Flybe Collapses

[Starmill]

A Dash 8 Q400, such as the one I flew in on my last trip with them, might have a capacity of 80. Even if it were fully booked, everyone travelled to the airport at the same time and then all boarded the same train, i.e. very very unlikely, the chances are it won't cause much of a problem onboard.

The companies might be committing to giving away free travel over a very long distance, e.g. Exeter to Glasgow but it won't be for a large number of travellers.

 

[nlogax]

I would be interested in some worked examples. Given that the Manchester London train is only around two hours, the train will always be past the Watford Gap before the plane has even left Ringway.

While I won't get into specifics about where my colleagues live in relation to Manchester Airport, I can say that our office is ten minutes in a cab from LHR T5. Getting to it across town from Euston is often a faff consuming the best part of 90 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be interested in some worked examples. Given that the Manchester London train is only around two hours, the train will always be past the Watford Gap before the plane has even left Ringway.

As I said if one door happens to be near Ringway and the other one near Heathrow these examples will come up - and the latter isn't entirely rare because of the large amount of business around there e.g. Stockley Park, Slough etc.

For central Manchester to central London less so, nor for someone who lives in South Manchester but nearer Stockport than Ringway.

Once a car journey is more than around 40 miles, my employer only pays around 8p per mile AND you would need special dispension. Primarily because the employer doesn't want to be seen as environmentally irresponsible.

But they allow flights? Frankly, then, they're fools.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aviation is the only option for business travel if you want to do it in a day.

"I want" doesn't get. The question would have to be do you NEED to do it in a day, or do you NEED to go at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that's the case then there's no problem with paying say £500 to fly from Manchester to Aberdeen, the saving of time is well worth it.

That is true, higher prices will help ration such travel to those who NEED it, like they did in the 1990s where a return flight to most of Europe would cost about £3-500 in real terms now, other than package holiday charters which weren't of much use to business travellers.

If you NEED it £500 will be good value. If you're a high value consultant with rare skills then your customer will just pay it. If there are people nearby with the skills, they'll get them in instead, as they should.

If you just WANT it you will reconsider.

This is precisely why the plastic bag tax is a good idea, not a bad idea as per @Bombolino's view.

 

[PG]

If that's the case then there's no problem with paying say £500 to fly from Manchester to Aberdeen, the saving of time is well worth it.

I think that would be better than the current situation as it'd sort out the over provision of domestic air services. Only those willing to pay, with hopefully the money contributing to carbon capture schemes, would be flying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that would be better than the current situation as it'd sort out the over provision of domestic air services. Only those willing to pay, with hopefully the money contributing to carbon capture schemes, would be flying.

I agree. It's low cost flights which are primarily the issue. If they became more of a premium thing, people would regulate their use to when it was strictly necessary, as they did in the 1990s when they were available but much, much more expensive than now.

 

[duffield]

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.

My large multi-company which I retired from last year had repeated travel bans which got longer and longer until they became permanent. As I was part of a dispersed team by the time I left I hadn't seen my team leader in person for about 5 years and never met the other team members in person at all.

It wasn't a *total* ban, but to get travel authorised you had to basically explain why it was impossible (e.g.) to conduct a meeting remotely and what quantifiable benefit to the company it would bring, and get the travel signed off by some *very* senior people.

We adjusted.

 

[AndrewP]

I do a lot of business travel and short haul flying tends to be a pain in the ass. If I can use train I will but sometimes a plane is the only viable option. I get paid by the day and my clients won't pay extra time unless they get value out of it.

I do minimise air travel by doing loops so that I do fewer out and back trips but often I have to make the trip as I work in property and often need to see buildings and work on cross border projects.

However the environmental impact of my flying is minimal compared with what I have saved by implementing sustainable buildings and facilities management.

And to anyone who thinks it's fun getting a plane out early in the morning and back late the same day - it isn't!

 

[swt_passenger]

Confused of Southampton here...

Both Loganair and Eastern Airways have announced they are to run Southampton <> Newcastle services. Does that mean they’ll share the slots, or compete with each other? It looks as if they’re proposing more services in total than there were?

 

[Ianno87]

I agree. It's low cost flights which are primarily the issue. If they became more of a premium thing, people would regulate their use to when it was strictly necessary, as they did in the 1990s when they were available but much, much more expensive than now.

The flip side is that flying is accessible to so very many more people now, even just once a year, with the social inclusion benefits that brings.

Ideally there would be some way of taxing people individually on flights, so that the tax you paid as part of the price increased exponentially based on how many flights you'd had in the last 12 months or whatever (I've no idea how that would work in practice, of course!)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Confused of Southampton here...

Both Loganair and Eastern Airways have announced they are to run Southampton <> Newcastle services. Does that mean they’ll share the slots, or compete with each other? It looks as if they’re proposing more services in total than there were?

Are there planes smaller? Maybe it's still less seats and there was good demand between the two so both companies feel they can make it work.

 

[paul1609]

Confused of Southampton here...

Both Loganair and Eastern Airways have announced they are to run Southampton <> Newcastle services. Does that mean they’ll share the slots, or compete with each other? It looks as if they’re proposing more services in total than there were?

Dunno but its quick reaction Loganair have got their flights on their website to book already even if they have misspelt Southampton!

 

[miami]

I agree. It's low cost flights which are primarily the issue. If they became more of a premium thing, people would regulate their use to when it was strictly necessary, as they did in the 1990s when they were available but much, much more expensive than now.

I suspect that a "flight" of morning flights leaving at 0730, arriving at a central airport - say Manchester - at 0810-0830, then another bank leaving 0850-0920, on small planes, would be sustainable, give more journey options across the country for those who need it, would integrate well with HS2, and would reduce in less fuel used by domestic aviation.

You could have flights to/from
scilly/newquay, exeter, bristol, southampton, jersey/guensey, cardiff in the south
newcastle, glasgow, edinburgh, aberdeen, inverness, wick, various scottish islands in the north.

So you go Exeter-Inverness if you need it for a day trip. Or Exeter-Glasgow. Or Exeter-Jersey. Or Bristol-Aberdeen. Or Newquay-Aberdeen. Hell you could even to Newquay-Bristol.

A flat fare of say £300 each way, and a free transfer on HS2 from Manchester to Birmingham or London on HS2, which would allow a 2h30 trip from almost anywhere to anywhere.

During the day the planes could operate more flights to genuinely needy places - like Scottish islands, Channel islands, etc, then return for an evening bank of flights leaving about 1800, meaning a 2000 arrival.

I believe this is what used to happen in the BA days.

Ideally there would be some way of taxing people individually on flights, so that the tax you paid as part of the price increased exponentially based on how many flights you'd had in the last 12 months or whatever (I've no idea how that would work in practice, of course!)

Of course it wouldn't. That's a terrible idea. Someone generating useful economic activity being taxed more than someone going for a weekend ski trip?

Have a carbon tax for CO2 output. Use some of that income to distribute a "flight credit", say every person gets enough flight credits to pay for the typical CO2 cost for a yearly holiday to Cyprus and a weekend break to Rome. Those in areas of poor rail transport could be distributed more.

Those credits come as "money". If you take the train instead of flying, you pocket the credit.

All the benefits of a carbon tax (reduce unnecessary flying, encourage more economic planes) but without the "I can't have 2 weeks in benidorm" whines from the left.

 

[158756]

I agree. It's low cost flights which are primarily the issue. If they became more of a premium thing, people would regulate their use to when it was strictly necessary, as they did in the 1990s when they were available but much, much more expensive than now.

A problem common to a lot of proposals to limit flying is how to deal with the social impact. How do you explain to voters that they aren't allowed to have a holiday whilst businessmen, politicians, celebrities and other wealthy people continue to jet around the world regardless? The rich get richer (relatively), the rest of us get poorer.

Similarly with Flybe, Flybe's collapse has little impact on London and the Home Counties, where all the country's wealth is concentrated. Other parts of the UK fall even further behind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a terrible idea. Someone generating useful economic activity being taxed more than someone going for a weekend ski trip?

That's pretty normal. Otherwise, how would you explain the outrageous Manchester-London Any time fares and the fairly reasonably priced Off Peaks and Advances at leisure times?

 

[Ianno87]

That's pretty normal. Otherwise, how would you explain the outrageous Manchester-London Any time fares and the fairly reasonably priced Off Peaks and Advances at leisure times?

Exactly. Such peak train fares are essentially already indirect taxation on business activity.

As is Corporation tax, directly taxing doing business!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. Such peak train fares are essentially already indirect taxation on business activity.

As is Corporation tax, directly taxing doing business!

The money has to come from somewhere. People speak as if the Government is some sort of for-profit entity filling its own pockets; it's really not.

 

[Maryuk]

I wonder if GWR are considering extending their direct London to Newquay service year round. Or if any other train companies for that matter have the capability to put on more routes. That's if they think they will be attractive to those who did use Flybe frequently.

 

[miami]

A problem common to a lot of proposals to limit flying is how to deal with the social impact. How do you explain to voters that they aren't allowed to have a holiday whilst businessmen, politicians, celebrities and other wealthy people continue to jet around the world regardless? The rich get richer (relatively), the rest of us get poorer.

Increase taxes on the wealthy (not wealthy, not those with high income who have to then pay large rents to the wealthy to afford that high income), and redistribute it to those who aren't wealthy.

 

[Ianno87]

I wonder if GWR are considering extending their direct London to Newquay service year round. Or if any other train companies for that matter have the capability to put on more routes. That's if they think they will be attractive to those who did use Flybe frequently.

I think that's a false assertion that Newquay airport primarily serves Newquay. It really serves Cornwall more widely, for which train services on the main line are convenient for far more people (both for long distance and 'local' trips) compared to running a train to Newquay instead.

 

[stu]

Confused of Southampton here...

Both Loganair and Eastern Airways have announced they are to run Southampton <> Newcastle services. Does that mean they’ll share the slots, or compete with each other? It looks as if they’re proposing more services in total than there were?

I think it's because both airlines' planes will be smaller in seat terms so in order to offer the Flybe 80 seats per flight, it'll take two smaller planes to make up the numbers.

Flybe were going to increase Soton to Newcastle to 4 times daily this summer too.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

An example of a disruputed passenger - who sat opposite me on the 1202 At Pancras (slow) to Nottingham. Where she was travelling to.

Flybe cancelled her Belfast to East Midlands flight when they ceased to operate. Tried Easyjet to Liverpool - but was unable to get a seat. Stayed an extra night in Belfast and travelled to Heathrow , cross London to SPX and then the train.

He normal journey had Flybe not ceased to operate was about 2 hours (45 mins in the air) , but she did it in about 5 hours , and did manage a good bit of work on the train - did not seem overly unhappy and to be fair the train journey was very decent.

 

[miami]

The thing that would put me off is the cross-london transfer. Going from T2/T5 to Old Oak Common (25-30 minutes) then to Totton (45 minutes) puts the entire trip to 90 minutes and makes some routes even less competitive.

 

[Djgr]

As I said if one door happens to be near Ringway and the other one near Heathrow these examples will come up - and the latter isn't entirely rare because of the large amount of business around there e.g. Stockley Park, Slough etc.

For central Manchester to central London less so, nor for someone who lives in South Manchester but nearer Stockport than Ringway.



But they allow flights? Frankly, then, they're fools.

To clarify, they don't allow domestic flights. Again for environmental reasons

 

[sheff1]

"I want" doesn't get. The question would have to be do you NEED to do it in a day, or do you NEED to go at all.

I am not sure why you keep repeating this when it just isn't true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not sure why you keep repeating this when it just isn't true.

It isn't true now, but it isn't a good reason to maintain an air travel system.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I think it's because both airlines' planes will be smaller in seat terms so in order to offer the Flybe 80 seats per flight, it'll take two smaller planes to make up the numbers.

Flybe were going to increase Soton to Newcastle to 4 times daily this summer too.

Loganair have said they’ll be operating 3 flights a day between Southampton and Newcastle, using Embraer ERJ jets.
They haven’t said if they’d be using the 49 seat ERJ145 or 37 seat ERJ135 (they only have a few of the latter variant).
Both obviously have a lower passenger capacity than Flybe’s 78 seat Dash-8 Q400’s.

Meanwhile, Eastern Airways haven’t said what aircraft type they intend to use on this route, or confirmed how many flights they are planning to run each day.


*

 

[Butts]

Loganair have said they’ll be operating 3 flights a day between Southampton and Newcastle, using Embraer ERJ jets.
They haven’t said if they’d be using the 49 seat ERJ145 or 37 seat ERJ135 (they only have a few of the latter variant).
Both obviously have a lower passenger capacity than Flybe’s 78 seat Dash-8 Q400’s.

Meanwhile, Eastern Airways haven’t said what aircraft type they intend to use on this route, or confirmed how many flights they are planning to run each day.

The biggest barrier to success for Loganair and the others is the price. People like myself have got used to Flying from Scotland to England for about £30 each way.


*

Let's hope Loganair last a bit longer on this route than they did on East Midlands to Inverness last year...a matter of months. One good thing about Loganair is the free hold bag and refreshments - at least at the moment. Good to see they have got some mini - Embraers !!

Someone upthread was blaming the Government for Flybe's collapse - what about it's owners Beardy's Mob and Stobart Air. Neither of them was willing to back their investment ?

It's all about price, people including my self have got used to Flying from Scotland to England for about £30 each way !!

 

[Bantamzen]

I suspect that a "flight" of morning flights leaving at 0730, arriving at a central airport - say Manchester - at 0810-0830, then another bank leaving 0850-0920, on small planes, would be sustainable, give more journey options across the country for those who need it, would integrate well with HS2, and would reduce in less fuel used by domestic aviation.

You could have flights to/from
scilly/newquay, exeter, bristol, southampton, jersey/guensey, cardiff in the south
newcastle, glasgow, edinburgh, aberdeen, inverness, wick, various scottish islands in the north.

So you go Exeter-Inverness if you need it for a day trip. Or Exeter-Glasgow. Or Exeter-Jersey. Or Bristol-Aberdeen. Or Newquay-Aberdeen. Hell you could even to Newquay-Bristol.

A flat fare of say £300 each way, and a free transfer on HS2 from Manchester to Birmingham or London on HS2, which would allow a 2h30 trip from almost anywhere to anywhere.

During the day the planes could operate more flights to genuinely needy places - like Scottish islands, Channel islands, etc, then return for an evening bank of flights leaving about 1800, meaning a 2000 arrival.

I believe this is what used to happen in the BA days.




Of course it wouldn't. That's a terrible idea. Someone generating useful economic activity being taxed more than someone going for a weekend ski trip?

Have a carbon tax for CO2 output. Use some of that income to distribute a "flight credit", say every person gets enough flight credits to pay for the typical CO2 cost for a yearly holiday to Cyprus and a weekend break to Rome. Those in areas of poor rail transport could be distributed more.

Those credits come as "money". If you take the train instead of flying, you pocket the credit.

All the benefits of a carbon tax (reduce unnecessary flying, encourage more economic planes) but without the "I can't have 2 weeks in benidorm" whines from the left.

Using taxes won't solve the problems, the money will simply disappear into the general economy and will never get used for carbon fixing.

The simplest way would be to require airlines to offer customers the opportunity to offset their carbon outputs to nominated charities that actually are involved in re-forestation. Then legislate that this becomes mandatory after a set period, and base the charge on the exact aircraft & distance.

Job done, when people fly, they pay to plant trees. It won't solve man-made climate change, but it will help create a foundation for the solution.