Airsouthwest - you should try reading the full report, rather than just reading the headlines !!

airsouthwest, maybe you're still rather bitter regarding Flybe laying foot into NQY and your little airline is no longer with us?

The scales of those operations are quite different, and their models, regional vs short/medium haul are indeed different in their cost/margin structures.

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies.../happy0007.gifhttp://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies.../happy0007.gif Brilliant response :D:D

airsouthwest, so many experts on here. You clearly excel at airline management, I'm surprised Flybe haven't head hunted you to fix their issues for them.

FlyBE is an interesting company to me. They are the epitome of a regional small airline in what they do and with what they do they can't make money.
Other larger airlines hide their problems with regional routes or justify the regional routes being unprofitable by saying they feed in to their larger network.
I think FlyBE need 100 seater turboprops to make the model work and 90 to 100 seater turboprops don't exist.
Q400 can supposedly fit 90 at a 28" pitch but you will usually be paying a premium to fly instead of bus, car, train so you wouldn't tolerate a 28" pitch to fly from Scotland to London or whereever.

If they think the "Beast from the East". is bad then they should wait till HS2 becomes operational. When the rail journey time is 3 hours or less, people tend to prefer the train, indeed Eurostar took a huge share of the London-Paris/Brussels air travel market. If the new Azumas on the East Coast are cleared for 140mph running (and the conventional signalling in place is designed to enable that), then anything London-Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh will lose out to rail.

A lot of domestic air travel will be hit but the other operators are much less dependent on domestic routes.

Personally, unless Flybe adopts a change of strategy to avoid competing with rail, I think they'll really struggle in the long-term.

Quite frankly, airsouthwest, that response shows how LITTLE you know. Have you actually read the latest financial reports? I don't know where you get this notion from that you can get 2 x A319s for the price of the lease on the 195, I also don't get where you get the idea from that Christine wants to replace all the Q400s with ATRs. FAS is the only part that makes a guaranteed income? Nonsense, nothing is guaranteed, you also need to learn the difference between income, cash flow, added value, revenue & EBITDAR.
If you've read the reports (which you clearly haven't) you'll see that the business is performing very well, what isn't performing very well are the costs, and it is these costs that are hurting at the moment. The cost base is too high.
I think your problem is you are a typical employee who listens to Galley FM rumour but behind all that there's no real business brain behind the ears, because let's face it, if those things you listed were factually correct (but they're not) then any monkey could run an airline.

Actually he’s not far off regarding the leases. The 195 were costing 180k a month each whilst at the same time you could get an A320 for about 110k. A 319 would be even cheaper, no doubt.

Yes but he said two A319s, Chesty, however you dress it up or down it's still factually incorrect.

I don't see why they don't do like the rest of the airline world and just order a new fleet of Q400 on lease reducing maintenance costs and unexpected downtime costs for unreliable hardware.
Lease costs are low because the lease company retains title and can repo the plane when/if the leasee defaults. They're not even in some remote location where it isn't easy to repo a plane if need be.
They must be tied up in knots with their existing lease agreements.

Didn’t think I’d need to spoon feed you but a 319 costs roughly two thirds of a 320. Do the maths as they say. I’ll even round it up to 120 for a 320 making a 319 about 80.

80 x 2 = 2 x 319 which = less than one 195.

Well, Chesty, current prices or the price of an A319 back in 2005? Either way where do you get your figures from? Do you ACTUALLY know what the lease costs were or are you as guilty as he is spouting Galley FM and nonsense? Either way, the company knows all about the high lease costs of the 195s, it's not a secret, so when he professes he knows how to fix the company but Flybe doesn't he's talking bollocks.

Prices at the time the Embraer lease was “negotiated”. I know.

I’m not commenting on his ability fix Flybe just informing you that, in this instance, he is correct and it is you who is factually wrong.

I’m sure the regular flow of management in and out of Flybe do know how to fix the company but they don’t. Why is that?

I agree about the fact, lot of cost are link to really bad bad deal for all aircraft lease ...

Management must be tied with it, otherwise they would had fixed it already ...

All 195 will leave in 2019.
But I suspect the dash deal are crap as well

To help settle this ego contest on leasing rates, here are some figures from 2015, then updated in 2017.

As always with figures, you can make them say what suites you, and one could argue that you could get 2 319s for the price of a 190/195, but certainly old knackered frames with questionnable reliability and reduced seating layout. Then from a commercial/product point of view...why would you?

Conversly, you can get 2 old 190/195s for the price of a newest 320.

Interestingly, ATRs can be quite expensive too.

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/forum/viewtopic.php?t=587137

Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Spring 2017 - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!