I hear someone's managed to put a hole in the side of YI already? Must be some record, we've only had the aircraft just over a week!

G-TOYI
 

Per another forum it happened in Alicante on the 5th just before
departing to EMA. ACARSD shows it got back to EMA and was out
of action until the 8th but it has been busy since.

I tried to post the acarsd data but I could not format it correctly.

The first flight was from EMA on the 2nd, which means it did get a
couple of incident free days!

It has been operating out of BHX the last few days but positioned
to EMA in the early hours and is currently operating the EDI.

Pete

G-TOYI
 

SAM-EMA

No not sure at all just reporting from another forum.

I would imagine it was ALC or EMA as it disappears from
acarsd for three days after the ALC-EMA sector.

The post I saw stated it flew back low level from ALC
but I can't verify this and the flight level was not mentioned.

Pete

From what i have heard inbound crew were unaware of damage until crew change and walk around by new crew, damage caused by belt loader safety rail, probably at EMA

the dent was on the upper corner of the aft cargo door

I was no1 on board yi when it was damaged, everyone was unaware of damage until crew taking over did their walkround.

Also at ema one of the menzies guys came onboard to report it saying that it was there when they went to open hold and didn't want to touch hold till it was reported! so assume it was done in alc after the walkround!

G-TOYM
 

Per another site VT-SJD 733 due at EMA tonight, which is believed
to become G-TOYM.

Maybe not quite the cavalry but I am sure very welcome to baby.

It is not a stranger to BHX as it is reported as ex BA G-OHAJ!

Good to see a full compliment just before I use them next week.

Pete

Flyer2308
 

From the damage reports the crew taking over the aircraft reported that the hold was already open with the loader in place when the damage was spotted the gingerbeers are certain that it happened in EMA on arrival, i would be intrested to hear what SAM-EMA knows and no doubt the bean counters in TT & Toad hall would

interesting as like i said the menzies guys said he wanted to make sure that it was reported before they went near it! but from what you say the loader was i place! hhmmm

New Baby Delivered.
 

Not Seen it reported G-TOYM < VT-SJD > Has been delivered 2 EMA. Its in Bmi Main Hanger.

G-TOYM
 

NJTCFPost 93? G-TOYM registered 15/08/08 per G-INFO (CAA)Pete

baby at man
 

Currently have 2 737 operating (bmibaby own aircraft), 1 bmi a321 and 1 bmi a319. Baby cabin crew at MAN have been trained on all 3 aircraft types and operate on the bmi aircraft under bmi AOC and with bmi flight deck crews. Interesting to know whether these aircraft will stay for the winter, as it seems pointless to train the crew for only a few months operation on the bmi aircraft

A321 a/c ops MAN-PMI-MAN-BOD-MAN-PRG-MAN mon to fri
and MAN-BFS-MAN-AGP-MAN-PRG-MAN sat
and MAN-AGP-MAN-BFS-MAN-ALC-MAN sun

and a319 doing a variety of things mainly MAN-JER-MAN-NOC-MAN-MAD-ORK-MAN during week and certain days MAN-LIS-MAN and a varied selection of late flying ex MAN.
different combinations for the A319 depending on day of week

737 ops MAN-BFS-MAN-AGP-MAN-ALC-MAN
and also MAN-PGF-MAN-NQY-MAN-ORK-MAN

Why dont BD for once and for all drop the bmibaby brand and AOC, and just operate one airline with one AOC and one set of management, advertising, back office website, etc.... how much does the WW head office function cost each year?

Copenhagen

Bmibaby and Bmi are 2 different propositions. The offering of bmi is not a loco airline and it is a higher cost operation. While there would be cost savings streamlining the company into one entity, Management would be looking at `an airline´ rather than 2 and I feel that baby would be lost within such a system.

Besides all that baby has been well established in the bases where it operates. My own personal opinion is that it will be sold in 2009 and the excuse will be like BAs reason for giving up BAconnect. ´no longer fits into the strategy´!

SAS tried low cost with Snowflake, and it was a huge failure (one of many SAS failures). It just seems to me, as an outsider, that having two 'sister' airlines based in one airport, each with its own management, brand, bookings, and basically offering a similar buy on board product doesnt make sense.

Now that they are even sharing aircraft, with the Bmi fleet flying Baby routes, it just gets way too complex. Wouldnt it make sense for the group to have one brand - and do it properly. Surely some of the bmibaby markets would connect into bmi flights at manchester to scotland and the americas, which would help the fleet. I have flown with baby and bmi, and could not really see a difference from a passenger viewpoint.

bmibaby may be using bmi aircraft in Manchester at the moment, but the reservations, cabin crew and onboard service are all bmibaby. It is no different to any other airline that subs in aircraft from another carrier. bmibaby and bmi co exist in Manchester very well as different airlines, each run in very different ways that suit their operational requirements

The idea that bmi and bmibaby should be merged in order to reduce costs is ridiculous as bmibaby's operating costs are much lower than bmi's with completely different operational structures, labour contracts, business models etc... that suit both airline's positions in their respective markets.