Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

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 )

A moot point, but he Q400 had no problem going into LHR, special operating procedures were agreed between Flybe and NATS to facilitate it. LHR slots were allocated to Flybe to operate there in their own right, not just for 'slot sitting'. There were multiple services from BHD and EDI on the Q400 into LHR.

However, personally, I'd rather see regular services to Gatwick. LCY is too remote and subject to weather disruption due to landing minima.

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, John Wright said:

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

It had to be a separate entity, ie a UK Airline not a Manx one. The rebranding and associated administration involved cost that much. That figure is from the person who signed the cheque!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A moot point, but he Q400 had no problem going into LHR, special operating procedures were agreed between Flybe and NATS to facilitate it. LHR slots were allocated to Flybe to operate there in their own right, not just for 'slot sitting'. There were multiple services from BHD and EDI on the Q400 into LHR.

However, personally, I'd rather see regular services to Gatwick. LCY is too remote and subject to weather disruption due to landing minima.

2019 was flybe slot sitting for a us airline

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

A moot point, but he Q400 had no problem going into LHR, special operating procedures were agreed between Flybe and NATS to facilitate it. LHR slots were allocated to Flybe to operate there in their own right, not just for 'slot sitting'. There were multiple services from BHD and EDI on the Q400 into LHR.

However, personally, I'd rather see regular services to Gatwick. LCY is too remote and subject to weather disruption due to landing minima.

It was a practical point. Of course they can get in and out, but special operating procedures/separation came at cost. That means it’s not commercial? Right.

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

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.

I follow that principle too, but not every one has that luxury unfortunately. If the plane is already here on the IOM, you have a better chance of getting to where you want to be. It is very rare for weather to cause issues for departures. The visibility required for take off is a fraction of that required for landing, and if a hoodie is blowing, a different runway can be used.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It was a practical point. Of course they can get in and out, but special operating procedures/separation came at cost. That means it’s not commercial? Right.

No, there was no cost associated with those procedures other than the paper they were written on. Certainly the Flybe management who engaged with NATS were already in post. AFAIK, it was the same at their end too.

https://nats.aero/blog/2017/03/helping-flybe-flying-start-heathrow/

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

No, there was no cost associated with those procedures other than the paper they were written on. Certainly the Flybe management who engaged with NATS were already in post. AFAIK, it was the same at their end too.

https://nats.aero/blog/2017/03/helping-flybe-flying-start-heathrow/

Yes. All that is true. But because of separation didn’t LHR up the landing cost. Not important when you’ve got a subsidy for UK slots/routes or you’re slot sitting for American.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Isle of Man needs strong connections into London . For the last 20 years it’s had a combination of London City and Gatwick . The London city flights have been timed to suit business with three flights a day early mid  afternoon and late whereas Gatwick has been mid morning and very late leaving the island . Going forward an EasyJet option to Gatwick twice a day is not at all suitable for business travel . Either remain at London City perhaps reduce to two rotations a day or switch to Heathrow but Gatwick only would be a disaster . 

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

Yes. All that is true. But because of separation didn’t LHR up the landing cost. Not important when you’ve got a subsidy for UK slots/routes or you’re slot sitting for American.

The Q400 wasn't subject to the same charge hike as the ATR. The majority of Flybe's flights into LHR were not PSO. To my knowledge, only the NQY service was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

The Q400 wasn't subject to the same charge hike as the ATR. The majority of Flybe's flights into LHR were not PSO. To my knowledge, only the NQY service was.

The Q400 doesn't attract the same penalties as the ATR at Heathrow, you are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Banker said:

Howie said yesterday that they are in discussions with Logan air regarding a London route and basically it will be subsidized 

Treasury have agreed to pay the fees to rent slots from another airline and underwrite the cost of operation.

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...