Flybe-V2
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SW England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=SWBKCB;11278758]But looking at this link shows details for Domestic Scheduled Services May 2022?
I queried this with CAA a few weeks back, see their e-mail response to me below:
CAA answers in red
Please can you clarify for me the recent data included in your UK Airline Data tables under the Aer Lingus (UK) Ltd name
Table 4 Scheduled Service activity data is shown for both Other International and UK Domestic operations. Correct in recent months, at start of operations only international
Table 8.2 Aircraft Type & Utilisation Individual Airlines shows data which appears to correspond only to the International component. Yes this is correct as the domestic service uses ‘wet leased’ in aircraft
Does therefore the Domestic activity data recorded primarily relate to either (a) Aer Lingus BHD - LHR schedules by A320 series, or (b) Aer Lingus Regional operations out of BHD, operated by Emerald Airways ATR72, or (c) a combination of the two? Or something else??
Yes these relate to domestic LHR – BHD and vv operations, they are currently Aer Lingus UK scheduled services but operated on a ‘wet lease’ basis at the moment by Aer Lingus (EI) A320 aircraft.
I queried this with CAA a few weeks back, see their e-mail response to me below:
CAA answers in red
Please can you clarify for me the recent data included in your UK Airline Data tables under the Aer Lingus (UK) Ltd name
Table 4 Scheduled Service activity data is shown for both Other International and UK Domestic operations. Correct in recent months, at start of operations only international
Table 8.2 Aircraft Type & Utilisation Individual Airlines shows data which appears to correspond only to the International component. Yes this is correct as the domestic service uses ‘wet leased’ in aircraft
Does therefore the Domestic activity data recorded primarily relate to either (a) Aer Lingus BHD - LHR schedules by A320 series, or (b) Aer Lingus Regional operations out of BHD, operated by Emerald Airways ATR72, or (c) a combination of the two? Or something else??
Yes these relate to domestic LHR – BHD and vv operations, they are currently Aer Lingus UK scheduled services but operated on a ‘wet lease’ basis at the moment by Aer Lingus (EI) A320 aircraft.
An interesting response from the CAA Northsands.
I have been pondering these figures too and wondering if Flybe management have been questioning why the CAA and DFT appear to be bending over backwards to make life easy for Aer Lingus, BA and IAG to virtually monopolise the BHD LHR route. It looks like over 60% of the passengers carried by the supposedly UK company - Aer Lingus UK are being done on a wet lease basis allowing Aer Lingus the convenient flexibility of not needing to put another Airbus on the UK register. One airframe has been running for years on this UK domestic route without interruption so they have had plenty time to sort this. There isn't even a need to get the crews a UK licence so long as they are allowed to do it as a wet lease. Flybe hopefully are demanding that if EI want to do this route, they should get a G-reg or bugger off, particularly considering the legal battles and appeals that Flybe had to go through with the CAA etc. to just to prise those remedy slots out of BA's mitts.
Similar for Emerald. Everyone else has been shafted and has had to quickly adapt to comply the new regime , so why are Emerald being given an easy ride. They have had a couple of years to get a UK AOC running but still no sign. Yet more UK domestic flights not directly regulated by the CAA and not on the G register. If the CAA continue to allow this excessive wet-easing, then they will soon run out of airlines to regulate.
Ryanair must be a bit miffed too after setting up R(UK) to cover UK domestics when it looks like they could have just wet leased.
I have been pondering these figures too and wondering if Flybe management have been questioning why the CAA and DFT appear to be bending over backwards to make life easy for Aer Lingus, BA and IAG to virtually monopolise the BHD LHR route. It looks like over 60% of the passengers carried by the supposedly UK company - Aer Lingus UK are being done on a wet lease basis allowing Aer Lingus the convenient flexibility of not needing to put another Airbus on the UK register. One airframe has been running for years on this UK domestic route without interruption so they have had plenty time to sort this. There isn't even a need to get the crews a UK licence so long as they are allowed to do it as a wet lease. Flybe hopefully are demanding that if EI want to do this route, they should get a G-reg or bugger off, particularly considering the legal battles and appeals that Flybe had to go through with the CAA etc. to just to prise those remedy slots out of BA's mitts.
Similar for Emerald. Everyone else has been shafted and has had to quickly adapt to comply the new regime , so why are Emerald being given an easy ride. They have had a couple of years to get a UK AOC running but still no sign. Yet more UK domestic flights not directly regulated by the CAA and not on the G register. If the CAA continue to allow this excessive wet-easing, then they will soon run out of airlines to regulate.
Ryanair must be a bit miffed too after setting up R(UK) to cover UK domestics when it looks like they could have just wet leased.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sunny spain
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the loads factors of 19% according to the CAA, expensive wet leases and a large amount of cancellations and delays I would not think flybe's biggest concern is who has a UK licence.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting response from the CAA Northsands.
I have been pondering these figures too and wondering if Flybe management have been questioning why the CAA and DFT appear to be bending over backwards to make life easy for Aer Lingus, BA and IAG to virtually monopolise the BHD LHR route. It looks like over 60% of the passengers carried by the supposedly UK company - Aer Lingus UK are being done on a wet lease basis allowing Aer Lingus the convenient flexibility of not needing to put another Airbus on the UK register. One airframe has been running for years on this UK domestic route without interruption so they have had plenty time to sort this. There isn't even a need to get the crews a UK licence so long as they are allowed to do it as a wet lease. Flybe hopefully are demanding that if EI want to do this route, they should get a G-reg or bugger off, particularly considering the legal battles and appeals that Flybe had to go through with the CAA etc. to just to prise those remedy slots out of BA's mitts.
Similar for Emerald. Everyone else has been shafted and has had to quickly adapt to comply the new regime , so why are Emerald being given an easy ride. They have had a couple of years to get a UK AOC running but still no sign. Yet more UK domestic flights not directly regulated by the CAA and not on the G register. If the CAA continue to allow this excessive wet-easing, then they will soon run out of airlines to regulate.
Ryanair must be a bit miffed too after setting up R(UK) to cover UK domestics when it looks like they could have just wet leased.
I have been pondering these figures too and wondering if Flybe management have been questioning why the CAA and DFT appear to be bending over backwards to make life easy for Aer Lingus, BA and IAG to virtually monopolise the BHD LHR route. It looks like over 60% of the passengers carried by the supposedly UK company - Aer Lingus UK are being done on a wet lease basis allowing Aer Lingus the convenient flexibility of not needing to put another Airbus on the UK register. One airframe has been running for years on this UK domestic route without interruption so they have had plenty time to sort this. There isn't even a need to get the crews a UK licence so long as they are allowed to do it as a wet lease. Flybe hopefully are demanding that if EI want to do this route, they should get a G-reg or bugger off, particularly considering the legal battles and appeals that Flybe had to go through with the CAA etc. to just to prise those remedy slots out of BA's mitts.
Similar for Emerald. Everyone else has been shafted and has had to quickly adapt to comply the new regime , so why are Emerald being given an easy ride. They have had a couple of years to get a UK AOC running but still no sign. Yet more UK domestic flights not directly regulated by the CAA and not on the G register. If the CAA continue to allow this excessive wet-easing, then they will soon run out of airlines to regulate.
Ryanair must be a bit miffed too after setting up R(UK) to cover UK domestics when it looks like they could have just wet leased.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Belfast
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Stobart had actually got the G reg on the fleet with stickers over it with the EI reg before they went under. I thought that Emerald operating under the BACF AOC. Could be wrong
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 63
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These figures are wrong, I understand BHX flights alone had more pax in total in May than the CAA total figures.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're holding 3 x daily SOU-MAN but from 2 March 2023 after cutting back the start date ahead of this week's deadline for unwanted Winter slots.
This winter schedule seems very weird. Why would you stop BHX-EDI and BHX-GLA at the end of the summer and restart on 24 November after a three-week gap? That doesn't look like a part-way-through-loading issue.
This winter schedule seems very weird. Why would you stop BHX-EDI and BHX-GLA at the end of the summer and restart on 24 November after a three-week gap? That doesn't look like a part-way-through-loading issue.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know what this filing (see Registration of Charge created on 15th August) is about? Is it tax planning or Cyrus just protecting its interests?
Flybe Companies House Filing History
Flybe Companies House Filing History
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a fig pudding minute. The data is only collected from the airlines first month of ops in which case pax numbers are bound to be lower than an airline that's been going for years. On top of that you've got delayed Q400 deliveries and one Q400 taken out of service due to a heavy landing. I for one am getting pissed off with people who look at early data, rumours etc and then scream out "LOOK NEW FLYBE IS A FAILURE!!!" For god sakes give the guys a bloody chance! I would say you need to at least wait until September figures come out when the airline should finally be a lot more stable before making any kind of judgement. Let's not forget 12 months ago we had the same idiots making out new Flybe would never get off the ground and it was all a slot grab, look how utter garbage that has turned out to be.
Considering we had users telling us the reason flights were not on sale was because they were fully sold out, and they were then dropped and now we’ve had people telling us Flybe has great loads and figures then revealed they didn’t, it seems the misinformation has come from those who try and put a positive spin on things. And of course as always we’ve had those who say it can’t possibly be Flybe and the CAA must have messed up, just like their leasing companies and every other group blamed for any problems.
It was mentioned before that Flybe said they could operate empty for two years and still survive so who knows maybe 19% is better than expected for month 1. Either way with the delays and cancellations it’s likely they didn’t make much money in month 1.
I await the “stop talking Flybe down” posts from Air Southwest and Bean shortly…
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting in the companies house filing is the list of domain names Flybe has registered (I assume to stop squatters for future opportunities and to stop bad ones) they include flybebreaks.com, flybefranchises.com and the more entertaining IhateFlybe.com, flybesucks.com and flybestinks.com
Hang on a fig pudding minute. The data is only collected from the airlines first month of ops in which case pax numbers are bound to be lower than an airline that's been going for years. On top of that you've got delayed Q400 deliveries and one Q400 taken out of service due to a heavy landing. I for one am getting pissed off with people who look at early data, rumours etc and then scream out "LOOK NEW FLYBE IS A FAILURE!!!" For god sakes give the guys a bloody chance! I would say you need to at least wait until September figures come out when the airline should finally be a lot more stable before making any kind of judgement. Let's not forget 12 months ago we had the same idiots making out new Flybe would never get off the ground and it was all a slot grab, look how utter garbage that has turned out to be.
June's figires are now largely available if anybody wants to crunch the numbers
Interesting in the companies house filing is the list of domain names Flybe has registered (I assume to stop squatters for future opportunities and to stop bad ones) they include flybebreaks.com, flybefranchises.com and the more entertaining IhateFlybe.com, flybesucks.com and flybestinks.com
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load factors for the first 4 months were 65.2% / 56.3% / 58.5% / 54.9%...CAA data to be updated with the proper numbers in the near future, I understand.
They are quite impressive when you consider that capacity growth was 403% Apr - May / 24% May- Jun and 50% Jun - Jul
They are quite impressive when you consider that capacity growth was 403% Apr - May / 24% May- Jun and 50% Jun - Jul