Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

None that I am aware of. There has always been a desperation to have someone, anyone, to add routes at almost any cost including a number of scammers or pie in the sky schemes such as  Charles Flynn's proposed Ellan Vannin Airlines to heavens knows who. 

And there were always two things top of then list Heathrow, and Jets

 

I didn't think so either, but wasn't sure.  The point you made earlier about 'regulation not giving stability and convenient times' therefore hasn't been tested.

I believe that if a carrier is given exclusivity on a certain route in return for contracted service level provision, that it would indeed give us those benefits.

PSO routes ( https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/internal-market/pso_en ) in the UK have benefited remote communities greatly. Newquay benefitted from a four times daily service to Gatwick. I can attest from personal experience that Flybe prioritised this route over their 'own' services because of the contractual obligation to operate it.

Whilst having this service was great for the Cornish economy, it was not cut short by collapse of Flybe. This is the pitfall of not having absolute control by way of ownership, is why contractual arrangements are, in the context of guarantees continuity and control, a second best to ownership.

Edited by madmanxpilot
  • Like 1
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

We could be talking 3 years before even international airlines get back to anywhere near the sort of route coverage they had prior to CV-19, so maintaining the domestic links to LHR & MAN on a lightly regulated basis is, I would suggest, of paramount importance. Dependable and sustainable services is what is required in these uncertain times and beyond.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

We could be talking 3 years before even international airlines get back to anywhere near the sort of route coverage they had prior to CV-19, so maintaining the domestic links to LHR & MAN on a lightly regulated basis is, I would suggest, of paramount importance. Dependable and sustainable services is what is required in these uncertain times and beyond.

we've done without LHR for 20 years apart from an accident last year and some flights this year. Forget it. One good London connection to LCY or LGW, plus MAN and DUBb will give us all the connections we could need, with London transfers and planning stop overs.

Private will deliver that.

The only route needing government involvement is LOPL for patient transfers and yes, it would be nice to keep everyone else off the route but  litigation from EZY would be inevitable if we tried and, they'd win.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

we've done without LHR for 20 years apart from an accident last year and some flights this year. Forget it. One good London connection to LCY or LGW, plus MAN and DUBb will give us all the connections we could need, with London transfers and planning stop overs.

Private will deliver that.

The only route needing government involvement is LOPL for patient transfers and yes, it would be nice to keep everyone else off the route but  litigation from EZY would be inevitable if we tried and, they'd win.  

 

Totally agree , I’ve used LHR once in 10 years when we went to Australia as flights were better times/prices. Every other time we’ve flown outside UK we’ve used Manchester or Gatwick.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, John Wright said:

we've done without LHR for 20 years apart from an accident last year and some flights this year. Forget it. One good London connection to LCY or LGW, plus MAN and DUBb will give us all the connections we could need, with London transfers and planning stop overs.

Private will deliver that.

The only route needing government involvement is LOPL for patient transfers and yes, it would be nice to keep everyone else off the route but  litigation from EZY would be inevitable if we tried and, they'd win.  

 

Need Birmingham back again also. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

we've done without LHR for 20 years apart from an accident last year and some flights this year. Forget it. One good London connection to LCY or LGW, plus MAN and DUBb will give us all the connections we could need, with London transfers and planning stop overs.

Private will deliver that.

The only route needing government involvement is LOPL for patient transfers and yes, it would be nice to keep everyone else off the route but  litigation from EZY would be inevitable if we tried and, they'd win.  

 

LCY - hard to get out of if you need to connect with either LHR or LGW. It adds at least 3 hours to your journey before you even get anywhere near a long haul aircraft and sometimes requires an overnight stay before a flight departing LGW or LHR. It's really only any good if you want to visit LON for entertainment or the City for business. 

Let's not forget that as well as considering our own on-Island needs there are others who would benefit from better links to IOM, are they to be ignored? Statistics would suggest that the preferred entry to UK is LHR

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

LCY - hard to get out of if you need to connect with either LHR or LGW. It adds at least 3 hours to your journey before you even get anywhere near a long haul aircraft and sometimes requires an overnight stay before a flight departing LGW or LHR. It's really only any good if you want to visit LON for entertainment or the City for business. 

Let's not forget that as well as considering our own on-Island needs there are others who would benefit from better links to IOM, are they to be ignored? Statistics would suggest that the preferred entry to UK is LHR

 

Well aware of all that Andy. But we’ve coped 20 years without, so it’s clearly not essential. As I say, plan to take into account inter airport transfer or overnight accommodation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Well aware of all that Andy. But we’ve coped 20 years without, so it’s clearly not essential. As I say, plan to take into account inter airport transfer or overnight accommodation.

Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree. Making it easier for people to get from/to IOM globally should be a consideration. Dismissing it out of hand is short-sighted.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of pages back in the thread, someone asked why Manx Airlines expanded into the UK and beyond

18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Well aware of all that Andy. But we’ve coped 20 years without, so it’s clearly not essential. As I say, plan to take into account inter airport transfer or overnight accommodation.

With frequent services on smaller aeroplanes to more airports, you wouldn't need to plan for an overnight stay and potential inter airport transfers. This expense obviously needs to be factored into the true cost of getting off island.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of pages back in this thread, there was a discussion about why Manx Airlines grew into Manx Airlines Europe with its subsequent sale to BA. I've just been told the full story by someone who was involved at the time.

Ironically, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it was mainly done to the IOMG's headlong unconsidered adoption of the European Open Skies ideals.

Historically, any airline could fly anywhere provided they obtained a licence for the route from the CAA. This necessity was abolished in Europe and the UK when EU de-regulation was introduced. The IOMG, not understanding what was involved, followed suit, allowing any EU airline to fly anywhere without individual approvals. Unfortunately the IOM Govt forgot to apply for reciprocal rights for any IOM airline, with the result that Manx Airlines couldn't  even fly UK domestic routes, let alone into Europe. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, Manx Airlines Europe had to be formed to operate any routes not starting or ending in the IOM.

I suppose its what happens when you put a Castletown chandler in charge of implementing intricate international policies!

Edited by madmanxpilot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A couple of pages back in the thread, someone asked why Manx Airlines expanded into the UK and beyond

With frequent services on smaller aeroplanes to more airports, you wouldn't need to plan for an overnight stay and potential inter airport transfers. This expense obviously needs to be factored into the true cost of getting off island.

And we aren’t going to get “small” turbo props going into Heathrow.

If there was enough money to be made someone would have done it ( slot sitting apart )

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

A couple of pages back in this thread, there was a discussion about why Manx Airlines grew into Manx Airlines Europe with its subsequent sale to BA. I've just been told the full story by someone who was involved at the time.

Ironically, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it was mainly done to the IOMG's headlong unconsidered adoption of the European Open Skies ideals.

Historically, any airline could fly anywhere provided they obtained a licence for the route from the CAA. This necessity was abolished in Europe and the UK when EU de-regulation was introduced. The IOMG, not understanding what was involved, followed suit, allowing any EU airline to fly anywhere without individual approvals. Unfortunately the IOM Govt forgot to apply for reciprocal rights for any IOM airline, with the result that Manx Airlines couldn't  even fly UK domestic routes, let alone into Europe. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, Manx Airlines Europe had to be formed to operate any routes not starting or ending in the IOM.

I suppose its what happens when you put a Castletown chandler in charge of implementing intricate international policies!

Why would setting up Manx Airlines Europe cost hundreds of thousands. It all got merged into one in the end anyway.

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

A couple of pages back in the thread, someone asked why Manx Airlines expanded into the UK and beyond

With frequent services on smaller aeroplanes to more airports, you wouldn't need to plan for an overnight stay and potential inter airport transfers. This expense obviously needs to be factored into the true cost of getting off island.

I would always choose to travel the day before for important onward travel anyway. With the best will in the world, the elements often prove unreliable at our airport so regardless of how well scheduled your flight off island is, the cloak of Mann and other weather issues can ruin a holiday or key business meeting, as I know only too well.

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...