You would have thought that due to the current circumstances and also the demise of Flybe that those airport charges would be waived. Not just Manchester Airport but all airport's. I'm talking about landing fees more than anything else.

Why should they? Better an unsecured creditor, than not at all. And, depending on the legal situation, which I am not qualified to comment upon, they may even enjoy some security as a result of having possession of the aircraft.

Quoting from my original post, "I'm talking about landing fees more than anything else".

Landing fees are easy to be scrapped from the debt due, any other fees can be and should be paid. By the time the creditors are finished with winding up Flybe there will be absolutely nothing left for the employees and this is always the case when a company goes bust.

Trying to get such things such as landing fees paid from a bankrupt airline is just pure greed in my opinion. I know that it's the norm in these circumstances but the aircraft are where they are, there not costing the airport much if anything. The company's gone and the airport's wrap up even more debt on the creditors, it makes me sick.

I know it's business at the end of day and I totally understand that but it annoys me whenever a company goes bust there's never anything left in the pot to pay the former employees. I know I've been there.

I can see that under the present circumstances that the Reset button will likely get pressed on alot of economics and debt and we go back to square one in many aspects.

IE parking and landing fees/rents will be shelved or reduced in the current climate

The only two groups that gain any benefit from a bankruptcy are the the big accountancy firms and HM Treasury. Always been the same.

Monitoring the nearly empty skies on FR24 this morning and noticed E195 G-FBEI pop up en route EXT to NWI.

I think this is the first movement of a Flybe aircraft since the evening of the 4th?

Yes, albeit this aircraft had been handed back to the leasing company after being withdrawn from service before collapse as part of the E195 phase out.

wasn’t this one earmarked for service with Eastern Airways as part of 3 airframes acquired?

I'm not so sure. I thought they were leasing the shorter E190 that is London City capable.

Administrators seek restart
 

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....05fa43304a.png

Can't see it happening given that a large chunk of domestic routes have already been replaced by Eastern and Loganair. It would be better for money to be given/loaned to them to sustainably expand and cover some more routes, whilst also offering employment to some of those that lost their jobs with Flybe.

I'd generally be shocked if that happens! As caardiff says supporting the likes of Eastern and Loganair via some of regional connectivity fund or grants for new bases at specific airports might be a better option.

What would they buy? Just about every asset (aircraft, engines, ground equipment, buildings etc) were either always leased or, in the last year, sold off and leased back. The staff were already laid off so, even if the government bought the shell back, they wouldn’t qualify fir the 89% salary scheme - aimed at keeping solvent companies going till after the lockdown is over.

The article says the need is to keep the previous routes flown between smaller centres goin during the present crisis. But the government doesn’t want people travelling and many if the airports are shut. With the reduction in passengers Loganair et all could satisfy any need if asked.

I can only see this as the administrator flying a kite and in a gale......

I think it's a mechanism to enable the Administrator to keep the company dormant in administration but to furlough instead of making the employees redundant. In that way, they'd qualify for the retention scheme and £2,500 per month instead of jobseeker's allowance. That does make sense and is a logical position.

What makes no sense and is not logical is returning vast numbers of Q400s to the skies to fly routes that made losses. Flybe ran out of cash and ceased trading for a reason, after years of alternating between a marginal profit and a big loss.

Sorry, no way should the hardworking taxpayers bail out the employees, the company failed 3 weeks ago, the company has been failing for a long time, the employees knew that for a long time too. So should the taxpayer bail out TCX employees/ MON employees too etc from months/years ago?

ORAC
Just for info, the following.
Ministers relaxed rules late last week, allowing companies that failed during March to benefit from the coronavirus job retention scheme.
Flybe failed on the 5th March.

They failed because of Coronavirus.

I cant see them coming back though given that Loganair, Blue Islands and Eastern were viable at the time and should receive support through this time.

If the Government is serious about the introduction of more PSO’s to support regional communities then it may be a financially sensible move to bring back a small part of Flybe to fly those routes being considered. I do think that getting this country moving again after this crisis will be critical to get the economy back on track.

The value of the NQY PSO route alone was circa £2.8m over 4yrs, more than Connect Airways paid for all of Flybe back in January of last year.
The UK uses very few PSO’s when compared to other European nations and there are no doubt some routes for which rail or road are not viable alternatives for business (to long/over water).

I’m not suggesting the Government simply bring back Flybe, that would be crazy, but a Government owned, lower cost, slimmed down version may just make sense if they are simply going to spend the same amount on PSO funding anyway.

The problem is that ‘Government owned’ and ‘slimmed down, lower cost’ rarely go hand in hand.

I am sure the government could find some experts on Pprune that could do it

We had a Government owned airline that connected the UK regions. It was called BEA.