Flybe-9
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In flyBe's current structure, yes it wouldn't make sense. However, its questionable if the current structure is working - and a pivot to a different model could include the C-Series.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with all previous jets in this size class is that the seat-mile costs have not been competitive against the Ryanair and Wizz's of the world. Weather you're trying to fill a plane to MXP from MAN, with FR offering a departure to BGY in an hour, or selling seats to Paris from Doncaster, your costs matter.
The thing about the C-Series is that is has genuine A320neo CASM in a ~100 seat package and impressive range capabilities. It opens all sorts of new markets, Doncaster to the Canaries, as an example, or something like MAN-MXP to be offered twice daily.
Granted, if flyBe were to introduce the C-Series it shouldn't be a direct replacement for the 175/195 fleets, but could open a new direction for the company - one which it would seem to sorely need.
The thing about the C-Series is that is has genuine A320neo CASM in a ~100 seat package and impressive range capabilities. It opens all sorts of new markets, Doncaster to the Canaries, as an example, or something like MAN-MXP to be offered twice daily.
Granted, if flyBe were to introduce the C-Series it shouldn't be a direct replacement for the 175/195 fleets, but could open a new direction for the company - one which it would seem to sorely need.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A more suitable aircraft size wise should Flybe decide to go down the jet route again would be the Mitsubishi MRJ which was showcased in EXT after the Paris airshow. A big risk though.
Last edited by The96er; 16th Jan 2018 at 21:43.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a rumour that the Fly Be maintenance contract with MAEL ends in March.
Also they are looking at buying the TCX hangar at Manchester as TCX want out of doing own maintenance.
How far fetched are these rumours ?
Also they are looking at buying the TCX hangar at Manchester as TCX want out of doing own maintenance.
How far fetched are these rumours ?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Brian, as long as the leases are reasonable. There is arguably a market to serve in places like Doncaster, Exeter and Cardiff to longer distance leisure destinations, as well as upping capacity in Heathrow/LCY.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not 319s for those sun routes- lease rates should be ok with BA and Easy losing them. Isn't that the sort of low cost way forward that for whatever reason Flybe have avoided until now
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it the case BE operate sun routes more to keep the aircraft busy than to be a part of that market? If they decide to refocus, move away from being all things to all men and concentrate on what they can do best, short haul regional business flying, then sun routes naturally go away. They're a niche player in a huge market.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sun routes that they operate though do tend to be from airports that don't really have a LCC base. EXT, SOU, DSA and NWI don't have LCCs like EZY or FR operating out of them so Flybe are filling in a gap and catering to local demand. CWL is slightly different as their only sun route is Faro and their focus tends to be on more on Italy and Germany. With their other bases their sun routes do tend to be charters rather than them going up against the others. So i'd be surprised if they keep the jets if they would ditch them if they are making money.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it the case BE operate sun routes more to keep the aircraft busy than to be a part of that market? If they decide to refocus, move away from being all things to all men and concentrate on what they can do best, short haul regional business flying, then sun routes naturally go away. They're a niche player in a huge market.
That no-one wanted to take them off flyBe's hands tells its own story, its not like flyBe is some fly-by-night operator with a poor maintenance record. I hope Stobart got a bargain on the 3 they bought....
If flyBe is to replace the jets - used A319s wouldn't be a bad shout, but if they can work out a deal with Bombardier/Airbus, I think it would be a better long-term strategy. I really don't think flyBe can go toe-to-to with easyJet/Ryanair/Wizz, which the A319 would inevitably necessitate.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the agreed price that Propius paid GOAL was about £14m each for the three aircraft, less something for maintenance reserves and security deposits.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe will NOT replace their Q400 fleet with jets for several reasons.
a) Flybe is primarily a regional airline flying short, high frequency, business routes. This requires the use of smaller aircraft, meaning the only viable options would by the CRJ700 and E170/175, both of which are much more expensive to operate than the Q400.
b) Flybe's average sector length is 311 miles (1hr25), and at this time jet models reduce flight time by just 0hr10. The extra fuel costs are not worth such a small reduction in flight times.
c) Flybe will not change their business plan. They have relatively little competition on their routes, and no other business model would allow the airline to operate as many domestic routes as it does.
What people seem to forget is that Flybe is not a leisure airline, it is primarily a business airline. In addition, Flybe's European leisure routes are one of the reasons why the airline is in financial difficulty. If Flybe could get rid of their entire E195 fleet immediately and axe their leisure network, they would do so in a heartbeat. Q400 operations can sustain the vast majority of their operations, including a number of European business destinations.
Just by comparing Flybe's Q400 operations with easyJet's A319 operations on key domestic routes shows why Flybe will not upgrade to larger aircraft.
Belfast-Manchester
Flybe: BHD-MAN x41 weekly (Q400) 1hr00
Weekly seats: 6,396
Annual seats: 332,592
Load factor: 80.1%
easyJet: BFS-MAN x18 weekly (A319) 0hr55/1hr00
Weekly seats: 5,616
Annual seats: 292,032
Load factor: 86.7%
If Flybe were to upgrade their Q400 fleet, they would have two options;
a) keep same number of weekly seats, and adjust frequency
b) keep frequency, and adjust number of weekly seats
Results;
a) 6,396 weekly seats would mean an A319 (156) would operate x21 weekly flights, and a CS100 (125) would operate x26 weekly flights. Both options see Flybe's convenient timetable almost cut in half, which would negatively affect the airline's (primarily business) passengers.
b) Flying the route x41 weekly would lead of 10,250 weekly seats if operated by a CS100 (125), and 12,792 weekly seats if operated by an A319 (156). Flybe currently have a load factor of 80.1% on the route - almost doubling capacity on the route without increasing the frequency would be crippling.
a) Flybe is primarily a regional airline flying short, high frequency, business routes. This requires the use of smaller aircraft, meaning the only viable options would by the CRJ700 and E170/175, both of which are much more expensive to operate than the Q400.
b) Flybe's average sector length is 311 miles (1hr25), and at this time jet models reduce flight time by just 0hr10. The extra fuel costs are not worth such a small reduction in flight times.
c) Flybe will not change their business plan. They have relatively little competition on their routes, and no other business model would allow the airline to operate as many domestic routes as it does.
What people seem to forget is that Flybe is not a leisure airline, it is primarily a business airline. In addition, Flybe's European leisure routes are one of the reasons why the airline is in financial difficulty. If Flybe could get rid of their entire E195 fleet immediately and axe their leisure network, they would do so in a heartbeat. Q400 operations can sustain the vast majority of their operations, including a number of European business destinations.
Just by comparing Flybe's Q400 operations with easyJet's A319 operations on key domestic routes shows why Flybe will not upgrade to larger aircraft.
Belfast-Manchester
Flybe: BHD-MAN x41 weekly (Q400) 1hr00
Weekly seats: 6,396
Annual seats: 332,592
Load factor: 80.1%
easyJet: BFS-MAN x18 weekly (A319) 0hr55/1hr00
Weekly seats: 5,616
Annual seats: 292,032
Load factor: 86.7%
If Flybe were to upgrade their Q400 fleet, they would have two options;
a) keep same number of weekly seats, and adjust frequency
b) keep frequency, and adjust number of weekly seats
Results;
a) 6,396 weekly seats would mean an A319 (156) would operate x21 weekly flights, and a CS100 (125) would operate x26 weekly flights. Both options see Flybe's convenient timetable almost cut in half, which would negatively affect the airline's (primarily business) passengers.
b) Flying the route x41 weekly would lead of 10,250 weekly seats if operated by a CS100 (125), and 12,792 weekly seats if operated by an A319 (156). Flybe currently have a load factor of 80.1% on the route - almost doubling capacity on the route without increasing the frequency would be crippling.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is any doubt that frequency of key routes which fit the Q400 makes sense - especially those on domestic. I think the argument is beyond the Q400, and more at the EMB fleet at bases like Exeter, Cardiff and Doncaster where there is little low-cost competition, lowering their cost per seat and expanding their leisure reach where there are opportunities.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was certainly what I had in mind, in full armchair CEO mode! I would envisage the C-Series as a replacement for the EMB fleet, with the Q400s staying.
A mixed Q400/C-Series fleet would be very flexible and fuel efficient. Dispatch on the C-Series is reported to be excellent and the Q400 has come a long way. The Q400 has good range and speed for a prop and does a surprising amount of the leisure flying, so I don't think its fair to say BE would drop the leisure flying if they could. Many ensure routes have high fares and good ancillary revenue.
A mixed Q400/C-Series fleet would be very flexible and fuel efficient. Dispatch on the C-Series is reported to be excellent and the Q400 has come a long way. The Q400 has good range and speed for a prop and does a surprising amount of the leisure flying, so I don't think its fair to say BE would drop the leisure flying if they could. Many ensure routes have high fares and good ancillary revenue.
