Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Andy Onchan
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I may be wrong but I thought the restrictions on longer opening hours was down to (not least) the fire and emergency cover, or lack of.

Think  it’s a  combination of both. There has been occasions airfield has to shut due to ATC being out of permitted working hours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to reign in the empire builders, and turn the whole ethos back to being a well run , regional airport with limited passenger numbers. From the moment we started to think we were an international hub nothing but problems have arisen !

We have spent millions but have no more passengers and fewer flights ! The author of the 2006 report doesn't like to say he told you so, but he told you so LOL !!!!!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, totally agree. Even before Covid there was far too much chasing Easyjet, to no benefit. They didn't bring in any more visitors, as hoped, and because of their preferential rates the revenue has gone down, while costs to accommodate them, have gone up.

Amazingly, the talk of "corporatisation" hasn't gone away, despite it being a no-hoper even before Covid. There's certainly no case for that now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 10:59 AM, bonatti said:

Think  it’s a  combination of both. There has been occasions airfield has to shut due to ATC being out of permitted working hours. 

Well, yes. However, the current airport ATC staffing situation is very close to breaking point. It's fair to say that had COVID not come along and required airport closures periodically, they would have had to come anyway. The future is not bright either with staffing and training being a major issue to be able to keep the airport open for current published hours. 
That said, the talk of remote ATC may seem a sensible solution - Liverpool do it too for Doncaster in terms of Approach control. But, be careful what you wish for, farming out would very likely result in any issue with controller availability being unable to be easily resolved, and the airport being closed for days. That's before the initial outlay and regulatory hoops to go through have been considered..... 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

it’s funny that now people are being asked to work at almost normal capacity again after nearly two years these sort of claims are being raised. It feels like nobody really wants to go back to being anywhere near as busy as they were before. 

Not sure what you're getting at offshoremanxman. If you're implying that the people in ATC are shirking work you couldn't be further from the truth. Due to resignations, retirements and no adequate replacements, the section has around 65% of normal operating complement. And have to be there, whether it's as busy as it was or not. Working at "normal capacity" is absolutely fine, if you have the numbers to support it. 

Bear in mind too, sickness since Covid has been negligible, despite having to remain open. That is fortuitous, but may not last. 

An interesting read here too about remote towers; clearly states ideal for one runway operations. The DoI have been trumpeting this last week or two how brilliant nit is that they've completed work on the cross runway ( even if it is still closed...) . Another factor that would make a remote tower more complex and difficult to achieve.

https://www.nats.aero/features/one-size-does-not-fit-all/

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

it’s funny that now people are being asked to work at almost normal capacity again after nearly two years these sort of claims are being raised. It feels like nobody really wants to go back to being anywhere near as busy as they were before. 

Which, compared to the majority of the population, wasn't really busy at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 7:03 AM, asitis said:

Someone will have to explain to me, why the shipping company (of course we own it now) has to be protected at all costs, as there is not enough trade to support two companies, and both would probably go down the tubes, and the airport where there is probably pro rata even less trade, but anyone can come in ? 

One obvious difference is that Douglas basically requires purpose built ferries. It's not as if the existing Irish Sea companies can easily add IOM as a destination and use up spare capacity.

The economics of modern regional air traffic is, by contrast, all about getting greater use out of aircraft and crews also flying other routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 11:57 AM, ellanvannin2010 said:

Plus the seeming inability precovid for Easyjet to actually run to schedule late in the day. LGW in particular.

I have always seen that as a small inconvenience vs the many positives of flying with EasyJet. The actual aircraft being #1 for me.

Anyone flying out last thing in the evening knows that the thing will probably run late and will plan accordingly.

Flying to / from the IOM at any time of day, basic common sense means planning an extra overnight somewhere in case of delays and to arrive fresh.

Edited by pongo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...