I read it differently, that BA had wanted to do a summer LHR-NQY service without subsidy on a commercial basis. This would be alongside, rather than instead of, the PSO but as the route is "closed" due to the PSO, they could not do so. Whether BA would bid for a year-round LHR-NQY with subsidy is a different question that I don't believe has yet been answered - perhaps even by them.

Since the big reason that Flybe are being "saved" is the new buzz word"connectivity", I wonder how many of these important routes will remain once the axe falls on all the loss making routes, of which there must be many? How connecting will they be then? It is wonderful to watch though, lets all get in on the spin for the masses "connectivity" is the word to explain why Flybe can get away with not paying over tax due.

The answer that I believe FlyBe would give, and that may even be quite true, is that the amount FlyBe will be getting paid to operate the PSA all year round will reflect overall the peaks and troughs of the commerciality of the route, that therefore you will effectively only be paying them to operate it in winter. Further it may even be that case that under the current arrangement, to some extent, in fact the expected profitability of the route in summer subsidises it in winter in a way that wouldn't be possible under BA's proposal. It could be (and in fact may very well be the case) that if BA operated the route in summer and there was a PSA for winter, the overall cost to the taxpayer would be higher and customers would lose the current certainty and year round consistency of the operation.

Uncomfortable with the overall situation though. What next? Another airline decides to not pay over the PAYE deductions and hold them to ransom? The owners decide not to invest money after all but use the time to organise a prepack (or BMI > Loganair style arrangement), and the government loses out anyway?

If APD needs looked at (and I think it should be, I suspect most people here do) then that is a different matter that should be handled prospectively, openly and even handedly; not retrospectively by one operator holding the government to ransom for favourable treatment. People who regard themselves as competitors to FlyBe (which is most UK airlines) must rightly be hopping mad.

If Flybe want to be profitable they should start some sort of onboard lottery.
Tell the punters it’s all about helping charities but then give a single digit percentage to the charity and pocket the rest.

The airline has been given a temporary safety net,hopefully the airline can sort out a long term plan. Have recently flown with them a few times and they were ok not great but ok.
For keeping the airline going our Secretary of State for Transport has been slated by climate change campaigners.He might be slated or applauded by the campaigners soon as he is due to announce the decision on the development consent order for Manston ;)

Wishing Flybe good luck :)

So environment campaigners would rather have "big jets" on regional flights rather than small props !

Even if they did, BA currently don't have the right aircraft to operate the route at a useful frequency. In reality it would also need to start the day at the NQY end, which would mean overnighting crews/establishing a base etc. Seems very unlikely to me.

And I guess they don't mind all these cargo flights by large, and often more polluting, jets operated by the likes of DHL and that ! :-)

Without all these cargo flights how would they get their new mobile phones? Repeatedly upgrading your mobile is ridiculously CO2 intensive.

As is most trade globally.
Time to stop picking on aviation as some sort of bogie man - what about the world's shipping fleets?.....burning disgusting HFO in their engines, chuck all their waste into the oceans, swill out their tanks while no-one is looking. What about the snowflake generation who complain about the climate but are the first ones to think it's ok to walk around buildings in t-shirts in the winter and demand the heating is turned up because they're cold. You'll find many of these are the same hypocrites bleating about planes.
The prognosis my friends is simple: too many people - humans consume; not enough trees - trees can save us. Stop blaming planes.

Indeed so, I remember an article in the London FT last year that said that the cruise ships owned by the Carnival Corp (brands such as Cunard, P&O, Holland-America, Costa and others) emit 10 times more sulphur-dioxide pollution than all of the passenger cars in the whole of Europe!

Cruise ships in port continue to run their heavy-oil burning engines to generate power in the vast majority of cases. This is a big issue in places like Southampton (the UK's biggest cruise port) where there are increasing calls for technology to be developed to enable them to plug into "shore" power when docked.

I think that the use of such high sulphur fuel was banned from the start of this year.

Looks like MOL is now threatening to take legal action against billionaire owned flybe unless Ryanair gets its own APD Holiday!

https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/r...e-competitors/

I would be fascinated to see how much subsidy Flybe received over the past year on the NQY to London route(s)

For once he is 100% correct.

According to BBC news the NQY to London PSO route will continue. However operations are switching back to LGW from LHR.

The offer is £2.8m over 4 years to deliver the route, so £58,333 per month or nearly £2000 per day.

As I mentioned earlier:
Now that Stobart (as a public company) has confirmed that the consortium has injected £110m, the total 'burned through' in the year looks like £216m. Astonishing.
Even allowing for the EU waiting six months to agree the deal (why were they even involved?), that's an awful lot of money.

Did Stobart inject cash - wasn't it Stobart Air and the leasing company they put on the table?