Inverness - London city airport !!!!!
 

LCY will take over after the AMS service stops at the end of the summer.

There are also plans now to have two night stopping dash's. One for MAN and one for BHX, due to start in the middle of the summer. After throwing out the local crews because it's 'too expensive' to have regional bases, and to then night stop 4 crews and a couple of aircraft on the south apron is a massive kick in the plums.

Why is it that BA, KLM, Lufthansa, Air France etc choose to night stop crews all over Europe rather than operate tiny bases at each destination?

Because it is far more efficient to have one (or several) large crew bases and utilise the crew better than to operate many tiny crew bases as Flybe have been doing for years.

It is not surprising that those who have been displaced or made redundant are disappointed and/or angry and believe me they all have my sympathy, it has happened to me before. But the fact is, it's a business and it has to make money or cease to exist altogether, costing several thousand more jobs.

I'll agree with you that the old system was inefficient, but what I don't see is why displace crew.

To be honest, where the crew are based is irrelevant, as long as a line of work rotates through their base. You could easily start and finish a line of work from INV, or ABZ or NCL as easily as MAN.

Look at how they ran the Brussels contract. We all started the lines of work in BHX or EDI.

Yes, this will involve a touring roster with night stops, but that seems the way Flybe are going now anyway. It also negates the hassle and expense of moving to the other arse of the country. More importantly, it keeps the crew happy.

I think you would find that the crew in the smaller bases that closed, remained there as they wanted home each night rather than have a touring roster. I personally prefer a touring roster(billy no mates and single) but not for everyone.

I just cannot see the point of operating into LCY with a prop when easyJet have introduced a second daily to Gatwick and now operate a daily service into Luton plus of course BA to Heathrow. Where do they think they are going to get the pax from? I do wonder sometimes about so-called planners in the aviation industry.

They're probably banking on BA not re-starting LHR :)

Maybe they could consider INV - SEN instead.

INV-LCY
 

INV-LCY does seem an odd choice, I heard the rumor was the aircraft would op LCY-INV Slot1/AM then op INV-XXX-INV and back to LCY Slot2/PM.

That would kind of make sense as the only morning flight from the London area TO Inverness is now the EasyJet Luton flight, the Easyjet LGW-INV doesn't leave LGW until midday so not much use for passengers traveling from London to do a day trip to INV.

It would be a shame if the INV-AMS service were to be dropped once the funding runs out in September but who knows BE may have a change of heart.

The rumour about BA re-invigorating the LHR service has been around for a while (wasn't it dependent on LHR getting a 3rd runway I seem to remember Willie Walsh saying).

On a personal note (as a regular user of the BE MAN-INV and LGW-INV services), the flybe crews at Inverness were always friendly, professional and courteous (several of them ex Dan-Air from the days when DA operated INV-LHR-INV with a based BAC1-11/B737, then made redundant following DA's takeover by BA and the closure of the INV Crew base, then re-employed by BA franchise British Regional when the INV Crew base re-opened in 1998, then transferred to flybe). I am sad that so many good people lost their careers for the sake of saving a few pounds, that's showbiz I suppose.
To all the former INV based Crews- Thanks and Best wishes for a successful and happy future.

EZY diverted to EDI on route up to INV
 

Anybody know what happened to the EZY flight from LGW - INV last night.

It diverted to EDI.

Were the passengers then put on buses to travel from EDI - INV.

BE setting up shop at LCY rather than LHR, where there is the potential for pax as well as point to point, is part of the tragedy of not expanding LHR.

Airport charges are not the issue (LCY's are high, like LHR's), it's the price of slots on the secondary slot market because of the shortage.

Maybe it was too foggy to land in INV last night hence the diversion. The passengers would of either been coached up last night or put up in hotels for onward travel today.

Tonight's LGW - INV cancelled ........

oh dear......problems 2 nights in a row.

Must be the wrong kind of weather .........again !!!!

They used to be able to use RAF Kinloss as a diversion field, but thats no longer available, due to Defence cutbacks. Aberdeen or Edinburgh now

You would think that an a319 airbus would be able to land using the ILS system in foggy weather.....

Perhaps not

This is what happens when you don't have a locally based aircraft. Easyjet will always cancel the flight if there is any risk of fog/snow/ice/high wind to minimise diversions and any disruption to subsequent flights.

If you think two nights in a row is bad, just wait until the winter start properly. I can see the caledonian sleeper being quite busy come January.

Oh, and in all my time at INV, KSS has never been a specified alternate, always ABZ.

It depends on the category of ILS system installed at the airport. INV is only capable of Cat I operations just like ABZ. GLA and EDI are Cat IIIB capable as is easyJet's Airbus fleet.
I believe the aircraft and crew night stop in INV so it doesn't make any difference if it is locally based.

Kinloss was used years ago for diversions from inv but was stopped by the DFT when they found out as it was not secure.

As for last nights flt it was not cancelled but delayed over night. Pax were hotaced and flown up this morning on a extra flt

I don't see how having based aircaft would have anything to do with reliability issues. If the weather is below minima, it is below minima. EZY crews and jets are CAT3B capable. If the airport is not equipped then it does not matter who is flying it and where the plane is based, it is not landing, full stop.

It is pretty rare for EZY to chop a flight because they might not get in, more often then not they will give it a go. Compare that to BA who will can their entire domestic network at the first sign of trouble.

The EJ aircraft are based in LGW. If, say for arguments sake, they launched last night and didn't get in, then they end up with an aircraft out of position for the next days flying. Which, as the aircraft is LGW based, will impact flights from there NOT inverness. So, last night, some Ops guy at EJ took one look at the TAF and decided to cancel the flight. This in their eyes, reduces their exposure to disruption the next day by keeping their aircraft and, importantly, the crew, where they are based. Shortsighted? In hindsight, yes as the RVR never dropped below 700m last night, but the decision was made based on the forecast and you can't blame them for that.

If EJ/BA/Flybe or whoever had a base at INV, then chances are the aircraft will have a full days flying out of INV. So yes, then they would have been more inclined to 'give it a go' as then they are trying to get their aircraft and crew where it is supposed to be.

My point is that these cancellations will be more common over the winter, so get used to it. It's nothing to do with the equipment or the crews that fly them.