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

Flybe-9

Old 3rd Jan 2019, 13:07
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by EI-BUD View Post
Baggage charges are stealth, and I despise paying them.
I do see what you mean, but many fares are good value these days. I agree that peak and last-minute fares can be eye-watering, but that is supply and demand, I suppose. Ryanair are happy to sell me STN-ORK for £39 return, another £12 for my bag seems reasonable. I do agree that these fees make comparing like-for-like very difficult. I have no idea what the exact rules are for hold/cabin baggage on various European or US airlines. Im surprised its not something google doesn't include as an option on their flights search engine.

I don't mind checking a bag, but I'd prefer a model more like easyJet's hands-free which gives you the choice of checking-in or taking on-board. Just in case you run late. BA also allow Hand Baggage Only customers to check-in their compliant hand luggage for free. Handy for >100ml liquids acquired on the way or buying a bottle to bring home.
brian_dromey is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 15:51
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Age: 62
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by 22/04 View Post
On that Britannia I suspect your bag had to go under the seat in front of you ( so pretty small) and nothing went overhead. Overhead was for hats etc. only as I remember it. They were called hat racks then.
Oh yes - of course lol

The most you took was a British Eagle or a BEA shoulder bag ( remember them? ) and your duty frees if you had bought at the airport
Hat racks only for hats and coats - and on the way home you could usually put your donkey and sombrero up there and duty free fags (they were light)
On the Tenerife flights everyone had bunches of Bird of Paradise to bring home so they went in the hat racks OK

We still had hat racks only when I was at BMA with our Viscounts and DC-9's and 707's this was until the 707 jets got a new wide look cabin and the DC9's got overhead lockers fitted - about 1982? BUT this was nothing to do with fares or what you could take on board it was to keep the stuff secure behind a closed locker or bin door

I recall Britannia's early model 737's had hat racks until the late 80's

Last edited by rog747; 3rd Jan 2019 at 16:03.
rog747 is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 07:31
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 24,000 feet and climbing
Posts: 62
It's a bit ironic, isn't it, that Flybe is the carrier that started charging for hold baggage in Europe. I recall the chap who had that brainstorm (he's currently at Aer Lingus I believe) being pilloried by his peers during an industry conference a couple of years ago.

It rather begs the question: what do you suppose the reaction of joe public would be if 'old fashioned' all-in (hold baggage and on-board refreshments) fares were charged, by Flybe or any other carrier, instead of the current disjointed affairs which have become de rigueur? Would that be considered the actions of an industry disruptor or of a fool? Certainly it would go a long way toward solving many of the baggage problems being experienced today.
M-JCS is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 09:00
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by M-JCS View Post
It's a bit ironic, isn't it, that Flybe is the carrier that started charging for hold baggage in Europe. I recall the chap who had that brainstorm (he's currently at Aer Lingus I believe) being pilloried by his peers during an industry conference a couple of years ago.

It rather begs the question: what do you suppose the reaction of joe public would be if 'old fashioned' all-in (hold baggage and on-board refreshments) fares were charged, by Flybe or any other carrier, instead of the current disjointed affairs which have become de rigueur? Would that be considered the actions of an industry disruptor or of a fool? Certainly it would go a long way toward solving many of the baggage problems being experienced today.
flybmi and Loganair do just that....not sure if that gives them any sort of edge or not. You could argue that it helped LM see off BE when BE decided to go head-to-head post-franchise but the issue is that the massive expansion in overall airline traffic has been driven by low headline fares and you can't have those without unbundling the product into bite-size chunks! Unfortunately Mr O'Leary is correct in his assumption that lowest cost and lowest fare will win. Most people like choice if that means that a lower fare comes with it. Some people say that they would pay more for the all-in bag/meal but unfortunately not everyone thinks the same or places the same value on that service. The way it has evolved seems equitable to me. If I want a cheap fare I need to book early and travel light and/or travel at "inconvenient" times. If I need to book late and take the family I'm going to get stung. It's called market economics.
TartinTon is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 09:06
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,345
flybmi and Loganair probably do it because their aircraft you can't cope with large carry-on's
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 09:17
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Age: 62
Posts: 2
To show how low the whole low fares thing has stooped to is that fact that Joe P pax will happily buy the lowest fare you can get say on a LGW-JFK Norwegian flight - sometimes not much more than £100 one way
Take a cabin bag onboard free, not buy any food (This is a 7 hour plus duration flight) and be quite happy to buy a Boots ready meal in the terminal or a home made sandwich to eat plus ask for a glass of water.
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me

Yes I know Laker did it almost 40 years ago too for £59
rog747 is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 10:28
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
To show how low the whole low fares thing has stooped to is that fact that Joe P pax will happily buy the lowest fare you can get say on a LGW-JFK Norwegian flight - sometimes not much more than £100 one way
Take a cabin bag onboard free, not buy any food (This is a 7 hour plus duration flight) and be quite happy to buy a Boots ready meal in the terminal or a home made sandwich to eat plus ask for a glass of water.
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me

Yes I know Laker did it almost 40 years ago too for £59
suppose if thatís what the market wants though, the airlines need to provide. I remember when BY introduced pay for what you want. I.e. you could remove meals from the price, if you booked within 7 days you couldnít have them. Caused a few issues on board with people complaining about being hungry etc especially when we sold out of sandwiches!
bycrewlgw is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 11:34
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
To show how low the whole low fares thing has stooped to is that fact that Joe P pax will happily buy the lowest fare you can get say on a LGW-JFK Norwegian flight - sometimes not much more than £100 one way
Take a cabin bag onboard free, not buy any food (This is a 7 hour plus duration flight) and be quite happy to buy a Boots ready meal in the terminal or a home made sandwich to eat plus ask for a glass of water.
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me

Yes I know Laker did it almost 40 years ago too for £59
I guess it's personal preference. In my average work day I'll get up, have breakfast about 0730, eat a sandwich and crisps for lunch then have food about 1800. No different to having breakfast before leaving for the airport, lunch in the airport then food on arrival in destination.
caaardiff is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 11:44
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NW England
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
This issue of cabin luggage IS all of the airlines problem and is all their own doing - They now reap what they sewed by allowing in the first place 10-15 or so years ago the concept of cabin baggage only - take what you like and you don't have to pay blah blah blah for hold luggage

Joe P is not too blame here --- only the greed of the airlines trying to make a fast buck on charges and saving on ground handling - That greed now causes delays (shot themselves in the foot there lol) stress and problems to both the pax ground staff and crews onboard playing pass the bloody parcel of bags around the cabin and back into the hold etc
NOT IN MY DAY!

sorry no sympathies - The airlines created the monster
Glad it's not just me who thinks cabin baggage and all the controversy/issues that go with it is self-inflicted by the airlines. And to be honest, when the application of the rules is inconsistent depending what airport you use or who is on duty, it's not hard to understand why there are passengers who take the piss or will continue to "try it on" for as long as they can get away with it.

All that said, I do have sympathy for crew. They didn't write the luggage policies and regularly have to deal with the issue of lack of space on board for luggage and particularly if ground colleagues in the airport aren't helping by waiving the policy rules (be it intentionally or improperly/inconsistently enforcing the policy) when they have other things to worry about to ensure an on time departure. Having been on Flybe aircraft, I can fully understand why the sizes are what they are, even if it's confusing/frustrating because it's different to other airlines.
116d is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 11:45
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me
Norwegian offer a premium cabin with these things included, should you wish to pay. On short-haul the LCC's offer an all-in fare of some description. Catering is not usually included, people don't seem to want it. Veiling used to offer a fare with a blocked middle seat and free choice from the trolley. They have dropped it now. Other airlines offer premium Economy/Business Class on European routes, but the cabins are rather smaller than Economy, suggesting what people are prepared to pay for. Of course we all want something for nothing!
brian_dromey is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 13:52
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 731
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
To show how low the whole low fares thing has stooped to is that fact that Joe P pax will happily buy the lowest fare you can get say on a LGW-JFK Norwegian flight - sometimes not much more than £100 one way
Take a cabin bag onboard free, not buy any food (This is a 7 hour plus duration flight) and be quite happy to buy a Boots ready meal in the terminal or a home made sandwich to eat plus ask for a glass of water.
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me

Yes I know Laker did it almost 40 years ago too for £59
Yet that gives people who can only afford the lower fares the chance to travel when before they couldn't afford it. Nothing vile about that.
PDXCWL45 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 14:04
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 233
Let me assure you; there are some truly vile people we have to put up with, especially to certain European destinations during the summer months, and if they couldn't afford to fly they would be no great loss to the decent, law-abiding passengers on board.

I have long advocated a return to a flat, inclusive fare. Catering could be an optional extra but a bag in the hold (it costs no more for the handlers to go out for one bag or 50) and a fixed, median fare would be fare for all.

Remember, if you've paid £35, some poor devil has paid £250; an aircraft costs a fixed amount to operate.

Someone above mentioned the root cause of the so-called Low Cost Carrier - corporate greed. And it was accepted hook, line and sinker mainly by the 'vile' newcomers to air transport. The rest of us had no choice but to grin and bear it.
judge11 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 16:24
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by judge11 View Post
Let me assure you; there are some truly vile people we have to put up with, especially to certain European destinations during the summer months, and if they couldn't afford to fly they would be no great loss to the decent, law-abiding passengers on board.

I have long advocated a return to a flat, inclusive fare. Catering could be an optional extra but a bag in the hold (it costs no more for the handlers to go out for one bag or 50) and a fixed, median fare would be fare for all.

Remember, if you've paid £35, some poor devil has paid £250; an aircraft costs a fixed amount to operate.

Someone above mentioned the root cause of the so-called Low Cost Carrier - corporate greed. And it was accepted hook, line and sinker mainly by the 'vile' newcomers to air transport. The rest of us had no choice but to grin and bear it.
could always fly business...
bycrewlgw is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 19:40
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,286
Sky News reporting that a consortium led by Virgin Atlantic is planning to announce a takeover bid for BE tomorrow.
BAladdy is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 19:44
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 4,290
Grrr

https://news.sky.com/story/virgin-an...-deal-11604069
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 19:59
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 901
Sounds like a crazy idea to me, just doesn't sound like something which could work.
toledoashley is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:06
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by toledoashley View Post
Sounds like a crazy idea to me, just doesn't sound like something which could work.
Why not? VS need more regional feed, it could also be tied in with feeding AF/KL and DL. Stobart want to be a big regional player. Best case scenario, the majority of regional flying is retained so the regions don't lose out. VS/AF/KL/DL get feed, MAN will grow, using BE will free up AF/KL to utilise slots elsewhere at CDG and AMS.
It also stops BA....
caaardiff is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:24
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,345
Why not? VS need more regional feed,
How much feed can BE provide?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:27
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 158
Isn't there a slightly more fundamental problem here - by far the largest part of Stobart Air's operation is as an Aer Lingus Regional franchise. Will Aer Lingus and IAG really tolerate their largest feed partner at Dublin being majority-owned by Virgin Atlantic? The Flybe SAS ATR operation is a sideshow as Nordica could take that on, but the EI - Stobart - Virgin - Flybe dynamic is strange. I don't get that angle at all.
Albert Hall is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:30
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 368
Virgin have three main bases.
LHR : Little Red on MAN/ABZ/EDI was closed as loss making. They’ll be back on ABZ/EDI and adding NQY this time in the Q400.
LGW : flybe were forced out by the revised charging structure, only NQY is current, underpinned by PSO funding.
MAN : an actual proper flybe hub.

Are they buying flybe for Manchester?
Skipness One Foxtrot 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.