Flybe-9
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 59
Posts: 3,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
175's
Partly because they fell into the usual trap of thinking a move to a larger aircraft was a logical step but mainly because of this ridiculous mantra that jet aircraft are superior and will result in more people flying with them.
Ultimately the majority of people want to fly for as cheap as possible regardless of any little niggles like noise from the plane. FR would have gone out of business long ago if it wasn’t for the fact that the price is paramount for travellers. I have said it a number of times on here that the q400 was BEs USP, and their whole business was built around it. Clearly BE had their pants taken down with the 195 deal, which was made even worse by the fact a market never materialised for them. They were just flown around in a desperate attempt to slightly reduce the lease costs. The 175 was never needed, and was purely bought to pander to the ridiculous notion that jets are superior. Which is why they were mainly flown out of BHX and MAN on routes where AF and LH competed. It was another ball and chain around BEs ankle that they didn’t need. If they stuck to just having the Q400 BE would probably still be around today, even with the numerous morons that have been in charge over the years. Perhaps they could have even picked up a few A220s by now to serve A few holiday routes like Wideroe and Binter have done with the E-2. Air Baltic are proving the a220 is a good aircraft for low cost travel but BE are predominately a regional carrier so only a couple like wideroe/binter have exploded themselves to would work. I remember quite clearly at the time the 175s were introduced that they had numerous options in place with the idea that they would replace all the q400s. Utter madness.
Ultimately the majority of people want to fly for as cheap as possible regardless of any little niggles like noise from the plane. FR would have gone out of business long ago if it wasn’t for the fact that the price is paramount for travellers. I have said it a number of times on here that the q400 was BEs USP, and their whole business was built around it. Clearly BE had their pants taken down with the 195 deal, which was made even worse by the fact a market never materialised for them. They were just flown around in a desperate attempt to slightly reduce the lease costs. The 175 was never needed, and was purely bought to pander to the ridiculous notion that jets are superior. Which is why they were mainly flown out of BHX and MAN on routes where AF and LH competed. It was another ball and chain around BEs ankle that they didn’t need. If they stuck to just having the Q400 BE would probably still be around today, even with the numerous morons that have been in charge over the years. Perhaps they could have even picked up a few A220s by now to serve A few holiday routes like Wideroe and Binter have done with the E-2. Air Baltic are proving the a220 is a good aircraft for low cost travel but BE are predominately a regional carrier so only a couple like wideroe/binter have exploded themselves to would work. I remember quite clearly at the time the 175s were introduced that they had numerous options in place with the idea that they would replace all the q400s. Utter madness.
The 175 was never flown in competition with Air France on the BHX-CDG as it was a joint venture and rumour had it Air France insisted on Jets and in general the 195 operated first out and last back but the 175 more recently of course as the 195's reduced. The Q400 was only ever scheduled at the weekend.
The 175/195 was very much needed on the Milan and Florence as both had regular high load factors although yields were probably only sufficient in summer. Agreed re Amsterdam that the Q400 was sufficient for that route and the same could be said of Dusseldorf up against Eurowings.and the domestic routes.
Stuttgart was believed to be high yielding was not really a Q400 route and the 175 was perfect in terms of speed, reliability and passenger comfort. The same could be said of Berlin although not quite so high-yielding. Also of course they got into the IT market with Kefallinia and Preveza which needed jets and the 175 did both in recent years but whether this operation ever made a profit I do have my doubts.
As you say some routes they were used on was at times mind-boggling - MAN-NQY, MAN-SOU, MAN-LUX(only occasionally), BHX-EDI, BHX-GLA, BHX-NOC (Occasionally), MAN & BHX to DUS and AMS could have been served 100% of the time by the Q400 but having travelled on several 175's and Q400's the passenger experience was light years apart but of course that does not bring home the bacon especially if the jet were tied up in a bad finance deal.
Pete
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are, of course, correct about the relative capacities of the 146-300 and the E195. The difference is really that you could afford to park the former during periods of slack demand given the low capital but relatively high operating costs of the 146. You had to fly the nuts off the 195s to make a high capital cost but low operating cost aircraft work, and if the market demand isn't there to sustain the flying, the economics turn against you pretty quickly.
I suspect if we were to list out all the reasons why Flybe failed, these would be on the list but by no means alone. I am not volunteering to start the list though, nor do I think it is helpful to anyone at this point in time. The Embraer deals were undoubtedly part of the problem and not the solution, but they count amongst many reasons for Flybe's failure.
I suspect if we were to list out all the reasons why Flybe failed, these would be on the list but by no means alone. I am not volunteering to start the list though, nor do I think it is helpful to anyone at this point in time. The Embraer deals were undoubtedly part of the problem and not the solution, but they count amongst many reasons for Flybe's failure.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are, of course, correct about the relative capacities of the 146-300 and the E195. The difference is really that you could afford to park the former during periods of slack demand given the low capital but relatively high operating costs of the 146. You had to fly the nuts off the 195s to make a high capital cost but low operating cost aircraft work, and if the market demand isn't there to sustain the flying, the economics turn against you pretty quickly.
I suspect if we were to list out all the reasons why Flybe failed, these would be on the list but by no means alone. I am not volunteering to start the list though, nor do I think it is helpful to anyone at this point in time. The Embraer deals were undoubtedly part of the problem and not the solution, but they count amongst many reasons for Flybe's failure.
I suspect if we were to list out all the reasons why Flybe failed, these would be on the list but by no means alone. I am not volunteering to start the list though, nor do I think it is helpful to anyone at this point in time. The Embraer deals were undoubtedly part of the problem and not the solution, but they count amongst many reasons for Flybe's failure.
The loss of flyBe is a real shame for the UK, although a lot of routes will be replaced, with time. The cost for employees is high.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...t-1p-deal.html
Not sure if anything will happen and of course no comfort to the great staff and crews. Some great stories on LinkedIn on crews etc and how they are innovating through the turmoil.
In relation to the article, my feeling is that the publicity etc. may prevent anyone employing those two again.
Not sure if anything will happen and of course no comfort to the great staff and crews. Some great stories on LinkedIn on crews etc and how they are innovating through the turmoil.
In relation to the article, my feeling is that the publicity etc. may prevent anyone employing those two again.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...t-1p-deal.html
Not sure if anything will happen and of course no comfort to the great staff and crews. Some great stories on LinkedIn on crews etc and how they are innovating through the turmoil.
In relation to the article, my feeling is that the publicity etc. may prevent anyone employing those two again.
Not sure if anything will happen and of course no comfort to the great staff and crews. Some great stories on LinkedIn on crews etc and how they are innovating through the turmoil.
In relation to the article, my feeling is that the publicity etc. may prevent anyone employing those two again.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by jethro15; 5th Oct 2020 at 12:06.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonyq
Ha. It took me a while as I was looking for my mistake. Yes, I stand corrected.
I can assume from Jethros list that’s all the fleet gone.
I won’t post again on this thread again as it seems that with that fleet gone back that a new venture from the old Is unlikely.
Best of luck to all the ex Flybe people. Sincerely hope that your all skyward soon.
I can assume from Jethros list that’s all the fleet gone.
I won’t post again on this thread again as it seems that with that fleet gone back that a new venture from the old Is unlikely.
Best of luck to all the ex Flybe people. Sincerely hope that your all skyward soon.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Age: 64
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
