• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Flybe problems - did they take rail improvements into account?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
I think at the time of the virgin takeover everyone assumed they were in it for the Heathrow landing slots.

If people are saying Heathrow is at capacity and we need to further destroy the lives of people in West London with new runway, terminal 6/7, rerouting the M25 etc, it does seem particularly stupid to use some of that capacity on a 70 seat turboprop to save some business folks in Cornwall 2 hours on the train.

The BBC Question Time take on it was interesting. Again people quoting the fare Exeter to Manchester by both means and shaking their heads in disbelief at the discrepancy. For the sake of climate, some journeys to Islands, medical transfers etc will always be critical and should be supported, others are absolutely not and should be taxed out of existence.

It should always be cheaper by rail. There is a tag line a politician will never adopt ! (But should!)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sor

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2013
Messages
405
I'm not sure if an airline route that can be done by rail in 5 hours needs government subsidy, surely the money should go towards improving links to Newquay with more direct services and infrastructure improvements.

Also why does the direct service, which runs non-stop between Par and Newquay, take longer than some that have a changeover in Par and use stopping services to Newquay?

Cornwall, rather than Newquay, surely.

Newquay is a tourist destination, sure, but that's not why the airport is there. I would imagine Cornwall would be better served by improved journey times to and within the county, i.e. Exeter to St. Austell or Truro (as the largest place and the city, respectively). Plymouth deserves better as well.

(and I say that as someone who lives in one of the places served by the Atlantic Coast Line, and could very well use it instead of driving/busing to the mainline, though evidently not during the summer!)
 
Last edited:

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Simple question as regards Flybe problems and potential futures rescues/bailouts (yet again...)
Flybe were rescued /bailed out last year with huge investment and a big turnaround plan that apparently isn't working.

Do forum users think that Flybe/the 3 invertors took rail improvements into account (including ones soon to be delivered that are in the pipeline) when assessing their turnaround plan and as part of the cause of some problems?

E.g GWR IET introduction (capacity boost) and and December 2019 Timetable change. (some of Flybe's Exeter + Newquay routes) - the pendulum swinging the other way from the Dawlish seawall line closure...

E.g. Manchester - Scotland improvements (Bolton corridor electrification and 350s/397s) affecting
Flybe's Manchester - Edinburgh route

E.g. ECML capacity and frequency improvements and new trains (Flybe's East Midlands Airport - Scotland routes

E.g. Numerous Scottish rail improvements (electrification, new longer trains) so the overall competitiveness of rail has got better.
It is that dreaded electrification word.
Electrification isn't an improvement. 99% of passengers don't care if it is an electric train not, 70% couldn't tell if a Bi-Mode is running on diesel or not, while nobody flying short haul domestic cares about CO2.

Have any of these improvements delivered a material improvement in journey times, or reductions in fares as these are the things driving domestic passengers into the arms of Flybe?

Travelling on Cross Country has been a seriously expensive, slow and miserable experience for many years the fact one person responsible for the hated Voyager is now very close to said airline is pure coincidence.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Electric is faster and quieter
It isn't faster unless the trains go faster. If Voyagers can keep up on the WCML and 180s on the ECML why is electrification seen as being a panacea for slow journey times?

Even the express 5 3/4hr Newcastle - Southampton paths have 19min pathing and 10min excess station time in them.

Nobody concerned by noise is likely to be flying, especially on a Flybe plane.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
IT isn't even a proper industry.

Except it provides vital and highly productive global infrastructure.
I used to think finance was a pretty useless industry, but unfortunately we need it to make things work just like we need IT.
Railways? Now that's an example of a fantasy industry, at least in the UK. ;)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
It is that dreaded electrification word.
Electrification isn't an improvement. 99% of passengers don't care if it is an electric train not, 70% couldn't tell if a Bi-Mode is running on diesel or not, while nobody flying short haul domestic cares about CO2.

Have any of these improvements delivered a material improvement in journey times, or reductions in fares as these are the things driving domestic passengers into the arms of Flybe?

Travelling on Cross Country has been a seriously expensive, slow and miserable experience for many years the fact one person responsible for the hated Voyager is now very close to said airline is pure coincidence.

Electrification makes the leasing and maintenance of the trains cheaper, whilst this may not impact on ticket prices what it does do is it makes getting extra coaches more likely, which makes traveling by train more comfortable (bearing in mind that standard class seats on trains are mostly bigger than most seats on any aircraft).
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Train would add 2 hours maximum (If using the Heathrow express and getting a taxi in Newquay, probably more like 90 minutes compared to end to end times.

it does seem particularly stupid to use some of that capacity on a 70 seat turboprop to save some business folks in Cornwall 2 hours on the train

The first train from Cornwall won't get you into London Paddington until 10am, and there are no connections into that train from the smaller stations. The first train doesn't LEAVE Newquay until 1023. The first train from Par won't get you to London until 1130. It's not just the journey time but also how useful those journeys are.

I know it's a train forum and all that, but face facts- sometimes the plane is best.

As for climate change, the diesel-powered trains GWR use are not clean by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
bearing in mind that standard class seats on trains are mostly bigger than most seats on any aircraft

Hmm. The IEP does have good legroom, much as the seats themselves ae uncomfortable, but the Voyager is horrific in both pitch and width. As is the Pendolino.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Yes I know, but the point is they go via Paris (or Madrid) making use of the infrastructure that was provided for the Paris (or Madrid) flows. And many services stop at one of the Paris ‘through’ TGV stations; and all the RENFR services stop at Madrid, ie they aren’t just Cross Country services, they are also take traffic to Paris / Madrid. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it’s quicker from Newcastle to Southampton via London (changing via the tube) than it is direct via Cross Country.

With HS2 or will be faster still with a change at Old Oak Common (assuming existing services from Southampton to Paddington for journey times).
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Electrification makes the leasing and maintenance of the trains cheaper, whilst this may not impact on ticket prices what it does do is it makes getting extra coaches more likely, which makes traveling by train more comfortable (bearing in mind that standard class seats on trains are mostly bigger than most seats on any aircraft).
The incredible cost of electrification has diverted £bn in recent years away from improving services and providing extra carriages.

Cross Country crowding levels are a significant factor in respect of Flybe.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I take from this thread that the chief reason Flybe fills a gap is the shortcomings of the XC routes. I suspect that high speed lines from Brum to Exeter and also to Southampton/Bournemouth would finish off those Flybe routes, but those lines don't exist and nor will they, given that even HS2 (Brum to Leeds) is itself so far off.

Given that trains could be changed fairly quickly which would improve comfort and capacity that could be enough to kill off some routes. In that if each aircraft is only carrying 75 people the loss of each passenger is going to hit the bottom line fairly hard.

With the extra capacity from just doing a straight swap with 5 coach 80x for each of the current Voyagers that would allow XC to potentially offer better value tickets.

That could so be delivered within 3 years.

Yes the trains aren't going to beat the aircraft on journey times, but then how many people regularly need to fly A2B and back again in the same day?

If someone is in the wrong part of the country to be able to attend a meeting at 9am then chances are they could use a sleeper service (certainly true of Cornwall and much of Scotland) to be able to do so.

Yes there'll pay for the privilege, yes it'll mean that they'll not be able to sleep in their own bed, however if you are leaving the house at 6am or earlier then what advantage are you getting from being at home?

However then again that's the whole point of needing to make changes to stop climate change, we can't carry on doing exactly as we have in the past.

As to the emissions from a diesel train, they aren't all that much more than an electric one (at least when compared to cars and certainly no different when compared to aircraft). Now obviously the gap between the emissions from routes of train is getting bigger with the greening of the electricity grid. However it's still the case that they're about 1/17 of an aircraft.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The incredible cost of electrification has diverted £bn in recent years away from improving services and providing extra carriages.

Cross Country crowding levels are a significant factor in respect of Flybe.

Where there's been electrification what's happened to the trains?

Let's take as an example the electrification of the GWML, that's now got a significant number of brand new trains as well as most services being a lot longer than 3 coaches long. The 80x fleet has delivered more full length equivalent trains (i.e. 2*5 counts as one train) than there was before, with the electric trains adding significant capacity to the Thames Valley services.

How about Northern, which has seen electrification, there's now significantly more 4 coach trains than there was in the past and there's even going to be quite a few 6 coach (EMU) trains.

Unless you can cite an example of where electrician has resulted in fewer carriages (in which case is be very interested to hear it) then I'm not sure your claim is all that accurate.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
To be honest with you no I don't think they did. The management hasn't been great at Flybe for a long time, It got better under Saad Hammad but once he left everything went quickly downhill.

Personally I think it was stupid for Flybe to go from a regional airline serving across Europe to scaling back to mainly UK based business, Ok that's what they have always done, but given that it's been known for a long time about rail improvements I would have expected someone to clock on, it's almost if they just saw a market and just jumped in on a do now worry latter attitude which has now come back to hit them.

There is also the fact that the E195s have no been making money for nearly 10 years and Flybe have continues to pay out for the leases, alongside that Flybe Nordic and later the SAS contract used ATR's which have an increased cost.

There's also the training academy which cost's a fortune and cannot be closed down as funding was provided by the government, so if they close it then the money from that has to be paid back.(Told that from an a Flybe source).

Flybe will go bankrupt eventually it's inevitable now, Virgin/Stobart are not interested in the company, Virgin only want the slots at Heathrow and Manchester, Stobart will pick up any routes which actually make money and will have a pick at the aircraft it wants from Flybe. The only other asset is Aviation Services(The maintenance) company of Flybe which I could see someone picking up. The rest of it will just go and never be regained.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
@The_Ham
I think you have a point in that a few pax lost to rail by FlyBe would probably finish them off without my high speed lines mentioned above having to be constructed, but there is no prospect, it seems, of Government being interested in rescuing XC from this second rate service and providing a roomy, genuine inter-city, service on the core route from the SW to the NE or NW.
Indeed, a while back, people were claiming here that no better than a sub-regional type service should be expected. It was said that the main use of XC was for short trips, with very few people travelling the long distances that the train itself does. This is a chicken and egg argument if I have ever heard one. It reminds me of the difference in the old joke between an English and American shoe salesman. The former visits a third world country and wires back to say ' it's no good, no one wears shoes here', The American wires back, 'great news, no one is wearing shoes here, yet'.
At least FlyBe has had a go.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
@The_Ham
I think you have a point in that a few pax lost to rail by FlyBe would probably finish them off without my high speed lines mentioned above having to be constructed, but there is no prospect, it seems, of Government being interested in rescuing XC from this second rate service and providing a roomy, genuine inter-city, service on the core route from the SW to the NE or NW.
Indeed, a while back, people were claiming here that no better than a sub-regional type service should be expected. It was said that the main use of XC was for short trips, with very few people travelling the long distances that the train itself does. This is a chicken and egg argument if I have ever heard one. It reminds me of the difference in the old joke between an English and American shoe salesman. The former visits a third world country and wires back to say ' it's no good, no one wears shoes here', The American wires back, 'great news, no one is wearing shoes here, yet'.
At least FlyBe has had a go.

"If you build then, they will come" couldn't be any more relevant for transport. After all, people can't use a service that doesn't exist!

The first train from Cornwall won't get you into London Paddington until 10am, and there are no connections into that train from the smaller stations. The first train doesn't LEAVE Newquay until 1023. The first train from Par won't get you to London until 1130. It's not just the journey time but also how useful those journeys are.

I know it's a train forum and all that, but face facts- sometimes the plane is best.

As for climate change, the diesel-powered trains GWR use are not clean by any stretch of the imagination.

Then the Flybe service existing at all ia a symptom of a secone rate rail service. Clearly I wasn't saying what Newquay residents have on offer for rail transport is great, but offering a greater number of 5 hour trips to London (with an earlier start) some direct and some with a Par interchange, could give more reason to switch to rail.

Why is the direct service to Newquay from London no faster than changing at Par? Do the Sprinters accelerate much faster than the rolling stock used (presumably was an HST)?
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
offering a greater number of 5 hour trips to London (with an earlier start) some direct and some with a Par interchange, could give more reason to switch to rail.

Why is the direct service to Newquay from London no faster than changing at Par? Do the Sprinters accelerate much faster than the rolling stock used (presumably was an HST)?

Newquay doesn't get a direct London service year round because (a) that would be at the expense of West Cornwall and (b) using a railhead at eg St Austell will always be quicker.

A non-stop train on the branch will only ever be a couple of minutes faster than the normal all-request-stops local.
 

Puppetfinger

Member
Joined
18 May 2018
Messages
103
Let's not forget as well, Flybe did very well out of the last Dawlish extended closure when the line was washed away, by increasing capacity on the Newquay route to poach passengers from rail.

But the Flybe service is not just for Newquay, as a Cornwall resident, unless you use the Sleeper, if you need to be in London before 10am, flying is the only option. Even if you are happy with the 10am arrival, you need to get to one of the stations on the main line as the branch lines do not run at this time to meet the first train from Cornwall. So unless you live within easy reach of a main line station, you may just as well go to Newquay airport and have a bit longer in your own bed. Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for rail travel, but if you live in Cornwall and need to be in London early, the sleeper is your only option other than flying. I have also seen fares for the first train from Cornwall to London being more than a return airfare, making it a no brainer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for train travel, but in the case of Newquay, and Cornwall as a whole, flying to London is often a far easier and cheaper option, especially if you are then travelling on by air.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
"If you build then, they will come" couldn't be any more relevant for transport. After all, people can't use a service that doesn't exist!



Then the Flybe service existing at all ia a symptom of a secone rate rail service. Clearly I wasn't saying what Newquay residents have on offer for rail transport is great, but offering a greater number of 5 hour trips to London (with an earlier start) some direct and some with a Par interchange, could give more reason to switch to rail.

Why is the direct service to Newquay from London no faster than changing at Par? Do the Sprinters accelerate much faster than the rolling stock used (presumably was an HST)?
IET's can serve Newquay, but the line speed is limited no how good the acceleration is. Unless the railway has billions pumped into it then nothing is going to change. In my view, flying has got to be a whole lot better and greener than building High Speed rail lines all over the country and destroying the last of the greenbelt left.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,675
Location
Sheffield
In my view, flying has got to be a whole lot better and greener than building High Speed rail lines all over the country and destroying the last of the greenbelt left.
Even if there were plans to build High Speed Rail lines all over the country - and there aren’t - the amount of land taken would be minuscule. However, the hysteria about a few flights a day from Newquay somehow making a great contribution to global warming is equally misplaced.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
To be honest with you no I don't think they did. The management hasn't been great at Flybe for a long time, It got better under Saad Hammad but once he left everything went quickly downhill.

Personally I think it was stupid for Flybe to go from a regional airline serving across Europe to scaling back to mainly UK based business, Ok that's what they have always done, but given that it's been known for a long time about rail improvements I would have expected someone to clock on, it's almost if they just saw a market and just jumped in on a do now worry latter attitude which has now come back to hit them.

The European flying is not thought to have been a great success for Flybe - trying to compete with Ryanair and Easyjet to beach resorts especially was never a good idea. Much of it was a case of just trying to find something to do with the expensive jets. That part of the business is where the new owners have cut most significantly, though changes made in the last year won't have made much difference to their current position anyway.

I don't think rail improvements have affected Flybe that much. Cross country trains (in a general sense, not specific to the TOC) generally offer a poor passenger experience and are usually still useless for getting anywhere quickly, and basically haven't improved since the Voyagers were introduced, plenty of posters here don't even consider that an improvement. In terms of routes that have seen recent improvements - the GWML doesn't compete with many flights, and Newquay flights are subsidised anyway, whilst the WCML upgrade was ages ago.
Flybe will go bankrupt eventually it's inevitable now, Virgin/Stobart are not interested in the company, Virgin only want the slots at Heathrow and Manchester, Stobart will pick up any routes which actually make money and will have a pick at the aircraft it wants from Flybe. The only other asset is Aviation Services(The maintenance) company of Flybe which I could see someone picking up. The rest of it will just go and never be regained.

I don't believe Virgin/Stobart have any coherent plan for it at all. Clearly they aren't running it competently as a going concern, but the Heathrow slots are restricted in what they can be used for, whilst Manchester slots aren't particularly scarce, and hence aren't particularly valuable. Plus Virgin don't automatically get the slots, or even first dibs, if the company goes bust. If Stobart believe it'll go bust and just want to pick up the pieces surely they'd have been better off just letting it happen and not investing in the first place.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
Even if there were plans to build High Speed Rail lines all over the country - and there aren’t - the amount of land taken would be minuscule. However, the hysteria about a few flights a day from Newquay somehow making a great contribution to global warming is equally misplaced.
How is it misplaced? The Q400 is one of the most efficient turboprops in the world, in comparison to a similar sized jet it's on par with an eco friendly car per passenger basis. This is what gets me really angry, Idiot's claiming aviation causes massive global warming, and saying it should reduce its carbon footprint and be more fuel efficient, yet airlines have the biggest incentive to anyway, FUEL COST. Jet A1 is massively more expensive than the diesel you can fill your car up with, most airlines only use what is required for the journey plus an extra amount for safety. No airline runs around with full tanks unless its needed (this saves massive amount of fuel and thus pollution). Most airlines are upgrading fleets to reduce fuel bills for more environmentally friendly efficient aircraft. If electric aircraft where possible airlines would already be buying them, but the technology is not there yet and even if it was, it would still have to be proven to be safe.

To be perfectly honest, if train & bus companies and car users copied more how airlines work, there would be quite a considerable difference. I'm not saying airlines are perfect with roses, but I'm saying the days of aircraft burning fuel for the fun of it, 707, Concorde etc are long gone, why do you think the A380's are already being retired even though they only nearly 15 years old.
 

gc4946

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2019
Messages
247
Location
Leeds
I've never flown on any scheduled internal UK flights but know someone who flew from Manchester to Newquay some years ago because he didn't want to spend hours travelling on a train (and he isn't wealthy!) between those two places.
This sort of traffic ls likely to be minimal but there's some case for subsidy - with competitive tendering - of regional air routes where the alternative would otherwise incur significantly more time compared with land travel.
I know someone who's a pilot working for Flybe and hope his job's secure with the latest initiative to rescue the company.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,675
Location
Sheffield
Devon express: read my post again. ‘Hysteria is... misplaced’ means I actually agree with you on that point! Please don’t call me, or other posters, an idiot.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
IET's can serve Newquay, but the line speed is limited no how good the acceleration is. Unless the railway has billions pumped into it then nothing is going to change. In my view, flying has got to be a whole lot better and greener than building High Speed rail lines all over the country and destroying the last of the greenbelt left.

No, we simply need to accept travelling slower. For a holiday, make the journey part of the trip. For a weekend, don't go as far. For business, work on the way.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Even if there were plans to build High Speed Rail lines all over the country - and there aren’t - the amount of land taken would be minuscule. However, the hysteria about a few flights a day from Newquay somehow making a great contribution to global warming is equally misplaced.
Equally, whether 100-odd passengers per day between Newquay and London go by air or by rail won't make any significant difference to the question of whether to build a high speed line.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
No, we simply need to accept travelling slower. For a holiday, make the journey part of the trip. For a weekend, don't go as far. For business, work on the way.

So we travel slower whilst the rest of the world travels faster. Not a recipe for economic success i`m afraid. This country is not that efficient as it stands without going slower.
Even third world countries such as Morocco are now building high speed lines !
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Jet A1 is massively more expensive than the diesel you can fill your car up with, most airlines only use what is required for the journey plus an extra amount for safety.
Untrue. Airlines pay no fuel duty or VAT on aviation fuel. The current price of Jet A1 is about 64p/l, less than half the price of diesel after duty and VAT. http://aiglle.co.uk/fuel-prices/ This is a massive subsidy to domestic airline services, relative to rail and road. Fuel is a high proportion of an airline's costs.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
So we travel slower whilst the rest of the world travels faster. Not a recipe for economic success i`m afraid. This country is not that efficient as it stands without going slower.
Even third world countries such as Morocco are now building high speed lines !

And so, most likely, are we, unless HS2 gets canned entirely which seems very unlikely now.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
Equally, whether 100-odd passengers per day between Newquay and London go by air or by rail won't make any significant difference to the question of whether to build a high speed line.

Improving the rail links would help the bigger cities on the way, such as Exeter and Plymouth. As mentioned before if it helps Newquay it would help the West Country incidentally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top