Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, madmanxpilot said:

Having an airline with a fully constituted base here is good. What would make it even better would be a commitment to a certain level of service by the airline, perhaps in return for  exclusivity on certain routes or government financial support. 

OpenSkies agreements prevent exclusivity, which is always the issue. Nothing to stop EZY or whoever capacity-dumping, just like they did with the Belfast route, if they think there's enough money in it.

You could put it in the PTS contract that there has to be a base here, but you can imagine the wibble at IOMG spending more than the cheapest offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As predicted, when his holiness the Chief Cockwomble was interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning, his only reference was about TT visitors being able to get here. No mention of the effect on residen

Writing the adverts now, ‘Steam Packet Airlines, if there ain’t a boat in the morning, there probably won’t be a plane either’.

I think when most people hear of a contingency plan being in place the expectation is for that contingency plan to kick in immediately upon the happening of the event the contingency was planned for.

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

I don't doubt you, but do you have a link for that, as nothing is shown anywhere to suggest the temporary arrangement was finalised?

Its a fairly open secret that the contract has been awarded to one party and another is challenging the decision. That process has basically run it's course and a formal announcement is likely imminent.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tetchtyke said:

OpenSkies agreements prevent exclusivity, which is always the issue. Nothing to stop EZY or whoever capacity-dumping, just like they did with the Belfast route, if they think there's enough money in it.

You could put it in the PTS contract that there has to be a base here, but you can imagine the wibble at IOMG spending more than the cheapest offer.

IOMG have said recently they need to review Open Skies. Not before time IMHO.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Its a fairly open secret that the contract has been awarded to one party and another is challenging the decision. That process has basically run it's course and a formal announcement is likely imminent.

 

Thank you both, I wasn't aware it was that far along.

Brexit is a good time to review Open Skies, though I'd be wary. Look at Manx Gas to see what a badly managed monopoly does to prices.

Edited by tetchtyke
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Its a fairly open secret that the contract has been awarded to one party and another is challenging the decision. That process has basically run it's course and a formal announcement is likely imminent.

 

So just how the fuck have United Airlines obtained it ?

Edited by Scotty
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure most of us on here remember when in Liddiard’s era, a flight to Scotland was almost £400 return. I knew someone who, in their 70’s worked bloody hard to save for a trip each NewYear. Liddiard probably earned about 5 times her hourly rate. 
It may be obvious that I have never rated him. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Having an airline with a fully constituted base here is good. What would make it even better would be a commitment to a certain level of service by the airline, perhaps in return for  exclusivity on certain routes or government financial support. 

Irrespective of the situation at the moment and before the business became contaminated with virus which is now a different ball game......

Had it not been for the lusting of certain members of Government to see the orange fin of EZY here, again I refer to a situation without Covid, management were aware of the conditions which had to apply for the Flybe base to remain. However the arrival of EZY and the loss of based aircraft led to the exodus of Flybe, the exodus of engineering, cabin and flight crew and lots of income tax and spend in the economy going elsewhere. Government were told in 2006 that there were downsides to a low cost carrier but chose not to listen.  In some respects management still see us as Heathrow on sea !

It will be interesting going forward to see who can use the realism stick and who is still seeing fleets of shiny jets parked on the ramp !

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, asitis said:

Irrespective of the situation at the moment and before the business became contaminated with virus which is now a different ball game......

Had it not been for the lusting of certain members of Government to see the orange fin of EZY here, again I refer to a situation without Covid, management were aware of the conditions which had to apply for the Flybe base to remain. However the arrival of EZY and the loss of based aircraft led to the exodus of Flybe, the exodus of engineering, cabin and flight crew and lots of income tax and spend in the economy going elsewhere. Government were told in 2006 that there were downsides to a low cost carrier but chose not to listen.  In some respects management still see us as Heathrow on sea !

It will be interesting going forward to see who can use the realism stick and who is still seeing fleets of shiny jets parked on the ramp !

 

Air travel has to be one of the most important facts of life here. What was  wrong with us being able to fly to Liverpool with easyJet for £20. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Pretty sure most of us on here remember when in Liddiard’s era, a flight to Scotland was almost £400 return. I knew someone who, in their 70’s worked bloody hard to save for a trip each NewYear. Liddiard probably earned about 5 times her hourly rate. 
It may be obvious that I have never rated him. 

It wasn't obvious the first time you posted it, but now you've posted it again an hour later it is indeed obvious.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Air travel has to be one of the most important facts of life here. What was  wrong with us being able to fly to Liverpool with easyJet for £20. ?

Absolutely nothing , except it was never sustainable, and because of that operators of smaller aircraft were forced out, which is why we find ourselves where we are ! 

Here is an extract from a review supplied to government in 2006 which illustrates the point :

 

with 156 seats, and therefore fill on average 131 seats per flight. With the current passenger volumes and load factors at Ronaldsway discussed earlier, it is clear that a significant decrease in aircraft movements would occur with the introduction of larger aircraft relying on economies of scale. In fact EasyJet could only operate 5,835 movements per annum compared with the current level of 29,742 if it were to capture 100 percent of the airports passengers in 2007. To put the scenario into a more assimilative form, this equates to just 1 return flight a day to 8 destinations. Whilst this scenario is not realistic in terms of the likely composition of future services, one can conclude that current passenger volumes are insufficient to support a low cost carrier without cannibalising most if not all of the existing operators. Furthermore a significant reduction in choice for the consumer would occur, with much greater travel restrictions.

 

 

It is essential that if the airport develops, permitting new service by accommodating larger aircraft, that the established transport links are maintained. The review of the current market size shows that the introduction of a low-cost carrier could not be supported without a degradation in service and rationalisation of a number of routes. . It would be ill-considered to become dependent on an operator which relies on its ability to cut costs (often at the expense of service quality) including relocating to areas of lower cost. Given this situation the condition whereby both “fares keep dropping and the volume of flights takes off”, identified as the critical success factor, will not transpire.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller operators weren't forced out. They were either unsafe or a financial basket case. Neither of which was caused by a few seats in an Airbus being 20 quid

 

Flybe sold tickets for 20 quid and they had the frequencies.  They were just a mess from Exeter and beyond 

Edited by snowman
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Air travel has to be one of the most important facts of life here. What was  wrong with us being able to fly to Liverpool with easyJet for £20. ?

You must be very tolerant of traveling at all sorts of odd times of day or not traveling at all on days they cba to run a service.

I am surprised as it is not always obvious you are so tolerant

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...