Flybe-9
Just read all of this..................
https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey...-proposals.pdf
Having watched these events, from the inside, for nearly 10 years it felt like an accident report. I always wondered why Saad left so suddenly but a possible explanation is that he saw the the airline was heading for bankruptcy and proposed another huge reorganisation. The board wouldn't agree so off he went and their only idea was to appoint Christine O-W.
She was clearly unable to do anything meaningful hence those dreadful FY18/19 figures - which I had not seen before.
The bit that I still don't fully understand is where did all the revenue go? Flights were busy with some routes regularly full (every seat occupied) and no one would claim that crews were overpaid. Was just the EMB leases? I don't see that directors fees of £2 million is particularly high in relation to the turnover.
All in all a very sad end to a great "purple family" - you were a great bunch
Shame about the management...........
https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey...-proposals.pdf
Having watched these events, from the inside, for nearly 10 years it felt like an accident report. I always wondered why Saad left so suddenly but a possible explanation is that he saw the the airline was heading for bankruptcy and proposed another huge reorganisation. The board wouldn't agree so off he went and their only idea was to appoint Christine O-W.
She was clearly unable to do anything meaningful hence those dreadful FY18/19 figures - which I had not seen before.
The bit that I still don't fully understand is where did all the revenue go? Flights were busy with some routes regularly full (every seat occupied) and no one would claim that crews were overpaid. Was just the EMB leases? I don't see that directors fees of £2 million is particularly high in relation to the turnover.
All in all a very sad end to a great "purple family" - you were a great bunch
Shame about the management...........
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
1 Post
Presumably one of the big ferry companies will pick up the contract?
Not necessarily so. These aircraft are owned by multiple organisations and so more than one ferry company is likely to be selected.
Not necessarily so. These aircraft are owned by multiple organisations and so more than one ferry company is likely to be selected.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe administrators fight to retain carrier’s operating licence
UK regional carrier Flybe’s administrators intend to appeal to the government in a bid to retain the airline’s operating licence, warning that a sale of the business would become improbable if the licence is revoked.
Flybe administrators fight to retain carrier’s operating licence
https://www.flightglobal.com/airline...138191.article
Sounds like an administrator trying to generate some extra fees for themselves because there might still be some extra cash left in the business after they get paid off for work done so far - or the administrators want to cover their backsides against being sued by creditors for not having ticked the right boxes
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like an administrator trying to generate some extra fees for themselves because there might still be some extra cash left in the business after they get paid off for work done so far - or the administrators want to cover their backsides against being sued by creditors for not having ticked the right boxes
But it is ridiculous that across the US and most of Europe, airlines can apply for some degree of bankruptcy protection to at least try fix things whilst maintaining an AOC.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair they had years to try to fix things with radical changes that was needed, instead, since Saad left they just sat there and did next to nothing. This is most likely why the government didn't bail them out because in 18 months time they'll have been coming back for yet more handouts to add to the litany of handouts they'd received over the last 17 years.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/fly...138205.article
Wow! Past management should (but probably wont) feel ashamed on how bad this situation got.
Wow! Past management should (but probably wont) feel ashamed on how bad this situation got.
The numbers (as also contained in the doc shared by ETOPS last week) are indeed truly shameful and (sadly) indicate why the Govt was not willing to intervene.
Slightly worrying (for what I would say was considered to be safe/professional operation) that the "return of the aircraft has been “hampered” by the fleet’s not being
in the condition required, the administrators state, with a need for a “significant amount” of asset swaps to restore them", or is that just because nearly all of the a/c
concerned have been sat on the ground for nearly 2 months with the minimum required attention? (with perhaps a few exceptions)
Slightly worrying (for what I would say was considered to be safe/professional operation) that the "return of the aircraft has been “hampered” by the fleet’s not being
in the condition required, the administrators state, with a need for a “significant amount” of asset swaps to restore them", or is that just because nearly all of the a/c
concerned have been sat on the ground for nearly 2 months with the minimum required attention? (with perhaps a few exceptions)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The numbers (as also contained in the doc shared by ETOPS last week) are indeed truly shameful and (sadly) indicate why the Govt was not willing to intervene.
Slightly worrying (for what I would say was considered to be safe/professional operation) that the "return of the aircraft has been “hampered” by the fleet’s not being
in the condition required, the administrators state, with a need for a “significant amount” of asset swaps to restore them", or is that just because nearly all of the a/c
concerned have been sat on the ground for nearly 2 months with the minimum required attention? (with perhaps a few exceptions)
Slightly worrying (for what I would say was considered to be safe/professional operation) that the "return of the aircraft has been “hampered” by the fleet’s not being
in the condition required, the administrators state, with a need for a “significant amount” of asset swaps to restore them", or is that just because nearly all of the a/c
concerned have been sat on the ground for nearly 2 months with the minimum required attention? (with perhaps a few exceptions)
If an aircraft is owned by lessor A, they're not going to want their aircraft back with lessor B's engines.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those financial numbers - assuming they are trading losses and not the "gone concern" losses - are truly shocking. By that, I mean that when an airline defaults under a lease, the lease contains a term that all remaining payments until the end of that lease agreement become due and payable. If you had 50 aircraft at $100k/month each, your lease rental outgoings this month would normally be $5m. If you ceased trading and each lease had 5 years left to run, the lessors would suddenly consider that you owed $300m and so all of a sudden, the amount owing when you've gone bust is several multiples of what you'd have paid out if you were still trading. If the £215m loss is before any of those penalty payments were claimed, that's unbelievably bad.
In terms of the aircraft, the situation is not as shocking as it sounds. Within a large fleet of aircraft, it is inevitable that things like engines, props and gear legs will be swapped around over the life of the many aircraft in the fleet. Aircraft A might be delivered with engine serial numbers 1 and 2 installed; aircraft B has engine serial numbers 3 and 4, and the airline has a spare engine number 5. By the end of two years, you'd probably find that aircraft A has engines 2 and 5 fitted, aircraft B has 1 and 4 and engine 3 is sitting as the spare. However, each engine technically "belongs" to the aircraft with which it was delivered.
When working towards your handback dates, you'd routinely try to swap engines and major components within the fleet so that each aircraft arrives at its end-of-lease date with the right engines, props etc installed. At least, that is what you should be doing. In the case of Flybe where everything came to a sudden stop, it means that the components would not be attached to the right aircraft. If just one leasing company then insists on having Aircraft A redelivered with engines 1 and 2, and they won't accept engines 2 and 5 as fitted, you're into a major fleet-wide exercise of having to swap all of the out-of-place bits back. That's what has been going on here. It does not automatically mean that the aircraft were in a poor condition - I'm sure that they were not, but it just means that they were not in line with the required conditions at the end of the lease - due to the abrupt termination of it.
There were some regulatory findings and issues, so I've been told by people very close to it. To the best of my knowledge, those aren't the same as the issues being referred to here which are really about the leasing companies exercising their contractual rights to the property that they own - and perhaps one or two being precious in the process about what they will and won't accept.
In terms of the aircraft, the situation is not as shocking as it sounds. Within a large fleet of aircraft, it is inevitable that things like engines, props and gear legs will be swapped around over the life of the many aircraft in the fleet. Aircraft A might be delivered with engine serial numbers 1 and 2 installed; aircraft B has engine serial numbers 3 and 4, and the airline has a spare engine number 5. By the end of two years, you'd probably find that aircraft A has engines 2 and 5 fitted, aircraft B has 1 and 4 and engine 3 is sitting as the spare. However, each engine technically "belongs" to the aircraft with which it was delivered.
When working towards your handback dates, you'd routinely try to swap engines and major components within the fleet so that each aircraft arrives at its end-of-lease date with the right engines, props etc installed. At least, that is what you should be doing. In the case of Flybe where everything came to a sudden stop, it means that the components would not be attached to the right aircraft. If just one leasing company then insists on having Aircraft A redelivered with engines 1 and 2, and they won't accept engines 2 and 5 as fitted, you're into a major fleet-wide exercise of having to swap all of the out-of-place bits back. That's what has been going on here. It does not automatically mean that the aircraft were in a poor condition - I'm sure that they were not, but it just means that they were not in line with the required conditions at the end of the lease - due to the abrupt termination of it.
There were some regulatory findings and issues, so I've been told by people very close to it. To the best of my knowledge, those aren't the same as the issues being referred to here which are really about the leasing companies exercising their contractual rights to the property that they own - and perhaps one or two being precious in the process about what they will and won't accept.
I don't believe it has any reflection on any unsafe practices; it's not worded brilliantly. It's more that engines get swapped around the fleet during their lifespan with an airline and when the aircraft are returned to lessors in an orderly fashion, the correct engines are back on the correct aircraft for the handover. However, with the airline suddenly being grounded overnight - engines are not on the correct aircraft, so need to be swapped before they can be returned to the lessors.
I saw on a FB group used by some staff at SOU that a few of the Dashes there have had some work done (there was a pic of one hangared, I think in the Signature hangar, which I was surprised to see), so I guess things are starting to move?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression that some where thinking Flybe may be risen from the ashes. Now easyJet are doing MAN, GLA, BHX to BFS and MAN to ABZ. Who in their right mind would want to take on easyJet on these routes. The saying that if Flybe didn’t exist you would have to invent it is and was self promoting PR nonsense and gave the staff a false sense of security. As said so many times on this forum, great staff let down by talentless people in management positions.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sending a 180 seat 320 to ABZ once a day is not a cheap exercise and not everyone will be prepared or willing to sacrifice convenience of travelling when they want to (rather than when Easyjet want them too) for price. I'd say there would be room for both Easy and Loganair when you start to compare monthly lease costs of the equipment used.
It'll likely be at least 12 months, most likely considerably longer, before air travel demand in the UK returns to what it was in 2019. In the meantime, the remaining core routes with the greatest chance of profit will all have been carved up by other airlines if they haven't been already. A resurrected Flybe would have a mountain to climb
Many of the companies interested in talking to EY about Flybe will be doing so to pick up individual bits of the remains - I don't see all 20 parties each being interested in buying the whole company
Yes, lovely little airline to fly on as a passenger, but as a company that lost large quantities of money for years and whose industry is in crisis, it's time to bid it a fond farewell
Many of the companies interested in talking to EY about Flybe will be doing so to pick up individual bits of the remains - I don't see all 20 parties each being interested in buying the whole company
Yes, lovely little airline to fly on as a passenger, but as a company that lost large quantities of money for years and whose industry is in crisis, it's time to bid it a fond farewell
SH
Why will we “never know” why Saad left?? ( I assume he is still with us and not a victim of the current plague). Yes he will have signed a non-disclosure agreement - but with an entity that no longer exists! so he could speak out now if he was asked, or chooses to do so - although to what effect I know not.
His sudden departure sure puzzled me at the time but I retired a few months later (on schedule) so had other priorities.
His sudden departure sure puzzled me at the time but I retired a few months later (on schedule) so had other priorities.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asset strip
It is sad for ex employees that this is now the most likely outcome.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ence-29npbg5th
Its a subscribe if anyone has but the gist is there. I would guess that the vast majority of offers are in the realms of buying assets then selling them on for a profit. I think Eastern did that to airsouthwest. I cannot see the government overruling the CAA on the appeal and with the other carriers picking up routes, why would they?. And why would a buyer think 'i will spend millions to buy an airline that has been an abject failure, in an industry thats on its knees'.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ence-29npbg5th
Its a subscribe if anyone has but the gist is there. I would guess that the vast majority of offers are in the realms of buying assets then selling them on for a profit. I think Eastern did that to airsouthwest. I cannot see the government overruling the CAA on the appeal and with the other carriers picking up routes, why would they?. And why would a buyer think 'i will spend millions to buy an airline that has been an abject failure, in an industry thats on its knees'.