Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Flybe-9

Old 12th Sep 2018, 06:30
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 36
Posts: 837
Originally Posted by mik3bravo View Post
I've heard through grapevine those E195s are sparsely seated over recent months
My flight last week was on stand 20 mins early and there were 90-ish of us. Not full, but far from empty. The DUB flight before us looked even busier.
AirportPlanner1 is online now  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 09:00
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 741
Timetable's back.
DC3 Dave is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 09:36
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: DK
Posts: 26
Thanks for your initiative.
limited_sight is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 06:11
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 572
The ATR72 600 is 10 tonnes lighter than the Dash 8 400 and obviously burns less fuel as a result. Although it is slower isn't this aircraft a better fit for Flybe in the long-term? They will surely need to start looking at replacing the Dash 8 400 in the future as the average age of the fleet is creeping up and will result in very expensive maintenance and engineering costs.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 09:55
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by shamrock7seal View Post
The ATR72 600 is 10 tonnes lighter than the Dash 8 400 and obviously burns less fuel as a result. Although it is slower isn't this aircraft a better fit for Flybe in the long-term? They will surely need to start looking at replacing the Dash 8 400 in the future as the average age of the fleet is creeping up and will result in very expensive maintenance and engineering costs.
I was lead to believe the weight difference is closer to 4 - 5 tonne?

Flybe have recently evaluated their current and future fleet needs. For the next 3-5 years at least, the Q400s will remain the backbone of the fleet alongside the E175s. The ATR will of course have been part of the recent evaluation. However, for now, the Q400's "close to jet like speed", the efficiency within that field and its slightly higher seating capacity best suits the operation and avoids unnecessary costs right now that a new type would bring.

For much of the route network i do actually see the Q400 as the best frame for Flybe, especially when needing to be flexible with fitting in with the E-Jet schedules from time to time as well as operating on some longer sector routes. With a potential to be able to further increase the seating capacity on the Q400 aircraft, they could further improve their efficiency in this way alone and improve available seats on the network without too much significant cost.

That's not to say i dislike the ATR of course. But right now i fully understand the reasoning behind Flybes future fleet strategy evaluations and see it as the best fit for their ops for the foreseeable.
Cazza_fly is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 13:58
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 338
I think, but I am prepared to be shot down in flames if I am wrong, that Flybe Q400s have drop down pax oxygen which gives them a max ceiling of 27,000 ft which in turn allows them to use upper airspace which would be very helpful on some of their routes. The ATR is limited to 25,000 ft so cannot use upper airspace.
willy wombat is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 14:58
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 229
Willy, that's not correct. The Q400 is also capped at FL250 for the reason you state.
​​​​​Also upper airspace starts at FL245 so they do actually fly in upper airspace, albeit only in one direction.
Reversethrustset is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 15:16
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Back on The Island.
Posts: 448
Many's the time in the past, up to five years ago, Q400s requested F250 eastbound through Maastricht airspace only to descend a few minutes later, unable to maintain.
zed3 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 17:01
  #489 (permalink)  
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 848
Drop down 02 is an option for the Q400 and increases the operating ceiling to FL270. The only issue is that you have to fly for quite a time at FL270 to get any real benefit of lower fuel burn since you have to carry the extra weight of the drop down O2 kit. Hence most companies don't bother as Q400s are generally used for shorter flights.

I never had any problem maintaining FL250 in the Dash in the half decade or so I flew it unless ice was accreting on the airframe and the OAT was at or below -40C. Not a performance issue - rather a minimum operating temperature for the pneumatic de-ice boots.
speedrestriction is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 18:07
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by Cazza_fly View Post
I was lead to believe the weight difference is closer to 4 - 5 tonne?

Flybe have recently evaluated their current and future fleet needs. For the next 3-5 years at least, the Q400s will remain the backbone of the fleet alongside the E175s. The ATR will of course have been part of the recent evaluation. However, for now, the Q400's "close to jet like speed", the efficiency within that field and its slightly higher seating capacity best suits the operation and avoids unnecessary costs right now that a new type would bring.

For much of the route network i do actually see the Q400 as the best frame for Flybe, especially when needing to be flexible with fitting in with the E-Jet schedules from time to time as well as operating on some longer sector routes. With a potential to be able to further increase the seating capacity on the Q400 aircraft, they could further improve their efficiency in this way alone and improve available seats on the network without too much significant cost.

That's not to say i dislike the ATR of course. But right now i fully understand the reasoning behind Flybes future fleet strategy evaluations and see it as the best fit for their ops for the foreseeable.
In the long run if they do replace the Q400 would they actually be better off to replace them with the E175 rather than the ATR?
PDXCWL45 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 18:17
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 229
zed3 I've spent 5,000 hrs in the Q400 at FL250 and have never had to descend due to not being able to maintain.
Reversethrustset is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2018, 17:23
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by PDXCWL45 View Post
In the long run if they do replace the Q400 would they actually be better off to replace them with the E175 rather than the ATR?
Depends what the price difference is. The issue with the E170's was never the operating cost but the price that the frames were bought for.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 19:30
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,111
My son was due to fly late this afternoon Bhx - Bhd. Flight cancelled due to no/not enough crew he was told. Not due to weather. They are being bussed to Man for a flight later this evening.

Wonderful.
True Blue is online now  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 19:47
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 658
There will crew/aircraft out of position all over the place in the UK tonight so while the official reason might be no crew it could well be because they are sitting on the tarmac out of position somewhere. Most airports north of central England are reporting diverts/cancellations today.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 20:05
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,111
TartinTon

You may well be correct. That is not what he was told, but that could be poor communication, hardly surprising with airlines/handling companies. If your suspicion is right, it would have been better to tell them that, it would have been more understandable. However, airlines, still, need to treat people like fools.
True Blue is online now  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 22:42
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
TartinTon

You may well be correct. That is not what he was told, but that could be poor communication, hardly surprising with airlines/handling companies. If your suspicion is right, it would have been better to tell them that, it would have been more understandable. However, airlines, still, need to treat people like fools.
The thing is, Flybe did their best to get the pax to their destination, even if it did mean a journey by road to an alternate departure airport first. I'm sure they would have rather operated the scheduled flight as planned.
Cazza_fly is online now  
Old 20th Sep 2018, 02:58
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 572
Flybe at SOU.

My personal opinion is that when they used BOH to scare SOU into giving them a deal it is now coming back to haunt them.

easyJet was the first clue. SOU mustve been preparing that one as a contingency if Flybe really did pull out of SOU or transfer some services to BOH.

Now SOU seems to have gone all out to try and get the attention of the LCC's with a runway extension planned along with stands for multiple A320/738 sized jets.

If I was Flybe right now I'd be looking to lock down BIG expansion at SOU to prevent this from happening or they will most likely see increased competition from what is quite a niche market.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2018, 04:53
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by shamrock7seal View Post
Flybe at SOU.

My personal opinion is that when they used BOH to scare SOU into giving them a deal it is now coming back to haunt them.

easyJet was the first clue. SOU mustve been preparing that one as a contingency if Flybe really did pull out of SOU or transfer some services to BOH.

Now SOU seems to have gone all out to try and get the attention of the LCC's with a runway extension planned along with stands for multiple A320/738 sized jets.

If I was Flybe right now I'd be looking to lock down BIG expansion at SOU to prevent this from happening or they will most likely see increased competition from what is quite a niche market.
Assuming a LCC wants to expand at SOU in the first place. Also where would Flybe get the aircraft from?
PDXCWL45 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2018, 05:07
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 572
Don't Flybe have an 'excess' capacity problem right now? They are desperately trying to offload jets and consolidate for some bizarre reason. I know of no company in the world that would make money from projecting ever declining market share.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2018, 08:52
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: northern ireland
Posts: 76
Given the extreme winds yesterday flybe operations remained robust in difficult conditions. Some staff were unable to get into work on time yesterday following falling trees and blocked roads, this resulted in regrettably a few cancellations with the first wave of afternoon flights. Staff were used from standby and worked day off to minimise disruption. Lots of sick bags used yesterday shows the conditions were less than comfortable. How about a job well done guys! instead of all this negativity towards flybe and the hard working airline crews giving their best day after day. Have a nice day!
dantheflyboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.