Flybe (based at Exeter) and domestic air travel - ongoing discussion (merged topic)

[whole diary]

[Celestial]

Hopefully some people will now fly less, making use of rail instead, or even staying in one place.

Some of the routes formerly operated by Flybe will presumably be taken over by competitors, but others may close permanently. Those who flew infrequently may have to accept the extra time taken by rail.
Those who flew frequently might have to review their location and business affairs so as to reduce the need for such frequent long distance travel.

So far, Loganair has announced plans to takeover 16 routes, and Eastern another two, typically routes where the rail alternatives are over 4 or 5 hours. In addition, Easyjet had already announced start dates this Spring from Scottish airports to Birmingham.  So your wish isn't about to come too true just yet. 

[Bob_Blakey]

...I'm fairly sure that all or nearly all of Flybe's aircraft are leased, so the lessors will re-possess and then try to re-market them. They may in time find their way to other operators (anywhere globally) but those operators will need to have pilots type-rated to fly them, and I would be fairly sure that an operator like Loganair (which operates different types) won't have many, if any, that are rated to fly Flybe's Q400's, for example.

Loganair have said that their intention to takeover (some of) the former Flybe routes serving Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle will require the recruitment of around 100 additional staff and preference will be given to (suitably qualified) ex-Flybe people. I guess that implies they wouldn't be averse to leasing a small number of the mothballed Q400's unless they are prepared to retrain pilots & cabin crew which would presumably delay reinstatement of the specified services.

It would be very good for our local economy if Flybe Aviation Services, which was registered as a separate entity some time ago and is still in business, could continue as the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Q400 engineering base.

[SandTEngineer]

It is the speed of services generally to Cornwall that is therefore the issue not the Newquay branch.

....and that is why the replacement of Flybe on the PSO Newquay to London route needs to get sorted PDQ, with government assistance if possible. Anything beyond Exeter (or Plymouth at a stretch) is not doable for a day trip by rail from London and the Thames Valley.

Not quite true.  Depends what you consider as doable.....

London Paddington d0637  Penzance a1141
Penzance d1745  London Paddington a2356

Penzance d0458  London Paddington a1000
London Paddington d1804  (FO d1904) Penzance a2307 (FO a0034)

Lots of alternatives (mostly hourly throughout the day) and lots of intermediate places not served by direct flights.

Just out of interest, what would be the comparable times from Central London to Penzance by flying?

[PhilWakely]

It is the speed of services generally to Cornwall that is therefore the issue not the Newquay branch.

....and that is why the replacement of Flybe on the PSO Newquay to London route needs to get sorted PDQ, with government assistance if possible. Anything beyond Exeter (or Plymouth at a stretch) is not doable for a day trip by rail from London and the Thames Valley.

Not quite true.  Depends what you consider as doable.....

London Paddington d0637  Penzance a1141
Penzance d1745  London Paddington a2356

Penzance d0458  London Paddington a1000
London Paddington d1804  (FO d1904) Penzance a2307 (FO a0034)

Lots of alternatives (mostly hourly throughout the day) and lots of intermediate places not served by direct flights.

Just out of interest what would be the comparable times from Central London to Penzance by flying?

At a walk-up cost of £294.20 - or, if you are lucky enough to qualify for a railcard that is valid in the early morning, £194.85 (OK, slightly cheaper if you purchase two singles)!

[SandTEngineer]

It is the speed of services generally to Cornwall that is therefore the issue not the Newquay branch.

....and that is why the replacement of Flybe on the PSO Newquay to London route needs to get sorted PDQ, with government assistance if possible. Anything beyond Exeter (or Plymouth at a stretch) is not doable for a day trip by rail from London and the Thames Valley.

Not quite true.  Depends what you consider as doable.....

London Paddington d0637  Penzance a1141
Penzance d1745  London Paddington a2356

Penzance d0458  London Paddington a1000
London Paddington d1804  (FO d1904) Penzance a2307 (FO a0034)

Lots of alternatives (mostly hourly throughout the day) and lots of intermediate places not served by direct flights.

Just out of interest what would be the comparable times from Central London to Penzance by flying?

At a walk-up cost of £294.20 - or, if you are lucky enough to qualify for a railcard that is valid in the early morning, £194.85 (OK, slightly cheaper if you purchase two singles)!

So, what would the equivalent fare in total be for the same trip by flying for part of the journey then?  How many people buy an equivalent 'walkup' air fare?

[grahame]

Not quite true.  Depends what you consider as doable.....

London Paddington d0637  Penzance a1141
Penzance d1745  London Paddington a2356

Can't help wondering if Penzance is a "worst case scenario" - the Cornish Main Line is not all about Penzance!

Passenger numbers (last reported year)
570,000 - Penzance

Shorter journeys (so shorter journey / better day in Cornwall) include
328,000 - Redruth
266,000 - Camborne (but do the trains in these examples stop there Wednesdays?)
1,187,000 - Truro (noting this number skewed by local Falmouth traffic)
460,000 - St Austell
234,000 - Bodmin Parkway
351,000 - Liskeard (noting this number skewed by local Looe traffic)

[TonyK]

...I'm fairly sure that all or nearly all of Flybe's aircraft are leased, so the lessors will re-possess and then try to re-market them. They may in time find their way to other operators (anywhere globally) but those operators will need to have pilots type-rated to fly them, and I would be fairly sure that an operator like Loganair (which operates different types) won't have many, if any, that are rated to fly Flybe's Q400's, for example.

Loganair have said that their intention to takeover (some of) the former Flybe routes serving Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle will require the recruitment of around 100 additional staff and preference will be given to (suitably qualified) ex-Flybe people. I guess that implies they wouldn't be averse to leasing a small number of the mothballed Q400's unless they are prepared to retrain pilots & cabin crew which would presumably delay reinstatement of the specified services.

It would be very good for our local economy if Flybe Aviation Services, which was registered as a separate entity some time ago and is still in business, could continue as the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Q400 engineering base.

The Flybe fleet, or more accurately the former Flybe fleet, had a few owned aircraft, mainly the Q400s, but mainly leased. I am not sure of the exact split so base this on a small random sample in G-INFO, the CAA^» (Civil Aviation Authority - about)'s registration portal.

As for type ratings, there are unfortunately no common ratings between Flybe and Loganair. Flybe's turboprop aircraft were all DHC Dash-8 400 (Q400 in common parlance), needing the EASA^» (European Aviation Safety Agency - about) DHC8 type rating. Loganair use four different turbo prop types: one ATR 42 and three ATR 72s, with a common rating to cover both, 14 Saab 340s, and 2 Saab 2000s, each of which has its own rating. For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-145 aircraft, with a common rating. Flybe had 9 ERJ-175 and a single ERJ-195, both of which can be flown with the EMB170 rating.

Commercial pilots can only be current on one type, so even though a Flybe pilot may have flown ERJ-145s before the airline changed, they can't just walk into them again. The reason for this rule is to avoid confusion. The primary flight controls are the same, much of the layout of the secondary controls will be very similar, but there are critical differences in weights and airspeeds especially. They are, however, in the same class of aircraft, being either twin engine jet or twin engine turboprop. Conversion to a new type of the same class won't take long, and could involve as little as a few days in a simulator. A period of flying with a supervising pilot will follow - they are all pilot and co-pilot anyway.

Looking at the difference in the fleets may give a pointer as to why it all went wrong. In every case, Flybe have the larger aircraft. That is a good thing if they are full, much less so if not, and a couple of empty seats can be the difference between profit and loss for a flight. Loganair seems to have adopted a more cautious approach.

[Thatcham Crossing]

London Paddington d0637  Penzance a1141
Penzance d1745  London Paddington a2356

Penzance d0458  London Paddington a1000
London Paddington d1804  (FO d1904) Penzance a2307 (FO a0034)

Those in reality mean a 20+ hour day (door to door), which I don't think is realistic.

I will concede that Plymouth is doable though, and is about equivalent to the longest day trip I do regularly myself, which is from West Berks to Leeds, at about 4hrs each way (which still means around a 13-14hr day door-to-door though).

Note to Broadgage!: I do this by rail, although I could fly it, because I can work and I actually enjoy the rail journey (last time on an Azuma^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER) up and a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) back for comparative purposes!)

There were many Cornish folks on social media yesterday (look at Newquay Airport's Facebook page, as an example) decrying the loss of the London airlink and the business and personal impacts, so I stand by my hope that it is resurrected asap.

[stuving]

... For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-135 aircraft, with a common rating. ...

I think that should read: "For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-145 aircraft, with a common rating." (Some of the later comments need that for their sense.)

[TonyK]

... For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-135 aircraft, with a common rating. ...

I think that should read: "For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-145 aircraft, with a common rating." (Some of the later comments need that for their sense.)

Correct! Amended. It took me a few moments...

There were many Cornish folks on social media yesterday (look at Newquay Airport's Facebook page, as an example) decrying the loss of the London airlink and the business and personal impacts, so I stand by my hope that it is resurrected asap.

I'm sure it will quickly become apparent just how far Cornwall is from England, or least from that bit of England that contains most of the money. Having to endure a long and unedifying train journey to visit the weekend place in Rock or to go surfing will come as a shock to some.

[paul7575]

...I'm fairly sure that all or nearly all of Flybe's aircraft are leased, so the lessors will re-possess and then try to re-market them. They may in time find their way to other operators (anywhere globally) but those operators will need to have pilots type-rated to fly them, and I would be fairly sure that an operator like Loganair (which operates different types) won't have many, if any, that are rated to fly Flybe's Q400's, for example.

Loganair have said that their intention to takeover (some of) the former Flybe routes serving Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle will require the recruitment of around 100 additional staff and preference will be given to (suitably qualified) ex-Flybe people. I guess that implies they wouldn't be averse to leasing a small number of the mothballed Q400's unless they are prepared to retrain pilots & cabin crew which would presumably delay reinstatement of the specified services.

It would be very good for our local economy if Flybe Aviation Services, which was registered as a separate entity some time ago and is still in business, could continue as the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Q400 engineering base.

The Flybe fleet, or more accurately the former Flybe fleet, had a few owned aircraft, mainly the Q400s, but mainly leased. I am not sure of the exact split so base this on a small random sample in G-INFO, the CAA^» (Civil Aviation Authority - about)'s registration portal.

As for type ratings, there are unfortunately no common ratings between Flybe and Loganair. Flybe's turboprop aircraft were all DHC Dash-8 400 (Q400 in common parlance), needing the EASA^» (European Aviation Safety Agency - about) DHC8 type rating. Loganair use four different turbo prop types: one ATR 42 and three ATR 72s, with a common rating to cover both, 14 Saab 340s, and 2 Saab 2000s, each of which has its own rating. For pure jets, they have 4 Embraer ERJ-135 and 13 ERJ-145 aircraft, with a common rating. Flybe had 9 ERJ-175 and a single ERJ-195, both of which can be flown with the EMB170 rating.

Commercial pilots can only be current on one type, so even though a Flybe pilot may have flown ERJ-145s before the airline changed, they can't just walk into them again. The reason for this rule is to avoid confusion. The primary flight controls are the same, much of the layout of the secondary controls will be very similar, but there are critical differences in weights and airspeeds especially. They are, however, in the same class of aircraft, being either twin engine jet or twin engine turboprop. Conversion to a new type of the same class won't take long, and could involve as little as a few days in a simulator. A period of flying with a supervising pilot will follow - they are all pilot and co-pilot anyway.

Looking at the difference in the fleets may give a pointer as to why it all went wrong. In every case, Flybe have the larger aircraft. That is a good thing if they are full, much less so if not, and a couple of empty seats can be the difference between profit and loss for a flight. Loganair seems to have adopted a more cautious approach.

Interesting stuff, and presumably much of the Loganair fleet is tailored to specific ‘island hopping’ routes around the Scottish islands etc.  If it was a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) I’m sure people would be mentioning the number of microfleets... 

Paul

[TonyK]

Interesting stuff, and presumably much of the Loganair fleet is tailored to specific ‘island hopping’ routes around the Scottish islands etc.  If it was a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) I’m sure people would be mentioning the number of microfleets... 

Paul

You're right, Paul - horses for courses, as they say. The turboprops in both fleets have many advantages over pure jets for smaller operations, not least of which is the length  of runway they need. That can be half of distance needed for a jet. They are inherently more responsive that bigger jets, with much better control of the power. The engines run at a constant speed, and the power is varied by changing the angle that the propellers present to the air. That means that when the pilot pushes the levers forward, he gets instant power without the lag experienced in pure jets. That can be extremely useful in blustery weather when landing, and means that you don't need to build in safety margins as big as in jets. The propellers are adjustable to the point where reverse power can  do away with needing to brake, and aircraft can reverse from the stand without waiting for a tug. So they can land with a tailwind with a short final approach, unload and load, and be off again in much less time than a jet with the same number of passengers. They are not as fast as a jet, but not slow either, meaning that on shorter flights, say 300 - 500 miles, you wouldn't really notice much, especially if you can use a smaller airport. They are more fuel efficient at lower altitudes than their big cousins.

Jets win on medium and long haul on speed, comfort and numbers. Turboprops have just as nice interiors as jets, but fly lower, typically 25,000 feet or so (FL250 to be accurate and risk transfer to the pedant thread) compared to 39,000 or even above for jets. The air is denser at the lower level, and so a bit more turbulent. Jets are highly efficient once they have reached cruising altitude, turboprops much more fuel efficient at lower levels.

The choice of Brazilian Embraer ERJ-145 aircraft is interesting. They hold around 45 passengers, so I assume that is what Loganair decided was optimum for the routes. I had the pleasure of sitting between the pilots for the last half hour of a flight in a Boeing 737 from Spain to Stansted in the days before 9/11. WEe landed before an ERJ-145, but as we departed the runway at the very end, he was in front of us, having turned off earlier. The pilot said he had flown them, and thought them a wonderful aircraft. The Rolls Royce Allison engines give it a huge margin of spare power, meaning they can be run less harshly and are so reliable that most pilots will not encounter even a single issue with them in a whole career. No-one has ever died in an accident involving an ERJ-145.

Flybe had the bigger ERJ-175, with around 75 seats, and ERJ195, with around 100 seats. Both were designed as a longer range variant, suggesting that Flybe had in mind flying more passengers further than Loganair did. We now know which model is more sustainable. There are clearly other factors at work - I have read today that Flybe has £50 million in the hands of credit card companies, although other businesses manage this as a cashflow item.

[Clan Line]

The choice of Brazilian Embraer ERJ-145 aircraft is interesting.

I would hazard a guess and say that most of  Loganair's 145s are "hand me downs" from BA^» (British Airways - about) when BA pulled out of a lot of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) domestic routes, many of which were actually operated by  Loganair in BA livery.

I agree with the comments about this aircraft, I used it a lot from Bristol and Southampton up to Scotand. Comfortable, good performance and amazingly quiet inside considering the the size of the huge engines hung on the back of it. Still my favourite airliner - a proper "dreamliner" !

[Thatcham Crossing]

I'm fairly sure that all or nearly all of Flybe's aircraft are leased, so the lessors will re-possess and then try to re-market them.

Talk on aviation forums already suggesting that about 15 of Flybe's parked Q400's are about to be snapped up, following a statement from the leasing company that owns them yesterday.

Lots of speculation as to who this might be - possibly Stobart Air for operations out of Belfast City and Southampton? (15 is about the no. that Flybe had based at those 2 airports). There would of course be a ready supply of rated based pilots to fly them out of those locations. Further (maybe cynical) speculation that this is what was planned all along (although others have said that the "Virgin Connect" concept is dead)....we wait and see, but it's a fast-moving situation.

Turboprops have just as nice interiors as jets, but fly lower, typically 25,000 feet or so

The Q400 is capable of flight at higher levels, but my understanding is that the FL250 restriction is in place by regulatory authorities as it doesn't have drop-down oxygen for passengers  (if the pressurisation goes at FL250, you have less airspace to dive through to get to levels where oxygen is sufficient than if you were higher).



 

[paul7575]

I'm fairly sure that all or nearly all of Flybe's aircraft are leased, so the lessors will re-possess and then try to re-market them.

Talk on aviation forums already suggesting that about 15 of Flybe's parked Q400's are about to be snapped up, following a statement from the leasing company that owns them yesterday.

Lots of speculation as to who this might be - possibly Stobart Air for operations out of Belfast City and Southampton? (15 is about the no. that Flybe had based at those 2 airports). There would of course be a ready supply of rated based pilots to fly them out of those locations.

Does this mean we’ll see the aviation equivalent of “livery froth” before long?     as aircraft enthusiasts around the country record the progress of applying new paint schemes?

Perhaps I’ll get more use out of my miniature cabin bag after all, in the smaller FlyBe approved size...

Paul