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.