And it is very unlikely that BALPA will want to bring such a case. Given the circumstances, if Flybe does take on a number of former employees and those people mange to get airborne again with type ratings re-validated, BALPA wouldn't be doing anyone a favour by launching action which would only jeopardise the whole thing. Also, not all those new start will be members an in the unlikely event that they did win, it wouldn't be very smart for non fee-paying members to gain from a potentially very risky action. I am sure BALPA will come knocking on the door for recognition in good time but they are not daft enough to risk the launch of something which might just bring a glimmer of hope to the UK pilot employment scene.

​

You don't know that. We've been consistently told the backers have deep pockets and are in it for the long haul so they can't argue people being paid what they could be legally entitled to might bring them down. It's not as though former Flybe pilots from the old airline were on astronomic salaries anyway!

And I'm not advocating a case being brought, just discussing the merits of whether their might potentially be one.

I think there's a lot of decent points made here.

All this talk and still they only have one aircraft on fleet!

It was always said that TUPE didn't apply in an insolvency situation and to be fair, I suspect Loganair probably had all of the advice in the world and arguments as to why it didn't apply, but lost that fight nevertheless. You have a lot of similarities between the two cases and the only indisputable difference I can see is the passage of time between Flybe 1 and Flybe 2. That might make enough of a difference all on its own versus the Logan/bmi case about whether there's a case that could be brought here and whether it may fail or succeed.

And when it comes to BALPA, there could be two reasons why they may go for it. First would be to support members who are either not in a job or in a job which pays significantly less than they had at Flybe 1. Second could be to support members who have got job offers at Flybe 2 but on significantly inferior T&Cs to Flybe 1 (as is rumoured to be the case) although that certainly would be biting the hand that feeds, so less likely. Parallels with Loganair again by the looks of it.

In other words, I don't think any of us can be certain until or unless this is put to the test in a tribunal. Until that point, even a legal opinion is just that - an opinion. Will be interesting to see if this aspect of the debate dies quietly or is rumbling along in the background.

"One set of lawyers may say you have no case while another will fight it"

And no lawyer will ever tell that you don't have a chance - they make their money by fighting cases - they don't care how they turn out as long as they get paid

I totally agree with whoever has put a post saying "all this talk and they only have one aircraft"

But why would they have multiple aircraft at this stage, since they have no plans to begin operations until the Spring. It's perhaps as well that "armchair CEOs" don't run businesses!!

Surely at the moment it would be unwise for them to financially burden themselves with lease/operating costs on aircraft that they don't need yet, other than a few to carry out training etc.

So why aren't they selling tickets?

I can see a very good argument for deferring a big route launch announcement to the first or second week of January (depending of course on the C word) when the UK is back in work mode

BA have already made an announcement for there route network from LGW tickets have already gone up for sale..... what is flybe 2 waiting for ?? There is also the question of where will they fly to as out if there 46 routes 42 have been taken🤷‍♀️and some of those by ba citiflyer and easyjet. With the article in the telegraph business section about wanting to sell the business I would be getting cold feet if I had a job offer from.them.

BA at Gatwick are largely targetting people who want to go on a beach holiday, particularly over the summer. Peak booking period for this begins immediately after Xmas.

Flybe in its previous incarnation had a significant dependency on corporate travel. Corporate travel is likely to see minimal new bookings before about 05 January. Furthermore, UK domestic routes like BHX-Scotland on a prop are not going to attract hordes of beach-seekers booking 6 months in advance - think shorter periods between booking and travel

The new Flybe have just one chance to get media publicity for the initial set of routes; that needs to be timed to be of maximum use, not at a time when potential (corporate) customers are not paying attention and likely to forget the publicity info by the time they need to make reservations

IMHO, Flybe should stay quiet until early or mid Jan, and then go for a maximal publicity boost

I am probably totally wrong but for some reason the whole Flybe2 exercise just doesn't sit right and as mentioned above, media reports suggesting a sale even before a launch doesn't bode well in my book, of course time will tell. Corporate travel will most likely never return to previous levels and Flybe2 cannot rely on this for future growth and profitability, which therefore highlights the need for a robust UK and EU leisure route network. However, many airlines are now competing in this market and so it could become a race to the bottom for many and you can only assume this is Flybe's intention to undercut and ultimately remove other carriers, this however will not enhance their bottom line on any balance sheet. Regional France may be attractive for them using a 78 seater prop and other cities like Dusseldorf and Paris that have performed well in the past could be looked at again. I wish them well but still to be convinced on their viability long term!

Only time will tell....I just hope folk who have been offered jobs are not stung again with job losses. The whole industry is up in the air once again and its dog eat dog for both the domestic and European market .

I think the opposite, I’d rather be the debt free new comers like Flybe v2 and Emerald rather than the airlines who have had to weather the storm.
I think news will come thick and fast in the new year.

There is not enough information available at this stage to make any sort of rational decision in this regard. The incumbents have a natural advantage of being established in their respective markets albeit they may have taken on additional debt. The long term effects of this are difficult to gauge without knowing what financing costs and fare inflation might look like in the medium to long term.

Newcomers face issues regarding brand awareness and marketing costs. Emerald have an advantage here from the perspective of piggybacking IAG’s network and distribution channels. Flybe will obviously need to spend a lot on marketing but most people will still understand the brand. Flybe employees will have zero worries as long as the initial investors are prepared to underwrite the costs of the operation which will be significant. After several seasons of operation the investors will hopefully have a proof of concept which will then allow them to raise further funding to accelerate growth. I would be very surprised if the initial investors will be prepared to directly fund growth beyond the second year - the most likely good outcome would be growth funded by a mixture of operational profit and taking on debt, at which point flybe will be in a similar position to the incumbents. Airlines are too capital intensive to set up without taking on debt.

This is crystal ball territory but I am sure everyone wishes flybe and its new employees every success.

Not sure about that part………..

It's not a "brand new airline". Flybe themselve are using the notion of a returning airline, they're technically and legally new but that's not how they see themselves or how the market will percieve them. Even Norwegian had the decency to use a new brand in "Norse Atlantic" as their new offering, no relation, honest, same people, same model, same chance of shareholder pain.

I've always thought they should have changed the name.... the name flybe has too much bad history ie flymaybe, then people will remember it was one of the airlines that went bust!! I know all this rebranding comes at a cost but they should have considered it.