Flybe-9
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 975
Originally Posted by bazilbutler
They did a similar thing to Air Southwest in 2011 which very sadly worked.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot
What exactly DID they fall out with Loganair over that got so out of hand? Was the proposed new franchise agreement a lot less attractive to one party or both?
in other news Flybe are rigorously enforcing hand baggage dimensions here in Manchester with 2pax asked to go and pay for oversized luggage. Struggle with the comms though - ‘starting yesterday we charge for this now’ - why not say you’ve always been out of policy so you were lucky not to be charged before!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,304
Anyways...
Sky News reporting that Flybe`s largest shareholder with a near 19% stake is furious with the directors of Flybe concerning recent events & is exploring all options including an injunction prohibiting the deal from being completed.
Sky News reporting that Flybe`s largest shareholder with a near 19% stake is furious with the directors of Flybe concerning recent events & is exploring all options including an injunction prohibiting the deal from being completed.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by ifu05596
in other news Flybe are rigorously enforcing hand baggage dimensions here in Manchester with 2pax asked to go and pay for oversized luggage. Struggle with the comms though - ‘starting yesterday we charge for this now’ - why not say you’ve always been out of policy so you were lucky not to be charged before!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Cazza_fly
They shouldn't shame away from saying something along the lines "our maximum cabin bag size dimensions may be smaller than some other airlines.. ". Especially when its still free to carry two items onboard. Ultimately however, they should have enforced it fully and consistently from from the start. Then they wouldn't be getting all this negative feedback right now after so many people have broke their terms for so long.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot
What exactly DID they fall out with Loganair over that got so out of hand? Was the proposed new franchise agreement a lot less attractive to one party or both?
So Loganair decided (or were forced) to fly under their own name again, and where negotiating a codeshare agreement with Flybe.
Unknown to them, Flybe had other ideas... cherry-picking Loganair's best routes (to the islands) and using Eastern as their new franchise partner, to compete directly with Loganair.
It was a disaster, with Eastern's Embraer totally unsuitable for the Shetland run, in the first two months they cancelled 32% of services, while Loganair cancelled 17%.
Fares of £29 from Shetland to Aberdeen didn't attract passengers, and some loads were in single figures.
I recall, at Kirkwall, seeing 2 passengers boarding a Flybe flight to Aberdeen.
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2017/12/0...at-went-wrong/
https://www.orcadian.co.uk/flybe-end-kirkwall-flights/
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by C195
Any thoughts on the future of Flybe's wet lease ATR operation for SAS out in Sweden? Do they have a European AOC in place in preparation for Brexit?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by C195
Any thoughts on the future of Flybe's wet lease ATR operation for SAS out in Sweden? Do they have a European AOC in place in preparation for Brexit?
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Albert Hall
I was talking to someone a couple of months ago who was closely involved at the time, but is no longer connected. He reckoned that the whole revenge agenda against Loganair had been cooked up by the Chairman and then supported or at least not challenged by COW. Flybe had apparently lost around £5 mln of income with Loganair on side and the losses from the competition were nearly double that, so they had gone from plus £5 mln to about minus £15 mln on the whole thing. It was so bad that they were having crisis meetings at least twice a week and sometimes daily to try to work out what to do next. I bet that £15mln would have come in handy over the last few weeks but it was burned over a year ago.
It does sound like there were several people whose job was to shield the Chairman and CEO from bad news and make sure that they were teflon coated so nothing going wrong stuck to them. I've heard the words "self interest" quite frequently. Easy to say with hindsight but the warning signs were out there though. Blaming last autumn's results on high fuel costs when their own financial statements said 91% of fuel had been hedged was a bit rich.
It does sound like there were several people whose job was to shield the Chairman and CEO from bad news and make sure that they were teflon coated so nothing going wrong stuck to them. I've heard the words "self interest" quite frequently. Easy to say with hindsight but the warning signs were out there though. Blaming last autumn's results on high fuel costs when their own financial statements said 91% of fuel had been hedged was a bit rich.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by airsouthwest
Its funny you say that the CEO puts herself first, as the new Connec Airways deal transfers not only her but the CFO too. Amazing how shes dragged the airline to bankruptcy, causing massive potential job losses, but at least she gets to keep her own job! Bloody disgraceful.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Takeover in Doubt due to insider trading by the Board
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
“Close to You”
Insider trading does not necessarily mean the illegal trading of shares. In this case it was the leaking of price sensitive information. The noose is tightening. Shares will soon be suspended. Absolutely disgraceful by the BOD.
https://flybeplc.github.io/deal/
Insider trading does not necessarily mean the illegal trading of shares. In this case it was the leaking of price sensitive information. The noose is tightening. Shares will soon be suspended. Absolutely disgraceful by the BOD.
https://flybeplc.github.io/deal/
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by Hudson Bay
“Close to You”
Insider trading does not necessarily mean the illegal trading of shares. In this case it was the leaking of price sensitive information. The noose is tightening. Shares will soon be suspended. Absolutely disgraceful by the BOD.
https://flybeplc.github.io/deal/
Insider trading does not necessarily mean the illegal trading of shares. In this case it was the leaking of price sensitive information. The noose is tightening. Shares will soon be suspended. Absolutely disgraceful by the BOD.
https://flybeplc.github.io/deal/
As for using Companies House data as a claim of proof, really a load of garbage.
Companies House is not a real time instant update system. Deliberately so because of the whole nature of what it represent and that information has to be checked and verified before records can be changed. Depending on the situation it can be weeks before something like ownership or shareholdings are changed because the legal paperwork behind this must be correct before anybody attempt to change the status of a company. However legal undertakings and Directors guarantees will already be in place and these will need to be gone through by all sides legal teams before you change anything. Information is then backdated to the relevant date.
Directors leave companies all the time and if there is litigation in terms of severance package or issues outstanding then said director may stay as a director until such time as issues are ironed out and all legal paperowrk has been completed. It is not uncommon for someone to have left on 1st Feb and the records not updated until the December just before year end but it dated as leaving on Feb 1. Companies House are very clear that it is not their job to verify when someone actually left just to make the changes.
