know that there had been prior threats by Flybe to relocate the SOU base to BOH in an attempt to leverage a better deal from SOU.
Not surprisingly SOU management did not buy the threat.
So to demonstrate their intent Flybe, who already knew that a significant portion of their traffic at SOU was originating in the Bournemouth area, opened a base which by all accounts did not perform badly. Most of the routes generated loads similar to those seen at SOU.
Step forward Southampton airport, now willing to do the deal for Flybe. An obvious requirement of which was to close the BOH base and I imagine to lock Flybe out of BOH for the duration of the deal - 5 years would be my guess.
The Flybe public statement said that the airline was consolidating its operations at Southampton to save costs, that does not mean that BOH base was not working, it means that Flybe save money by spending less at their larger base. A Win for SOU and Flybe.
In short this is a classic business stalking horse move. The downside risk for Flybe is that they have proved a market at BOH to several destinations, although for smaller aircraft than the near 200 seat types now operated by the LCC. What this means for BOH is another matter - I will post my thoughts on BOH options another time.
FF
We know that Flybe was seeking a better deal from Southampton for the large base there. We also know that there had been prior threats by Flybe to relocate the SOU base to BOH in an attempt to leverage a better deal from SOU.
Not surprisingly SOU management did not buy the threat.
So to demonstrate their intent Flybe, who already knew that a significant portion of their traffic at SOU was originating in the Bournemouth area, opened a base which by all accounts did not perform badly. Most of the routes generated loads similar to those seen at SOU.
Step forward Southampton airport, now willing to do the deal for Flybe. An obvious requirement of which was to close the BOH base and I imagine to lock Flybe out of BOH for the duration of the deal - 5 years would be my guess.
The Flybe public statement said that the airline was consolidating its operations at Southampton to save costs, that does not mean that BOH base was not working, it means that Flybe save money by spending less at their larger base. A Win for SOU and Flybe.
In short this is a classic business stalking horse move. The downside risk for Flybe is that they have proved a market at BOH to several destinations, although for smaller aircraft than the near 200 seat types now operated by the LCC. What this means for BOH is another matter - I will post my thoughts on BOH options another time.
FF
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flitefome: That is utter rubbish. At the very least it's pure speculation. I really am astounded by the blind lunacy displayed on here by people talking about BOH. Not a single airline no matter what their business model has ever managed to make a substantial year round base work. BE have had a large and successful base at SOU for over 10 years and there is a reason for that. Ignoring the fact it frequently wins awards for being so user friendly (almost always voted by the people that matter I.e the passengers) it has numerous USP's least of all being the cruise capital of Northern Europe and having a uni that attracts many thousands of Asian students. This equals to a word called "yield". A word conviently ignored by BOH lovers. Your claim numbers were similar to those on SOU's is garbage. The reason they went to BOH is the same reason they opened bases at CWL and DSA because the new management would fly from the North Pole if the landing strip were so desperate they would charge BE nothing for the privilege. The fact that BE still couldn't make BOH work under these terms is the final nail in the coffin for me. This country needs houses more than it does unwanted airports.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rivet Joint, sure the country is in desperate need of homes but development needs to be sustainable, and that includes provision of employment. Passengers are only one aspect of airports, suggesting building on them because they don't have extensive route networks to major cities as you imply by your statement is foolish. The same argument could otherwise apply to any office outside Canary Wharf/City of London, any shop not run by a major chain or in a large shopping centre etc.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Co.clare Ireland
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see blue islands becoming a flybe franchise partner. It's certainly one way of reinforcing its presence in the market, it worked for aer arann to launch aer lingus regional hopefully it will work for them.