PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Flybe-V1 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/637085-flybe-v1.html)

cavokblues 6th Dec 2021 09:42

Some questionable journalism in that article.

Central to the sale are Flybe's lucrative take-off and landing slots at Heathrow airport, which Flybe inherited when British Airways bought BMI in 2012.

Considering they don't own these slots I'm not sure how they're intending to sell them.

He managed to overturn a decision by Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, to revoke Flybe's operating licence in June, paving the way for the airline to be revived

No such thing happened. The new airline always had a OL. They failed to transfer the Heathrow slots over from the old airline to the new one.

ICEHOUSES 6th Dec 2021 09:53


Originally Posted by southamptonavgeek (Post 11152063)
The sentence about the OL is obviously coming from somebody who is not familiar with the fact that a new one has been granted. I also presume that "Guernsey" is referring to Aurigny in this context.

Aurigny and states of Guernsey will never be interested in buying another airline believe it or not, the 65000 Guernsey population are already unhappy with the massive GR losses over the years 40-50 million £ plus , the states have bigger problems such as needing to invest in schools and infrastructure over the forthcoming years to deal with not buying more airlines. The only reason states of guernsey own an airline in the first place is to protect the LGW slot since BA pulled out years ago, then Flybe pulled out and failed, a jet was purchased 7 years ago by GR which has cost the airline even more losses.

DC3 Dave 6th Dec 2021 11:30

Why does Esken keep going round and round in my head?

allan1987 6th Dec 2021 12:04


Originally Posted by DC3 Dave (Post 11152117)
Why does Esken keep going round and round in my head?

I don't think Esken would interested after what happened to stobart Air,

Though while could be possibly Cityjet could be interested in flybe if their backers falko and fortress would be willing put in Money to buy it

The96er 6th Dec 2021 12:15


Originally Posted by DC3 Dave (Post 11152117)
Why does Esken keep going round and round in my head?

I think Esken (aka Stobart) do not have 2 brass pennies to rub together at the moment and have more pressing concerns without investing in another airline venture.

L1011effoh 6th Dec 2021 14:52

Probably the wrong forum for this, but I was recently told that FlyBe 2.0 were paying their line Captains £50k pa. If so, that's a significant deterioration in terms and conditions from FlyBe 1.0 for long suffering unemployed pilots. Anyone able to confirm or deny this?

bean 6th Dec 2021 15:17

Have you heard of a pandemic

EI-BUD 7th Dec 2021 09:04


Originally Posted by L1011effoh (Post 11152213)
Probably the wrong forum for this, but I was recently told that FlyBe 2.0 were paying their line Captains £50k pa. If so, that's a significant deterioration in terms and conditions from FlyBe 1.0 for long suffering unemployed pilots. Anyone able to confirm or deny this?

I'm guessing if you are Dash 8 type rated at this time you have few alternative employment options..

cavokblues 7th Dec 2021 09:47

I completely understand why people have accepted new positions with the new airline but I'm fairly sure the FlyBMI / Loganair TUPE ruling would give them a fair chance of success should they wish to go down that route. I think it's quite clear there has been a transfer of business from the old airline to the new.

ATNotts 7th Dec 2021 09:55


Originally Posted by cavokblues (Post 11152554)
I completely understand why people have accepted new positions with the new airline but I'm fairly sure the FlyBMI / Loganair TUPE ruling would give them a fair chance of success should they wish to go down that route. I think it's quite clear there has been a transfer of business from the old airline to the new.

I doubt it. The original business entered administration, and was bought back out of administration, which is quite different from a managed takeover of a going concern by another, or a contract, e.g. seamless transfer of a car manufacturers trackside logistics from operator to another. One of the ways that a previously unprofitable business is bought out of administration and turned around is, of course, cutting overheads, one of which is inevitably staff, another is renegotiating equipment leasing agreements, and another premises leases.

bean 7th Dec 2021 10:25


Originally Posted by ATNotts (Post 11152557)
I doubt it. The original business entered administration, and was bought back out of administration, which is quite different from a managed takeover of a going concern by another, or a contract, e.g. seamless transfer of a car manufacturers trackside logistics from operator to another. One of the ways that a previously unprofitable business is bought out of administration and turned around is, of course, cutting overheads, one of which is inevitably staff, another is renegotiating equipment leasing agreements, and another premises leases.

Quite right

SWBKCB 7th Dec 2021 10:48

But bmir also went into administration.

Case is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...r_Judgment.pdf

cavokblues 7th Dec 2021 11:06

I'll be honest, I don't really see much of a difference. FlyBMI was placed into administration, Loganair took the bits they wanted and the rest of the company was left in administration.

I'm not an legal expert so I don't know the ins and outs of a TUPE claim but there does seem to be a reasonable amount of evidence that there is a transfer of business and it's not simply a new airline hiring pilots out of work.

However, from reading the notes on the LHR slots appeal what sticks in one's craw is Thyme OpCo (laughably) arguing they only shut down the old airline to rid it of it's business liabilities because they thought that was what the CAA wanted and preferred. They even suggested if they had realised that would mean they would lose the slots they would have looked into other restructuring methods - presumably pumping enough working capital into the airline to keep it afloat.

ATNotts 7th Dec 2021 11:09


Originally Posted by SWBKCB (Post 11152578)
But bmir also went into administration.

Case is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...r_Judgment.pdf

One very big difference;


BMIR and Loganair were subsidiaries of Airline Investments Limited (“AIL”).
That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.

bean 7th Dec 2021 11:19


Originally Posted by ATNotts (Post 11152594)
One very big difference;



That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.

Correct again
People just don't seem able to get this

SWBKCB 7th Dec 2021 11:32


Originally Posted by ATNotts (Post 11152594)
One very big difference;

That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.

The judge in the case didn't agree - see para 242. There are considerable similarities in the shareholdings of Mk 1 and Mk 2

This is the first para of the judges conclusion - sound familiar?


Having considered all the factors, I am persuaded that there was a relevant transfer of the business of BMIR. Loganair acquired nearly all the planes and a significant majority of the pilots who previously operated BMIR’s activities. The planes and pilots continued to fly scheduled and some contract routes. The activity is essentially the same. The fact that they are integrated into the business of Loganair does not prevent this being a relevant transfer.

ATNotts 7th Dec 2021 11:33


Originally Posted by bean (Post 11152605)
Correct again
People just don't seem able to get this

People quite rightly have a problem with the way in which corporate law works where administration is concerned; frankly I have a big problem with it too.

However it what it is, and unless multiple people lobby their MPs it's not going to change, and frankly even if they did it probably won't under the current administration since too many supporters of the government party will have used it to their (financial) advantage. Best hope would be a change of administration, but even then politicians only see "jobs saved" or "jobs created" not the fallout for suppliers and the reduction in salaries and conditions of employment that generally follow.

cavokblues 7th Dec 2021 12:08

I'm far from a legal expert but, from my own layman's eyes, I don't see a huge difference between the Loganair and Fly BMI case and this one. If anything, reading that decision posted above has cemented that view.

As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.

ATNotts 7th Dec 2021 12:11


Originally Posted by cavokblues (Post 11152622)
I'm far from a legal expert but, from my own layman's eyes, I don't see a huge difference between the Loganair and Fly BMI case and this one. If anything, reading that decision posted above has cemented that view.

As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.

You may be right, however how many people who have lost their jobs and perhaps not found new work on anywhere near the same salaries would be willing to risk money they very probably don't have to chance on a legal action with a very uncertain outcome?

cavokblues 7th Dec 2021 12:19

I completely agree with you. I'm not sure I would risk it if I was in that position.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:36.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.