|
Originally Posted by caaardiff
(Post 10299164)
CWL is still growing but I think there's room for improvement. Lets not forget this is an average analysis of fare price. Some routes may be performing much better than others. It was an E195 base until earlier this year where it's not 3x E75, so probably more empty seats flying around until those changes. That being said there's a number of domestic routes from CWL that could be downgraded to the Dash. Would a mixed crew base of Embraer and Dash actually make it more efficient?
What we also don't know is if Project Blackbird had payments up front or payments over the term of the contract. I would suspect the latter, meaning continual income from the base over the period of the contract. If it was up front then BE could take the money and run. I would've thought a consolidation of poor performing routes over base closures would be better. BE could be making good money off some routes which may not be able to be operated if a base closes completely. |
Originally Posted by AirportPlanner1
(Post 10299138)
Thank goodness you’re not in charge as I’d have thought SOU was their cash cow and EXT is a safe haven with a captive audience, hence at the very back of the queue for closure. |
Originally Posted by virginblue
(Post 10299167)
Have you read the decision? It is not about whether or not such deals are enforceable, it is about whether the wording of the contract in question constituted a right to operate or a duty to operate. If Flybe has learned anything from that decision, it will have the correct wording in place.
That aside, the interesting questions are: 1) Did bmibaby operate until 2014 out of DTV because of that contract? 2) Did DTV recuperate the monies paid to bmibaby? 3) Has DTV been able to lure lots of new airlines to its shores after having sued bmibaby as a matter of principle? Long story short, if Flybe needs to dump CWL or DSA in order to survive, they will happily do so and suggest the airports to sue them and find out if Flybe will be around long enough to see the end of court proceedings and debt collection - and if so, if that will or will not be the final straw for BE. In the meantime, no more flights from the only remaining regional airline in the UK from anywhere to these airports. It is really not so much a legal as a practical issue for all parties involved. Base closures do not necessarily mean the end of operations at the airport in question. Where you have a Public Accounts Committee scrutinising everything you do, you wouldn’t always make the correct commercial decision. |
It’s all speculation at the mo let’s wait for the announcement from BE. Most of us here don’t know how routes / based are performing and which aren’t so we can all say oh CWL or EXT will close but it’s meaningless. |
Does Flybe own its LHR slots i.e. can it sell them profitably.
|
Originally Posted by 22/04
(Post 10299651)
Does Flybe own its LHR slots i.e. can it sell them profitably.
|
Extensive feature on Flybe in the current issue of Airliner World. We all know what this means...
Only ray of hope is that they are not the cover feature... |
Originally Posted by virginblue
(Post 10299724)
Extensive feature on Flybe in the current issue of Airliner World. We all know what this means...
Only ray of hope is that they are not the cover feature... |
Multiple people in the past have noticed that in a remarkably large number of case, an airline with a large feature article in Airliner World has gone bust shortly afterwards. I have yet to see any proper statistical analysis to see if there really is a correlation or it's just people remembering the most obvious cases in the past. Regardless, it's become a bit of urban legend
|
Originally Posted by tom7130
(Post 10299178)
I see you point but I think that they would focus on their biggest bases. I would probably close EMA and then cancel the routes out of LHR if they were an option |
Originally Posted by shamrock7seal
(Post 10299656)
No - they do not own them. The slots were part of the BA and BMI merger. A certain number of slots were ring-fenced for a domestic 2nd airline. But not sure how one goes about applying to operate them or indeed whether they have to re-apply from time to time.
With fuel prices so high Flybe will need rapid and effective action in their current situation. Some serious network pruning I imagine will come ... |
Originally Posted by EI-BUD
(Post 10299991)
my understanding was that the routes need to be operated for a period of three routes on the specifics routes, at which time they can be used for whatever the airline want. I'd be amazed if Flybe are making a good return on these. The three year thing was pedalled online when Virgin little red was operating..
With fuel prices so high Flybe will need rapid and effective action in their current situation. Some serious network pruning I imagine will come ... |
Originally Posted by mwm991
(Post 10298983)
Are CWL and DSA not subsidised?
My understanding is both based are doing well and loads are good. I don’t buy into these base closures, why close a base that is profitable?? You’d still have the issue of where to base the aircraft and the headache of crew redundancies. |
Agreed. These so called "base closures" are complete rumours, that in-fact have been made to sound believable by media reports clearly actually getting their information from what someone had posted right here on PPRuNe. It's a shame that posts on a whim like that can then be taken as gospel and actually start affecting an airline and its employees at these bases. Admittedly Flybe's management should be reassuring their colleagues at this time, which for all we know actually may have done. They should however too do so to the public / passengers, as whilst they may probably know different and just brush off the rumours and negativity of their financial situation, the media is ridiculously powerful on winning peoples minds.
|
Originally Posted by Cazza_fly
(Post 10300358)
Agreed. These so called "base closures" are complete rumours, that in-fact have been made to sound believable by media reports clearly actually getting their information from what someone had posted right here on PPRuNe. It's a shame that posts on a whim like that can then be taken as gospel and actually start affecting an airline and its employees at these bases. Admittedly Flybe's management should be reassuring their colleagues at this time, which for all we know actually may have done. They should however too do so to the public / passengers, as whilst they may probably know different and just brush off the rumours and negativity of their financial situation, the media is ridiculously powerful on winning peoples minds.
People really should put more consideration into posting into public forums, comments are taken way way out of context and hearsay becomes fact.. this can quickly create problems. And has, lots of staff going through unessceasy stress - despite those of us that have seen this all before reassuring them. The modern world and online anonymity. |
Originally Posted by Alwayslistening
(Post 10300338)
Cardiff is. Doncaster isn’t anymore, contract was rewritten (as far as I was aware) due to the fact that the base was making money and flybe werent getting all of that profit due to the blackbird contract agreement. So they have “gone it alone”. My understanding is both based are doing well and loads are good. I don’t buy into these base closures, why close a base that is profitable?? You’d still have the issue of where to base the aircraft and the headache of crew redundancies. |
Originally Posted by caaardiff
(Post 10300368)
That's good news if DSA is making money. I was under the impression CWL was doing better than DSA, as CWL has seen growth from BE (3rd aircraft) and DSA has seen some cut backs. What's currently based at DSA?
Indeed this winter and the previous, there has only been 1xE175 based at DSA but this has probably been sensible planning. With them "going it alone" so to speak - reducing potential costs on routes harder to operate over the winter. |
Originally Posted by Cazza_fly
(Post 10300381)
2x E175s. The only "cut backs" really has been the reduction from the 2xE195 type initially in summer 2016 down to 1xE195 and 1xE175 in summer 2017 to the now current 2xE175s. The change to E175s was inevitable with the phase out of the E195 from the fleet. I'd probably expect CWL to be all E175 at some point next summer too.
Indeed this winter and the previous, there has only been 1xE175 based at DSA but this has probably been sensible planning. With them "going it alone" so to speak - reducing potential costs on routes harder to operate over the winter. |
Originally Posted by Cazza_fly
(Post 10300381)
2x E175s. The only "cut backs" really has been the reduction from the 2xE195 type initially in summer 2016 down to 1xE195 and 1xE175 in summer 2017 to the now current 2xE175s. The change to E175s was inevitable with the phase out of the E195 from the fleet. I'd probably expect CWL to be all E175 at some point next summer too.
Indeed this winter and the previous, there has only been 1xE175 based at DSA but this has probably been sensible planning. With them "going it alone" so to speak - reducing potential costs on routes harder to operate over the winter. DSA is only going to get bigger with TUI starting long haul flights next year and the terminal being extended. Real potential for Flybe to gain a proper foothold in the region if they make the right decisions. |
CAzza fly we do feel for you. I had several mates that got redundancy from E jets some only months after their base moved to them from Q400. Even the base doing well and making a profit didn't seem to appear in any logic what stayed or went. then a few months after they left they got a phone call asking them back.
Just looking at the agency emails coming through there seems to be swings sometimes weekly never mind monthly. One min looking for prop DEC's next a mate is saying they had started the process and then it was paused then told its not happening. A week later phone call are you still interested. if anyone is interested in the Ejet model choice here is a comparison of the different models. http://www.team.aero/files/aviation_data/owners_n_operators_guide_e_jets.pdf the E175 to cdg to sou will burn 1700kg at cruise which is 797Km/h the Q will be doing 650 km/h adding maybe 10 mins on to the flight. and burning 1200kg Q has 76 seats and the E175 88 seats. Half a ton of fuel @ 800$ a ton for 12 seats on an hour sector. I can't see the maint on the Q making the Ejet more economic at 400$ an hour sector. Any road as soon as they are filling a Q regularly one of the loco will come sniffing. If they are not filling a Q no point sticking a E jet on the route. We shall have to wait and see what they are going to do to sort the mess out. Fingers crossed they can fix things. According to the investor boards things are not as bad as the headlines say. Most of the loss was due to one off hits. They have minimal capital expenditure debt to service and 50 mil plus operating cash in the bank. not utterly brilliant but certainly not nearly exposed as some airlines which haven't taken a SM price hit or been the centre of attention in the media. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.