The quoted website is one of the world’s leading consultancy and accounting companies. I think we know who to trust.

They're the administrators handling the administration of the old airline, old bean. Make sure you drop them an email and tell them they're talking bull.

318 and Cavok. The website says that flybe was saved from iinsolvency
it wasn't. Comprendez?

Right.
The saving from insolvency relates to selling the Flybe business to Virgin Atlantic, Stobart and Cyrus Capital S advisors to the Flybe board. It made a lot of money for EY as consultants
That worked well didn't it?
EY are making loads of money as administrators of Flybe Realisations Ltd as well

Cavokblues. Flybe realisations is the old airline

And at that time on Thursday you could take 1st class on the train for £138 with complimentary at seat service.

Have a read of the article. You started off saying it’s talking bull and now saying it’s talking about something different. You’re just embarrassing yourself. One of the world’s biggest consultancy and accounting companies literally writes it and you’re trying to tell everyone they are wrong and you’re right.

The article mentions selling Flybe and then continues with the problems they face and ultimately the sale of the new Flybe.

The curtain on the stage has *finally* been lifted and the show has (almost) begun. No, not some kind of funny "virtual airline", but a real proper airline that both sells tickets and also flies the passengers. I didn't think it would really get to this stage, but we should now give Flybe and its employees a chance. We all have our doubts... the CEO will also have his (privately held) doubts as well... but that's the same whenever a theatre puts on a new performance. It is now a case of waiting to see how many punters want to buy tickets for the show
First flight is in 3 weeks time. Anecdotal data on how the commercial side is going will be available from mid May. We will know by summer from the CAA's statistics for May how the airline is really doing

An airline needs an Operating Licence to be a going concern. The legal entity wasn't sold, there was no ongoing business. I think they sold the name and a passenger database which amounts to sod all.

“A key priority was to negotiate with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about Flybe’s operating license and air operator certification. Without these, Flybe would lose access to valuable assets and vital permissions to function, including UK and EU airport slots”

“The M&A process attracted nine credible expressions of interest and the ultimate sale of Flybe to a new company, called Flybe Ltd and, as Edel explains, “the sale provided the possibility for growth, new jobs and the chance for Flybe Ltd to be a valuable economic contributor to regional communities across the UK and EU.” In the context of the Government’s ‘leveling up’ agenda and its emphasis on restoring regional connectivity, the prospects are good.”

The LHR and AMS slots are from Flybe1 so clearly they went with the sale too.

Bean, I'm well aware FBE Realisations is the remains of the old legal entity.

But just because a new legal entity is set up does not mean it's a completely different airline. It's not a binary matter and quite often companies are said to be sold when in actual fact the old legal entity registered at companies house is liquidated with assets transferred to a new legal entity. As I said earlier, it's common place in football. I'm not sure Rangers FC fans north of the border think their club is a new club following their rescue from financial problems a decade ago.

Interesting how Lucien Farrell was registered as a director of the 'new' airline. What would someone who was so heavily involved in the previous rescue attempt of the old airline, be doing at the new airline if it's a brand new airline with no links whatsoever? They even argued in the OL appeal decision against the CAA that 'had Flybe known that the consequence of pursuing an asset purchase agreement was that it would not be able to retain its OL, it would not have chosen to pursue such a transaction in preference to an alternative form of financial reconstruction.'

They basically liquidated the old company to transfer the assets they wanted to the new company and avoid the debt. All perfectly legal. If you want to think it's a brand new company with no links whatsoever to the old company than fill your boots. I don't think it is. A company is a bit more than just a registration at companies house.

Anyway, that aside, as I said I do wish the new airline well. It's always good to see airlines succeed.

Jesus christ. The old airline was liquiidated because Virgin needed to save themselves. Stobart who had only contributed assets simply could'nt afford amy more. So that only left Cyrus under Lucien Farrell to poor millions upon millions into a bottomless pit.
I can't believe we are here again

Keep digging!

Is that all you can contribute?. Do you dispute the facts. I tell yòu what? Let's continue this pointless twaddle for another 73 pages shall we?
please enlighten me as to the dynamite information which will enlighten me? Or, be a good boy and do some research

I dispute your interpretation of the facts but you don’t answer the points put back. You just change the story or repeat the same incorrect, rude and badly written points.

One of the worlds leading auditors and consultants literally put in writing and you still tell people you are right. That’s why the discussion goes on and on.

Anyway we can talk about how Flybe thinks it makes sense to go up against 19 daily flights on LHR-AMS using a twice daily Q400.

I don't understand your post about Farrell.

So he was pouring millions into a bottomless pit so had to liquidate the old airline and start afresh with a new airline with him as the registered director?

If you set up a 'new' company registered at company house, with the same name as an old airline, with the same aircraft, with the same director initially, with a lot of old flight crew, replicating some of their old routes, and then argue to the CAA that you didn't have to close down the old airline but you thought it was their preference, it's probably safe to say it's a continuation rather than a complete separate company with no links whatsoever.

I accept you might disagree. But I'm not to going to whinge again and again on the thread because people disagree with me.

[QUOTE=BA318;11204151]I dispute your interpretation of the facts but you don’t answer the points put back. You just change the story or repeat the same incorrect, rude and badly written points.

One of the worlds leading auditors and consultants literally put in writing and you still tell people you are right. That’s why the discussion goes on and on.

Anyway we can talk about how Flybe thinks it makes sense to go up against 19 daily flights on LHR-AMS using a twice daily Q400.[/QUOTE
The EY post is advertising blurb they are making megabucks out of this administration
as far as the rest of your post goes, when Flybe was a PLC and Saad Hammad was in charge, i tried time and time and time again to direct people to the investors web pages for the full story but, nobody ever took notice.
Have a lovely day

Christ almighty, I had to check the date when I saw that list of routes announced. It’s not April 1st but it might as well be. Utter madness. There going to be a lot of money being lost in the next few weeks and months.

I love this "much-loved brand"-PR stuff.

How would the public be able to follow the shenanigans of the reuscitated airline without using the "flymaybe" moniker...

Think today went well, seems very well received on social media platforms and the comments left. I don’t think the general public care if it’s a reincarnation or new company, they just appear happy Flybe are back and are pleased with the offerings. I’m biased but I do think the new website also looks good.

As for the choice of routes and the doom and gloom predictions…… just wait and see. This isn’t back of a fag packet planning with them plucked out of thin air. I’m sure all will become clearer with the ramping up of the business over the next few months.

I mean come on. 2 daily Q400 on LHR-AMS with no codeshares up against 19 daily BA/KLM flights with major hubs at each end not to mention the Easyjet ops to AMS from elsewhere.

Belfast ops up against Loganair and IAG.

Leeds to Heathrow with no codeshares? Who in the right mind would use that unless connecting (which will be fewer people thanks to the lack of codeshares and partnerships) ?

As for social media, searching for Flybe on Twitter tonight revels plenty of negative comments.

I understand you’re employed by them and want to be positive and I hope they do well but these routes are bizarre. Fingers crossed they decide to react quickly when they lose money and drop them sooner and try other routes.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29...ith-23-routes/
A good article here highlighting the competition they are up against on a majority of their routes. A few once a week routes from Southampton and Birmingham, Belfast-Newcastle and Leeds-Heathrow are the only ones not up against others.

Just to leave behind the argument over whether this is a brand new airline or not. The advantage of starting a brand new airline is that you can start with a clean piece of paper.
Do you want to operate an aircraft with a low seat mile cost once a day or an aircraft with a higher seat mile cost four times a day. By using an aircraft with higher seat mile costs can you attract a passenger who will pay a higher fare for the convenience of a choice of four flights a day?
The problem with old flybe was that fixed costs plus variable costs was less than total revenue therefore you made a loss. The argument for new flybe is that with your clean piece of paper you have an opportunity to reduce fixed costs and therefore bring total costs below total revenue and make a profit.
The problem I have with this is that on the chosen routes they will still be selling a lot of seats where marginal revenue is less than marginal cost and therefore, even with the lower fixed costs, total revenue will be less than total costs. We will see.
Now moving on to Heathrow. Your seat mile costs are greater than your competitor but you are offering your customer less convenience because you offer lower frequency and more difficult connections. How is it ever going to work?

As for the much ridiculed LHR plans - what is status of Flybe's Mk. I LHR slots? They were apparently grandfathered by Flybe but subject to a legal dispute. Did they end up with Flybe Mk. II?

As far as LHR-AMS is concerned, I suppose they are targeting a similar market as Mk I did with their LHR-EDI/MAN flights. Back then, they were also competing with a competitor offering much more departures but apparenlly saw a nichr for themselves..

The niche is that you sell seats where the marginal revenue is below marginal cost. Hence my jibe in case any of you missed it before, they invented the be-low cost airline. I have very sad news for those airline managers who can't add up, it doesn't work, give up now.

They lost grandfathering rights on the slots when they lost their appeal against the old OL being withdrawn. TBH, I'm not sure who ultimately owns the new slots they're using.

Sure. I was not insinuating that they have discovered a cash cow, but was merely hinting at the fact that they sort of replicate the approach Mk I took at LHR - successful or not.

What frequencies did BMI offer on AMS-LHR? They were also a third force on the route that had to focus on P2P to a much greater extent than KL or BA.

I really hope its a success
 

It is great that some of the workforce get their jobs back.

The concerns I have are rising fuel costs having adverse ramifications for profit per passenger. Competition from Emerald (if they get aggressive), And just a personal opinion, reputation. I for one would not have re-launched with the name flybe. It did not have a great reputation by the time it fell. And the stigma of going under.

BMI had 8 services a day to Amsterdam, believe you ne they were not just p2p they codeshared and had groups going on codeshares to Asia from Ams with Asiana.

And BMI often made a loss. They did have Star Alliance membership which would help because you’d be more inclined to use them if you could earn points.

Sure. I did not say "just P2P", I said they had to rely on P2P to a greater extent than the incumbents because of their smaller network.

Anyway, BMI had to fill 1.200 seats a day, not just 150 like Flybe. I am not saying that the idea is brilliant or even feasible, but obviously Flybe hopes that they can carve out a niche in what is one of the busiest city pairs in Europe. Which will, probably, depend on things like pricing - not just by looking at the overall fare bucket, but also at the availability of cheapter tickets booked a short notice etc. etc. What I find more perplexing is a route like LBA-LHR.

On possible cooperation between BA and Flybe, when bmi operated LHR-LBA BA did codeshare on this route, but only when connecting to a BA long haul flight.

"BMI had 8 services a day to Amsterdam"

and far more reliable than BA - they were the airline of choice for many from LHR to AMS

I know, however codeshares are not all they are cracked up to be. bmi used to get £50 per codeshare flight, sometimes flights were booked full of them, often these are done way in advance meaning the Business man couldn't get a booking close to dep.
Part of the reason BMI ran a business class on domestics.

So whilst codeshares seem a good way to fill a flight they aren't a money maker

I think in BMA’s day it was more like £25 ow, £50 would be return. That’s why one of the companies I worked for stopped doing nightstops overseas because you had all the hotac, crew costs etc for an aircraft full of punters from whom you were getting peanuts. IMHO feeding long haul from short haul only works if it’s one carrier and the system revenue is what matters. Otherwise the short haul partner is screwed.

Rubbish, you just need to have someone competent in your Pricing dept who's not just going to roll over to have their tummy tickled by the LH carrier!

Given even Lufthansa couldn't turn around BMI, maybe it's not as easy as all that.....

BA woke up to this in the early 1980’s when yield management was in its infancy. Analysis of the revenue on the nightstoppers, particularly from AMS, BRU and CDG revealed Pan Am and TWA were paying peanuts to use these flights to feed their services from LHR. It led to the introduction of a 90% prorate requirement being published which soon ensured the low yield tap was turned off and more profitable traffic replaced that which was lost.

As for Flybe, I am puzzled by their LHR network. Is someone paying them to use some slots? In the longer term with high LHR charges, both airport and handling, it will be a struggle to make money with 78 seat aircraft and that is before any UK261 liabilities they may incur if they happen to deliver any missed connection traffic. No doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time. I do hope they survive and prosper as we need successful domestic airlines to assist businesses and individuals across the country reach where they need to be at an affordable price. Cross Country train fares are often very high. Hopefully the reduction in domestic APD will provide some tailwind help from next year. There are more than enough headwinds for airlines at present!

I looked at one way morning fares for Leeds to London by train, it’s £143 tomorrow, £125 on Monday with a few £88s around in three weeks time. The last minute ones come with warnings of limited seats being free. Evening journeys north start from £104 tomorrow and around £59 in a months time.

There probably is a decent market for those wanting to go south in relative comfort and those wanting to save a bit of money. It’s worth noting anything less than £143 single on the train is no more flexible than the flight as it’s set train only. Although the airport comes with costs like parking, city centre car parks near stations aren’t cheap either.

The problem will be filling the opposite direction where the train at equivalent times can be as little as £38 return. And of course whether undercutting the train even at something like £200 return makes money with LHR’s charges.

You also have to remember many companies won’t even consider allowing the plane journey regardless of the difference in costs. Lots of policies prohibit plane rides when the train is under a certain length of time or no flights on domestic etc.

The train is great for city centre to city centre travel, provided that one of the city centres is London. For most people who do not live in a city centre, a journey by air may be preferable, and quite often cheaper and, subject to proximity to an airport, often quicker.

One doesn't have to live far from London for it to be a 2 hour journey plus, with several changes, just to get up to London, before even starting a 2 hour train journey to Leeds/Manchester or 3 hour train journey to Newcastle. Also one needs to consider that travel to/from Heathrow by train involves going via London and using different London stations plus the tube, while carrying luggage.

Domestic routes to/from LHR offer a one stop connection to the world, so LHR-LBA is not surprising especially as no one else is on it, and there maybe scope for code sharing. Would have expected another unserved domestic route rather than LHR-AMS, LPL perhaps (apart from the Liverpool conurbation it also has an additional populated catchment area in Flintshire/Denbighshire). LHR-LPL on U2's list if it ever starts Heathrow operations. Alternatively NQY, a route the old BE did well on, four times a day. Would it work without the PSO arrangements?

Also bear in mind that with weekend engineering works, rail travel is often a 5 days/week option. As for road travel, endless roadworks, death-trap smart motorways, heavy congestion, and speed cameras make this horridly slow and unpleasant.

It's good to have as much transport choice as possible and if a route doesn't pay, it will be pulled.