I really don't understand this at all. Could the poor potential serviceability issue have been foreseen and mitigated.

Or would it have been better to re-start with something more reliable- the ATR doesn't seem to suffer these problems.

The blame is being put on the Q400 having reliability issues. But why? Wideroe don't seem to have problems and they are operating in much more challenging circumstances (heavy snow etc) and it's rare you see Luxair cancelling flights because of Q400 problems. Did Flybe1 not look after them? are the crew not treating them right? is Flybe trying to cut costs and only repair when things are broken rather than preventative maintenance? or is it just pure bad luck? I'm not accusing Flybe of any of that but questioning why they seem to be having such problems.

As I said in my earlier post (post number 710 in this thread) I am convinced that part of their problem is over scheduling what are quite old aircraft. Also, I assume that all or most of these aircraft have been in storage since the demise of Flybe 1 and it is almost always the case that an aircraft that has been stored will take quite a while to bed in.

The complexity of the network, with crews and aircraft right across the UK doesn’t help a small operation. Flybe has 8 aircraft over two hubs with multiple one stops to offline locations and night stops. Overnighting at an airport not connected to a home base is a brave thing as schedule recovery is doubly complex. 75% of Heathrow destinations not connecting hubs is also foolish.

emerald has 14 aircraft over two hubs. All aircraft are home every evening and no one stop services.

If things go wrong, and they do, Flybe has less capability to recover as quickly.

Flybe are themselves blaming delivery issues on the Q400s, though there appear to simultaneously be issues with the active fleet. Both I would put down to a lack of utilisation over a roughly two-year period, where the aircraft were stored in wet climates not dissimilar to the UK's own. Looking at Planespotter's data - which I appreciate is not always fully accurate - OY-YCZ (which is not yet listed on the UK register) has been stored for the longest, at 35 months, and G-EXTA the shortest, at 7 months. Neither is yet operational, though the latter has now been registered to Flybe suggesting that it is not far off being. The majority of the ex old Flybe machines have/had not flown for around 30 months and thus I would expect significant issues to arrive following their RTS. I'm not an engineer, or anything close, so it is merely speculative of course, but I am sure that somebody else on here would have the necessary experience to prove my argument either one way or the other.

You could be right. If you turned a Q400 off for half an hour you'd invariably have issues when you turned it on again...and that was when they were new.

Is their another airline operating in the UK with *zero* interline agreements? Maybe Ryanair?

I know it's not the be all and end all (looking at you, BMI) but it seems insane.

Wizzair UK (if they exist).

There are several airlines who don’t have inter line arrangements in the traditional sense - Ryanair, easyJet, Wizz, Jet2 to name but a few. But their business models don’t need or want them - and easyJet chooses to do this via another means with its Worldwide programme.

The difference is that if you need them and want them, but don’t have them, it will impact performance. The only other airline I can think of which has none and in the same boat as Flybe is Eastern.

A big chunk of the original Flybe’s business was interline/codeshare agreements. Routes like EDI/GLA-MAN are dead without interline from someone else at MAN.

Interlining isn't within BE's gift - serious airlines look carefully at who they partner with.

On Scotland-MAN, Business Air hubbed at MAN they were a Lufthansa partner, the logo was on the aircraft. Now BA obviously fed the based jet fleet but was Loganair not point to point? The trains are just so much better nowadays though.

Someone posting all FB flights from Newcastle cancelled today on that thread

FLBB seems to have gone tech in NQY, hence an aircraft has been moved down from BHD to cover. BHD-LBA/GLA cancelled too (again). EXTB also seems to have run into an issue hence all of AMS-LHR/BHD is now cancelled

This cannot/will not continue for long!

I am supposed to be flying LHR-NCL tomorrow and virtually have accepted with two tech aircrafts I’ll be getting the train given there’s 11 people checked in on the flight.Thankfully LNER give vouchers if you need to cancel, so I’ve booked as I’m 90% sure it won’t go ahead.

So, is flybe using any other airlines aircraft to cover when things go wrong, or do they just cancel the flights/

Is there not a rule which requires airlines to find you an alternative flight with another airline (BA to LHR in this case) or does that only apply to flights out of the UK?

There is a requirement for carriers to find alternative transport. Flybe has been flying pax on other routes and providing a bus. I saw one who’s flight to EMA was cancelled and Flybe rerouted them BHD-NCL and then minibus to EMA.

If the rerouting is not adequate you’re able to rebook yourself and try and claim back the costs but I doubt Flybe are paying it without a fight.

Only if you cancel before 1800 the day prior to travel.