Flybe Collapses

[Jozhua]

I think the point is that an extra 2 passengers per coach isn't going to make XC any worse.

XC has needed far more stock for years. Why hasn't it managed to get any?

Oh god forgot about the horrors of XC, in fact I believe if you're looking for advances, there's a lot of times it can be cheaper to go by plane.

Before anyone worries too much about XC or gets excited about the reduction in CO2, I believe stobart air and Eastern Airways are taking over quite a few UK routes that Flybe has served.

It will be a good while before it all returns to 'normal', but I reckon all the profitable routes should see a return to service. I wouldn't be surprised if 20% or so dissappear into the ethos though.

 

[Busaholic]

Oh god forgot about the horrors of XC, in fact I believe if you're looking for advances, there's a lot of times it can be cheaper to go by plane.

Before anyone worries too much about XC or gets excited about the reduction in CO2, I believe stobart air and Eastern Airways are taking over quite a few UK routes that Flybe has served.

It will be a good while before it all returns to 'normal', but I reckon all the profitable routes should see a return to service. I wouldn't be surprised if 20% or so dissappear into the ethos though.

I'd be surprised if at least 50% didn't disappear, though that might include a few that are 'saved' only to disappear unceremoniously weeks/months later.

 

[cactustwirly]

The vast majority of them in fact do not.

You have any evidence to support this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You have any evidence to support this?

The best evidence I can find is how corporates don't grind to a halt when the inevitable Q4 travel ban comes into place. Every single large corporate I've worked or contracted for has done this. Therefore to me this should be the permanent state.

 

[Tetchytyke]

UK wide emissions have, for everything other than aviation, have either fallen or stayed broadly level since the 90's. That's on total emissions, even though rail has seen a more than doubling of passenger numbers.

Aviation emissions per passenger km have halved since 1990. The issue, of course, is the increase in passenger kms. But that's not domestic- numbers are lower than in 2007- but a huge increase in international flights.

As for travelling greener, taking the train from Manchester to Exeter and return will save about 30kg CO2 emissions. However you'll need a hotel room, and typical emissions for hotels are about 30-35kg per room per night. One room in a standard business hotel will emit 12 tonnes of CO2 per year.

(Sources: https://considerategroup.com/carbon-emissions/ and https://ecometrica.com/assets/hotels_factsheet.pdf).

So it's certainly not clear cut that domestic planes are bad and trains are good.

(Way off topic, but it goes to show just how hugely damaging to the environment overseas holidays are!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for travelling greener, taking the train from Manchester to Exeter and return will save about 30kg CO2 emissions. However you'll need a hotel room, and typical emissions for hotels are about 30-35kg per room per night. One room in a standard business hotel will emit 12 tonnes of CO2 per year.

But then if the businessperson lives on their own, their house is then not being heated and so there will be no carbon emissions from there other than the very low "background" of a few electronic devices on standby.

Just goes to show nothing is simple

 

[edwin_m]

Aviation emissions per passenger km have halved since 1990. The issue, of course, is the increase in passenger kms. But that's not domestic- numbers are lower than in 2007- but a huge increase in international flights.

As for travelling greener, taking the train from Manchester to Exeter and return will save about 30kg CO2 emissions. However you'll need a hotel room, and typical emissions for hotels are about 30-35kg per room per night. One room in a standard business hotel will emit 12 tonnes of CO2 per year.

(Sources: https://considerategroup.com/carbon-emissions/ and https://ecometrica.com/assets/hotels_factsheet.pdf).

So it's certainly not clear cut that domestic planes are bad and trains are good.

(Way off topic, but it goes to show just how hugely damaging to the environment overseas holidays are!)

Much of the hotel's emissions will be related to electricity, which is decarbonizing quite quickly. There is still no clear route to decarbonizing air travel.

 

[DarloRich]

A brand that had few positive associations in Scotland.

I don't know. It was useful for getting TO Scotland

Thanks for the info on the island/internal services. Bit out of touch now

 

[Pshambro]

If most 'Flybe' journeys can be accommodated on the rail network without too much problem, it points to a carbon-reduction success. Internal journeys by rail rather than air in a landmass the size of the UK should surely be a big part of any proper policy on climate change.

Quite the opposite in my experience. A friend of mine flew Manchester to London today as “it’s quicker” but environmental groups are against HS2 providing more capacity and quicker journey times on that axis.

 

[The Ham]

Aviation emissions per passenger km have halved since 1990. The issue, of course, is the increase in passenger kms. But that's not domestic- numbers are lower than in 2007- but a huge increase in international flights.

As for travelling greener, taking the train from Manchester to Exeter and return will save about 30kg CO2 emissions. However you'll need a hotel room, and typical emissions for hotels are about 30-35kg per room per night. One room in a standard business hotel will emit 12 tonnes of CO2 per year.

(Sources: https://considerategroup.com/carbon-emissions/ and https://ecometrica.com/assets/hotels_factsheet.pdf).

So it's certainly not clear cut that domestic planes are bad and trains are good.

(Way off topic, but it goes to show just how hugely damaging to the environment overseas holidays are!)

Given that the train takes 4:30 it is possible to travel there and back in a day between Exeter and Manchester with probably half a day there.

Over time the hotel's emissions will likely fall due to the greening of the grid

 

[dk1]

Quite the opposite in my experience. A friend of mine flew Manchester to London today as “it’s quicker” but environmental groups are against HS2 providing more capacity and quicker journey times on that axis.

Flew Manchester to London? I'm not sure unless you are doing it to connect with another long distance flight that that even makes sense in English anymore. Who does that still?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Flew Manchester to London? I'm not sure unless you are doing it to connect with another long distance flight that that even makes sense in English anymore. Who does that still?

People who live in south Manchester and are going to somewhere in west London? It is a narrow use-case, I admit!

 

[Djgr]

People who live in south Manchester and are going to somewhere in west London? It is a narrow use-case, I admit!

And I don't believe it's quicker, even then!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just goes to show nothing is simple

Indeed. Pretty much everything we do has some environmental impact, and saving something in one place can have an unintended impact somewhere else.

Given that the train takes 4:30 it is possible to travel there and back in a day between Exeter and Manchester with probably half a day there.

You'd struggle to make a 10am meeting though- the earliest southbound arrival is 9.44 and the earliest northbound arrival is a scandalous 11am.

For more distant communities, the bigger the difference. From Newquay, for instance, it takes 45 minutes just to get to Par. The plane to Gatwick is about an hour.

It's even worse for island-dwellers. From the Isle of Man the summer-only fast seacat takes three hours to Liverpool; the plane takes 25 minutes. The normal ferry is four hours to Heysham, a distance of about 60 miles, which is also convenient for pretty much nowhere.

 

[markymark2000]

I am interested to see if KLM start Amsterdam to Southampton given the relatively high passenger numbers (more than double Amsterdam - Teesside which KLM serve). over 230k passengers making this journey.
Also interested to see if AerLingus start Dublin to Southampton more than 150k passengers making this journey with no alternative.

 

[sheff1]

The best evidence I can find is how corporates don't grind to a halt when the inevitable Q4 travel ban comes into place. Every single large corporate I've worked or contracted for has done this. Therefore to me this should be the permanent state.

I have never worked for, or with, an organisation (corporate or othwerise) who have had a Q4 travel ban.

Not all business is about meetings or securing deals - many business travellers are sepcialists who need to visit various locations to perform their specialism. If such people did suddenly stop travelling, things would quickly grind to a halt.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm extremely interested to know how much Flybe currently owes Cornwall Council as operator of Cornwall Airport, Newquay, and how much the eventual bill will be, even though the likelihood of any but a tiny amount of it being settled is minimal. Given the council's inate secrecy they'll probably cite 'commercial considerations' as a reason for not coming clean unless forced to. This is the same council that will closely be getting a lot of media attention in relation to the millions they've been granted by the government to significantly improve bus services in the hope of getting some to transfer from cars, so the Flybe news comes at a particularly unwelcome time.

 

[Enthusiast]

Commuters don't have to live in Milton Keynes and work in London, it would be much less damaging to live and work in the same town, not 60 miles away, so why should they be indulged?

The problem is that all the people that work for (say) Morgan Stanley in Canary Wharf don't live in Milton Keynes. Some might live there, some might live in Haywards Heath, others in Maidenhead (other commuter towns are available). If Morgan Stanley relocated to MK it would either somewhat restrict their pool of talent or mean people travelling from (say) Maidenhead to MK.

Given that the train takes 4:30 it is possible to travel there and back in a day between Exeter and Manchester with probably half a day there.

First train from Exeter is 06:25 and arrives at 11:00 (if you're lucky). A train back at 16:56 arrives at 20:59. So, the worker is travelling for eight and a half hours (not including his getting to/from St Davids, and any travelling he has to do when arriving in Manchester). Working for probably no more than four and a half at best and is out of his house for the thick end of sixteen hours. Not something I'd like to do more than once.

 

[Starmill]

I have never worked for, or with, an organisation (corporate or othwerise) who have had a Q4 travel ban.

Not all business is about meetings or securing deals - many business travellers are sepcialists who need to visit various locations to perform their specialism. If such people did suddenly stop travelling, things would quickly grind to a halt.

I think it's well overblown the idea of the Q4 Travel Ban, not to say that it never happens.

Most large firms seem to have got a handle on two things quite well. One is that some travelling is strictly necessary, as some things must be done on site or in person. The other is that a great deal else can be done easily by teleconference, especially with the adoption of video conference because this focuses the attention closely in on the meeting, where conference calls do not.

What's happening is just that this is needing to all be worked out in detail and for people to become used to it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So the message to Northern Ireland and all the Scottish Islands is 'get a ferry'?

Or is there a plan for bridges to be built linking every inhabited island with an airport to the mainland? Shetlands to Wick will be an amazing structure.

And where exactly did I suggest any of that? FWIW I do not subscribe to the view that domestic flying should be curtailed as a matter of policy. But I also recognise that general public concern about environmental issues is rising slowly but surely and that will eventually produce a political effect. Essentially the current position is unlikely to continue but there will still be an unavoidable need for some domestic flights especially on "island" routes.

Looking at Flybe specifically it's clear that they have been using aircraft that are far too big for almost all their routes. The airlines that are most likely to fill the gaps left by Flybe's demise typically use much smaller aircraft like Jetstreams or Saabs. So in future much of Flybe's former network will be revived but using smaller aircraft which will mean almost nobody will be paying cheap fares as the premium users will fill nearly all the seats; unless you are a low-cost airline flying very carefully selected routes on the "Woolworth's" principle (pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap) that's how you stay in the airline business

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. Pretty much everything we do has some environmental impact, and saving something in one place can have an unintended impact somewhere else.



You'd struggle to make a 10am meeting though- the earliest southbound arrival is 9.44 and the earliest northbound arrival is a scandalous 11am.

For more distant communities, the bigger the difference. From Newquay, for instance, it takes 45 minutes just to get to Par. The plane to Gatwick is about an hour.

It's even worse for island-dwellers. From the Isle of Man the summer-only fast seacat takes three hours to Liverpool; the plane takes 25 minutes. The normal ferry is four hours to Heysham, a distance of about 60 miles, which is also convenient for pretty much nowhere.

10am or earlier meeting then use the sleeper service and avoid the need to stay in a hotel.

I didn't say that we shouldn't have any flights (and clearly you need some, especially for islands) however we as a nation have become too reliant on them.

Why should we be able to be able to get to anywhere in the country for a few hours work?

Even if you need to then the numbers involved are going to be small and so the extra from hotel stays are going to be smaller than giving people access to flights which they don't need.

As I've asked before, why does anyone need to fly from Manchester to Edinburgh?

At 3:15 by train it's not going to be much quicker, with tickets for today at £63 is not going to be much cheaper, and with the option of going much of the way in an electric train is certainly much greener.

 

[Robertj21a]

And where exactly did I suggest any of that? FWIW I do not subscribe to the view that domestic flying should be curtailed as a matter of policy. But I also recognise that general public concern about environmental issues is rising slowly but surely and that will eventually produce a political effect. Essentially the current position is unlikely to continue but there will still be an unavoidable need for some domestic flights especially on "island" routes.

Looking at Flybe specifically it's clear that they have been using aircraft that are far too big for almost all their routes. The airlines that are most likely to fill the gaps left by Flybe's demise typically use much smaller aircraft like Jetstreams or Saabs. So in future much of Flybe's former network will be revived but using smaller aircraft which will mean almost nobody will be paying cheap fares as the premium users will fill nearly all the seats; unless you are a low-cost airline flying very carefully selected routes on the "Woolworth's" principle (pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap) that's how you stay in the airline business

Wasn't that Tesco ?

 

[Robertj21a]

10am or earlier meeting then use the sleeper service and avoid the need to stay in a hotel.

I didn't say that we shouldn't have any flights (and clearly you need some, especially for islands) however we as a nation have become too reliant on them.

Why should we be able to be able to get to anywhere in the country for a few hours work?

Even if you need to then the numbers involved are going to be small and so the extra from hotel stays are going to be smaller than giving people access to flights which they don't need.

As I've asked before, why does anyone need to fly from Manchester to Edinburgh?

At 3:15 by train it's not going to be much quicker, with tickets for today at £63 is not going to be much cheaper, and with the option of going much of the way in an electric train is certainly much greener.

The problem is that, for many, a trip from Manchester to Edinburgh is fairly straightforward in a car - and has the big advantages of flexibility of times out and back, plus your own personal facilities for, say, music, snacks, stop-offs etc. For some people, the trains have built up a reputation for problems that are time consuming to overcome, and you give up your personal flexibility in favour of whatever the TOC determines.

 

[The Ham]

First train from Exeter is 06:25 and arrives at 11:00 (if you're lucky). A train back at 16:56 arrives at 20:59. So, the worker is travelling for eight and a half hours (not including his getting to/from St Davids, and any travelling he has to do when arriving in Manchester). Working for probably no more than four and a half at best and is out of his house for the thick end of sixteen hours. Not something I'd like to do more than once.

It's certainly not something that I'd want to do much either, but then why should we need to?

If there's a lot of reason to do so then it should be possible to manage your requirements to be there so that you maximise your time there whilst minimising travel. Given that even with the high emissions from a hotel (which will have come down in the last 4 years and will continue to do so over time) added to train travel making it equal to air travel then it's no worse to do that. However, that assumes a fairly low loading to the trains (30%) and even allowing for averages, first class and empty stock movements is likely that XC have a higher seat occupancy than that.

However by going by train and staying in a hotel, as there is no flight option, then it would likely mean that others wouldn't make that trip. That would mean that they have a lower footprint than they would have had.

There'll be others who would be staying over anyway and so cutting their emissions from flying is going to be an improvement regardless.

On a single example going by train may not be as green, overall it certainly is. It will also get much greener as time goes by as more of the network is wired up and more bimodal trains are used.

With HS2 and possibly even a bridge to Ireland that could significantly reduce our need to fly. As an example HS2 between OOC and Manchester then GWR for the rest of the way would be cut probably to something like 3:30. It would also likely slash the carbon emissions, meaning that even with a hotel stay it would still win out.

 

[The Ham]

The problem is that, for many, a trip from Manchester to Edinburgh is fairly straightforward in a car - and has the big advantages of flexibility of times out and back, plus your own personal facilities for, say, music, snacks, stop-offs etc. For some people, the trains have built up a reputation for problems that are time consuming to overcome, and you give up your personal flexibility in favour of whatever the TOC determines.

Even going by car is better for the planet then flying.

 

[Ianno87]

The problem is that all the people that work for (say) Morgan Stanley in Canary Wharf don't live in Milton Keynes. Some might live there, some might live in Haywards Heath, others in Maidenhead (other commuter towns are available). If Morgan Stanley relocated to MK it would either somewhat restrict their pool of talent or mean people travelling from (say) Maidenhead to MK.



First train from Exeter is 06:25 and arrives at 11:00 (if you're lucky). A train back at 16:56 arrives at 20:59. So, the worker is travelling for eight and a half hours (not including his getting to/from St Davids, and any travelling he has to do when arriving in Manchester). Working for probably no more than four and a half at best and is out of his house for the thick end of sixteen hours. Not something I'd like to do more than once.

Working for no more tham 4.5 hours at best?

Me, I'd be working most of the outward journey on laptop plus maybe a couple on the way back too. Total 9-10 hours.

That's a couple of hours I can free up on another day instead.

Peoples' mindsets need to change - travel time can be productive time, and let's not be slavish to 9-5 any more.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. Pretty much everything we do has some environmental impact, and saving something in one place can have an unintended impact somewhere else.



You'd struggle to make a 10am meeting though- the earliest southbound arrival is 9.44 and the earliest northbound arrival is a scandalous 11am.

For more distant communities, the bigger the difference. From Newquay, for instance, it takes 45 minutes just to get to Par. The plane to Gatwick is about an hour.

It's even worse for island-dwellers. From the Isle of Man the summer-only fast seacat takes three hours to Liverpool; the plane takes 25 minutes. The normal ferry is four hours to Heysham, a distance of about 60 miles, which is also convenient for pretty much nowhere.

A rational policy would aim to discourage shorter domestic flights but make some exceptions for those serving islands and for those longer ones where other modes don't offer a comparable alternative. It would be reasonably easy to do this in a way that wasn't anticompetitive, rather than trying to prop up a specific airline which went under anyway - and getting rumblings from the likes of EasyJet who would no doubt argue with a straight face that their Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh service qualifies for the same support.

 

[nlogax]

Flew Manchester to London? I'm not sure unless you are doing it to connect with another long distance flight that that even makes sense in English anymore. Who does that still?

Depends when the start and end points are. I have n/w-based colleagues that do it and even with the airport shenanigans at either end it's still two hours quicker for them door to door than using the train.

 

[Brissle Girl]

My neighbour's company's employees have been using Flybe Manchester to Southampton & v.v. on a regular weekly basis.
He says the company policy is now to travel by car instead.
Rail is said to be a no no.
I can understand why as it's a fairly rubbish alternative to the air route.

Eastern already fly from Southampton to Leeds and announced yesterday that they are picking up the Manchester route along with 2 others. So with Loganair that’s 19 of the regional routes covered off already.

Also, EasyJet were already muscling in on the routes from Birmingham to Scotland, though arguably there is a perfectly good rail service there, so the economic and social justification for the route is much less compelling.

 

[Bantamzen]

How can that realistically be done?

Well a couple of ways would be improving the efficiency of aircraft engines, & having more point to point services instead of using hubs, both of which are happening more and more. Beyond that exploring alternative means of fuel, something which again is happening.

Just a side note, isn't it slightly amusing that people on here are arguing about unnecessary business trips when many here make lots of equally unnecessary journeys as part of their hobby? Just saying like....

< Dons tin hat>
<Enters bunker>