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

Stobart Air-2

Old 13th Sep 2018, 13:27
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 425
I'm not defending the current position and agree that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the customer to do the chasing and said as much in an earlier response, but the legislation needs to be amended to get the required outcome you're seeking.

The legislation does not take into account franchise operations (of which there were probably none when the legislation was initially devised) and I guess, until it does, there is no obligation other than one of moral conscience for airlines to act differently.

Last edited by JobsaGoodun; 13th Sep 2018 at 13:30. Reason: Typo
JobsaGoodun is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 14:38
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,090
Originally Posted by JobsaGoodun View Post
I'm not defending the current position and agree that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the customer to do the chasing and said as much in an earlier response, but the legislation needs to be amended to get the required outcome you're seeking. The legislation does not take into account franchise operations (of which there were probably none when the legislation was initially devised) and I guess, until it does, there is no obligation other than one of moral conscience for airlines to act differently.
One example that has long existed is British Airways. Nowadays it is down to Sun Air, but in the past way before 2004 Loganair, BMed, GB Airways were also franchise partners.

The same problem arises, btw, with airlines that have regional subsidiaries like KLM (cityhopper), Lufthansa (Cityline), British Airways (Cityflyer) or Air France (Hop!) which are not a straightforward franchise, but simply use of the brand. In those cases, mainline could also argue that it is a different airline. To the best of my knowledge, they do not use the same defence in such cases.

Last edited by virginblue; 13th Sep 2018 at 18:32.
virginblue is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 20:00
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 139
For clarity (ha ha) this is what the 261 reg says-

In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.

This was confirmed in a recent EUCJ case, Wirth v Thomson, which said-

In today’s judgment, the Court holds that an air company which decides to perform a particular flight, including fixing its itinerary, and, by so doing, offers to conclude a contract of air carriage with members of the public must be regarded as the operating air carrier. The adoption of such a decision means that that air company bears the responsibility for performing the flight, including, inter alia, any cancellation or significantly delayed time of arrival.

Accordingly, an air company, such as, in this case, Thomson Airways, which leases an aircraft, including its crew, under a wet lease to another air company, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flight, cannot be regarded as the operating air carrier for the purposes of that regulation. It is irrelevant in that regard that the booking confirmation of the flight issued to passengers states that the flight is operated by the former air company.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180100en.pdf

One area that does require amendment is where passengers book return flights to (say) USA via the BA website or App, get a long delay or cancellation on the return, which it turns out is on AA hardware, only to then find out they are not covered by the regs.

Sorry for thread drift but thought it may help.
Trav a la is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 20:44
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 973
You can see at a glance at the Flybe timetable that MAN and GLA are dead unless Stobart intend to announce that A N other, or Stobart themselves intend to sell the routes (can't really see that - can you?).

Other Stobart routes such as BUD and PRG and probably DUB will die only to be reborn with the leading LCC's from SEN. (This is something that Stobart deserve much praise for in my opinion.)

GRQ RNS CFR ANR. Seriously are these to end?
DC3 Dave is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 21:10
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,628
STOBART

Right since Stobart went onto a Stobart Air (albeit Aer Lingus Regional branded) route, Dublin-Cardiff, and a significant route for Stobart, I could never understand how the relationship could be in tact. Stobart Air came about as a consequence of needing to drive business into Southend. That job is now done.

If any of these routes are to continue, there has to be a Loganair/bmiregional implication, again in my opinion. Loganair-flybmi grouping is a serious regional airline, who has a relationship with Stobart (/Carlisle) and also walked away from Flybe franchise. There is a linkage and of course the ending of IOM routes on Flybe behalf is in the mix. I have a sense that there is a Loganair/flybmi implication in all of this????
EI-BUD is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 03:02
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 651
That would be a very sensible and logical consolidation
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 06:04
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,310
Loganair-flybmi grouping is a serious regional airline, who has a relationship with Stobart (/Carlisle)
Anybody know how strong this link is?

CAX flights cancelled at short notice and not yet on sale again. If you were Loganair, what would be your confidence level in Stobart Group?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 06:06
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 651
Money talks at the end of the day. If the deal is sweet Loganair will want to take it.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 06:22
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,310
And if the deal is right for Stobart and Flybe, it'll continue.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 07:10
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 2,432
Originally Posted by DC3 Dave View Post
You can see at a glance at the Flybe timetable that MAN and GLA are dead unless Stobart intend to announce that A N other, or Stobart themselves intend to sell the routes (can't really see that - can you?).
Other Stobart routes such as BUD and PRG and probably DUB will die only to be reborn with the leading LCC's from SEN. (This is something that Stobart deserve much praise for in my opinion.)
GRQ RNS CFR ANR. Seriously are these to end?
Someone who recently enquired of Flybe as to when the SEN Summer 2019 timetable would be released was told:

"Flights (from SEN for Summer 2019) will be introduced in phases and the complete schedule of services being flown from the airport will be released by the end of November 2018".

That statement was presumably drafted by Stobart Air for Flybe to pass on. Could "introduced in phases" mean that more than one branding of the routes may be the result? If the routes were all remaining as being Flybe branded why not release them all at once, but if another brand was going to be used for some of the routes then a phased release might make sense. I may be reading too much into this of course and only time will tell.
Expressflight is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 07:14
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,310
But surely flyBe are only interested in their own flights - why would they make a statement referencing a phased release of flights, if these operations from SEN are going to be by other brands?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 07:34
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 2,432
Because at present they sell the Stobart Air flights so any enquiries regarding next year will be directed to them and they have an obligation to reply whether or not they will be Flybe-branded next year.
Expressflight is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 10:55
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,628
Here is my prediction;

1. Stobart will exit Flybe ties
2. 2x Embraers will enter into an ACMI with a network carrier
3. I think something will happen re serious commercial tie up with another regional carrier.

EI-BUD
EI-BUD is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 11:06
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 992
Originally Posted by EI-BUD View Post
Here is my prediction;

1. Stobart will exit Flybe ties
2. 2x Embraers will enter into an ACMI with a network carrier
3. I think something will happen re serious commercial tie up with another regional carrier.

EI-BUD
Have to agree with you, especially on point 1 and 2. On 3 I wouldnt be surprised if it would be Loganair and/or bmi.
toledoashley is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 11:18
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 786
Originally Posted by EI-BUD View Post
Here is my prediction;

1. Stobart will exit Flybe ties
2. 2x Embraers will enter into an ACMI with a network carrier
3. I think something will happen re serious commercial tie up with another regional carrier.

EI-BUD
I am pretty sure Loganair will be involved because they will operate the Carlisle operation
tophat27dt is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 11:33
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by EI-BUD View Post
Here is my prediction;

1. Stobart will exit Flybe ties
2. 2x Embraers will enter into an ACMI with a network carrier
3. I think something will happen re serious commercial tie up with another regional carrier.

EI-BUD
Are the E195's bought outright or have they just taken over the lease that Flybe previously had? BE's issue with the E195's was the high lease cost of them. Was this a result of poor negotiations during the lease agreement stage or are E195's just generally high on leasing costs as standard? If Stobart own them outright or have agreed much lower leasing costs with the leasing company, given that many more newer similar sized aircraft are now available. Could flybe lease them once again from Stobart, but at a more economical price? I'm sure Flybe could make a couple of E195's work at certain airports.

I agree on a tie up with someone else. bmiRegional would be a good tie up. They can utilise the ATR fleet on shorter routes, reduce or phase out the E135/145 ageing fleet in favour of ATR's/Embraers. Potentially introduce E170/175 in order to upgauge some current BM routes that need more capacity. Run E195's alongside ATR's on the busier EI routes (If the Franchise continues)
caaardiff is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 13:02
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 2,432
Originally Posted by EI-BUD View Post
Here is my prediction;
1. Stobart will exit Flybe ties
2. 2x Embraers will enter into an ACMI with a network carrier
3. I think something will happen re serious commercial tie up with another regional carrier.
EI-BUD
I would pretty much go along with your view. There is a very vague rumour which suggests that the 3rd E195 will remain at SEN and do something "interesting", whatever that may turn out to be.
The three E195s (G-FBEL, 'M & 'N) were bought outright by Propius, the Stobart owned leasing company, around July 2017 and leased to Flybe until Q3 2018 in a deal expected to net Stobart $9.2m over its term.
Expressflight is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 15:06
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,144
Would a tie in with Easyjet be a possibility? An Easyjet franchise maybe?
PDXCWL45 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2018, 15:13
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by caaardiff View Post
Are the E195's bought outright or have they just taken over the lease that Flybe previously had? BE's issue with the E195's was the high lease cost of them. Was this a result of poor negotiations during the lease agreement stage or are E195's just generally high on leasing costs as standard? If Stobart own them outright or have agreed much lower leasing costs with the leasing company, given that many more newer similar sized aircraft are now available. Could flybe lease them once again from Stobart, but at a more economical price? I'm sure Flybe could make a couple of E195's work at certain airports.

I agree on a tie up with someone else. bmiRegional would be a good tie up. They can utilise the ATR fleet on shorter routes, reduce or phase out the E135/145 ageing fleet in favour of ATR's/Embraers. Potentially introduce E170/175 in order to upgauge some current BM routes that need more capacity. Run E195's alongside ATR's on the busier EI routes (If the Franchise continues)
Actually it was the E175s that Flybe had the issue with regarding cost of ownership. The problem with the E195s was the cost of operation which was why they were happy to have them parked up for a while down in NQY before finding some under-written work for them.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2018, 08:00
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by TartinTon View Post
Actually it was the E175s that Flybe had the issue with regarding cost of ownership. The problem with the E195s was the cost of operation which was why they were happy to have them parked up for a while down in NQY before finding some under-written work for them.
That's not true, the lease-terms ("cost of ownership") on the E195 is so high that it's not producing a profit to fly them even when full. The E175s ownership costs are fine but it does cost more to operate vs the Q400.
BOHEuropean is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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