|
Originally Posted by Stormonttrooper
(Post 11386905)
It's strange that no other airline has used the chance to use the slots as a feeder for their own global network
All they would need to do is get another airline to use smaller aircraft on their behalf and brand it as their own with a quirky nameThen eventually try to get the slots changed over to their mainline fleet to fly to America etc |
Originally Posted by allan1987
(Post 11386965)
Should be only limited to UK domestic routes, I would think loganair and Eastern Airways more likely to apply for slots, unless one of the skyteam members apply for the slots under Virgin running the flights? Since need a UK AOC
|
Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim
(Post 11387041)
Not with LHR charges. Not going to happen.
|
I wonder how many slots BA own now originally came from buying up and then dumping UK regional airlines?
BRAL IOM-LHR Brymon NQY-LHR I am sure there are others. There certainly is a case for these slots "belonging" to the regional airports and not BA. |
According to posts elsewhere, Loganair has applied for 3 daily sets to move its LDY service from STN to LHR. That might actually work if they can get reasonable charges at LHR. Certainly better use of the slots than Flybe was putting them to. I would have thought Eastern might also apply to move its NQY from LGW to LHR which would also be sensible, again subject to charges. While the concept behind the remedy slots was originally to provide direct competition on set BA routes (as BA had removed the competition by buying BMI), that clearly hasn’t worked so providing better UK regional connectivity to LHR might be the best use of them.
|
Originally Posted by willy wombat
(Post 11387234)
According to posts elsewhere, Loganair has applied for 3 daily sets to move its LDY service from STN to LHR. That might actually work if they can get reasonable charges at LHR. Certainly better use of the slots than Flybe was putting them to. I would have thought Eastern might also apply to move its NQY from LGW to LHR which would also be sensible, again subject to charges. While the concept behind the remedy slots was originally to provide direct competition on set BA routes (as BA had removed the competition by buying BMI), that clearly hasn’t worked so providing better UK regional connectivity to LHR might be the best use of them.
|
Originally Posted by willy wombat
(Post 11387234)
According to posts elsewhere, Loganair has applied for 3 daily sets to move its LDY service from STN to LHR. That might actually work if they can get reasonable charges at LHR. Certainly better use of the slots than Flybe was putting them to. I would have thought Eastern might also apply to move its NQY from LGW to LHR which would also be sensible, again subject to charges. While the concept behind the remedy slots was originally to provide direct competition on set BA routes (as BA had removed the competition by buying BMI), that clearly hasn’t worked so providing better UK regional connectivity to LHR might be the best use of them.
|
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
(Post 11387239)
Assuming this is possible - these remedy slots came out of a legal process around the bmi take-over. Who has the final say?
https://www.acl-uk.org/news/iag-bmi-...ation-process/ |
It has been mentioned before but I am surprised easyJet aren't perhaps dipping their toes into Heathrow with these slots.
It's no secret they've tried for slots before at the airport you would have thought flights to Amsterdam, Nice, Edi etc would fit in nicely with any aspirations they had to operate from the airport in the future. |
Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot
(Post 11387115)
They came to a deal with Loganair to keep IOM on the ATR, where there's a will?
|
Originally Posted by JobsaGoodun
(Post 11387311)
Or..."Where there's incentives".... the challenge is getting the route to cover its costs once those incentives come to an end. LM do at least have the BA codeshare to support them which is no doubt a significant bonus.
|
Changing subject as bit and I think it has been asked before.
Normally there is someone from flybe who would post on here. I know it will probably be a torrid time for time for them at the moment but an inside opinion on the last nine months would be interesting. |
The Londonderry route beIng talked about by LM is also a PSO.
I'm still not clear on how this works. So have the slots gone back to BA, who can then lease/loan them to whoever, unless somebody wants to use them on LHR-Aberdeen, LHR-Edinburgh, LHR-Nice, LHR-Cairo and LHR-Riyadh? |
Originally Posted by CaptainActor
(Post 11387341)
Changing subject as bit and I think it has been asked before.
Normally there is someone from flybe who would post on here. I know it will probably be a torrid time for time for them at the moment but an inside opinion on the last nine months would be interesting. |
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
(Post 11387357)
The Londonderry route beIng talked about by LM is also a PSO.
I'm still not clear on how this works. So have the slots gone back to BA, who can then lease/loan them to whoever, unless somebody wants to use them on LHR-Aberdeen, LHR-Edinburgh, LHR-Nice, LHR-Cairo and LHR-Riyadh? |
Originally Posted by BA318
(Post 11387395)
My understanding is that BA can do what they want with the slots until told to hand them to someone else who has requested them for use of the route you mention. So expect to see NQY or LBA make a reappearance for summer.
|
Originally Posted by Wycombe
(Post 11387504)
BA had already stated they weren't going back to NQY from LHR this summer but that was before Flybe v2 ceased ops.
|
A good article from Head for Points explaining the whole slot situation. Mind you, it does end with:
"It also isn’t clear how the ‘use it or lose it’ rule will be applied here. Even if BA starts flying each slot between now and the end of the Winter season in late March, will they hit the 80% utilisation target to avoid it being forfeited?" Flybe returns 86 weekly Heathrow slots to British Airways (headforpoints.com) |
Sent to Flybe employees this week. Confirming that Flybe didn't recognise Balpa, therefore they can't make a claim for a protective award on their members behalf. Makes you wonder what they paid membership fees for, if at all?
Dear all, I hope you have all received the required information from Flybe/Interpath to commence your claims from the National Insurance Fund. We continue to liaise with the Administrators to ensure that they are doing everything that is required to provide you with support regarding the insolvency. In parallel, BALPA’s appointed lawyers are continuing to review the legal claim against Flybe. As with all things “legal” it is never straight forward and always more complex than it first appears. An important point has been raised from BALPA’s lawyers acting on your behalf and I need your help to check this out. As you know, with Flybe 2.0 we had not yet progressed to discussions about union recognition so unlike the scenario with Flybe 1.0 BALPA is unable to make a claim on behalf of its members for the failure to consult with the union collectively. In the current situation, for the purposes of pursuing a claim for a protective award pursuant to s.189(1)(a) TULRCA 1992, which is for failure relating to the election of employee representatives, it is necessary to confirm that Flybe did not have in place any representative body with which it usually consulted/provided information. That is to say were any of you aware of a pilot consultative body and were any pilots elected to it? This is something that the employer would instigate. This is because under s.188(1B) TULRCA 1992 the employer can choose to consult with either employee representatives who are already elected or employee representatives who are elected for the purpose of consulting on the redundancy. If there were appropriate representatives already in place or specifically elected for the closure of the airline, then as individual pilots you would have no standing i.e. you would not be able to bring individual claims against Flybe. Instead, you would have to raise a complaint with the appropriate employee representative who would have locus to bring the claim. Grateful if, by return, you could confirm whether you were aware of any pilot representative body that was arranged for consultation purposes. I very much doubt that Flybe 2.0 would have organised a representative body for pilots as they were anticipating BALPA recognition in due course once the airline was fully embedded and up to speed. Thanks for your assistance. With the information requested our lawyers will be able to get on with the process of advising you on the protective award claim. Kind regards |
The administrator's report is out - https://www.ia-insolv.com/case+INTER...N125F0937.html and then click on 'Joint Administrator's Proposals.'
They were losing between £4m-£5m a month and they owe Dlp Holdings S.À R.L. £49m. Interestingly, Dlp Holdings S.À R.L. are the same company who founded Connect Airways who bought the old airline in 2019. So we can finally dismiss the suggestion this was ever a brand new airline - it was always propped up by the same people who were in charge for the final year of the previous incarnation's existence. The report also confirms the slots were not owned by Flybe as it states: "there were a number of challenges for Flybe to retain its rights to its slots and to ultimately realise value for them. Unfortunately, the slots at Heathrow which were highly prized in the industry were not Flybe’s to sell or transfer – they were held under an agreement with BA through a European Commission-decreed arrangement. Those slots reverted to BA once they were in jeopardy of the use-it-or-lose-it rule in the absence of a buyer for the Company emerging. Similarly, Amsterdam slots are subject to the rules of Airport Coordination Netherlands, who were unwilling to agree a transfer absent the sale of the Company and its Operating Licence, or a similar substantial transfer of the Flybe business. No offers were received for the airline’s slots, and they were returned to the pool by the relevant slot coordinators." |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:08. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.