Flybe Collapses

[Sir Felix Pole]

Anna Aero has an interesting analysis of the top 30 routes formerly operated by Flybe.

It would suggest that the Belfast City routes are an attractive proposition for other airlines, but what is disappointing from a rail point of view is the number passengers still choosing air for Birmingham/Manchester to Edinburgh/ Glasgow - an ideal rail distance.


https://www.anna.aero/2020/03/05/flybe-the-top-30-routes/

Flybe: the top 30 routes

80% of flybe’s W19 flights had no direct competitor. There is a significant opportunity for other carriers to step in and help UK regional connectivity recover.

Flybe’s bankruptcy leaves a network of 50 mainly-domestic routes, some 80% of which have no competitor in W19. So, in this challenging time for aviation, there is still hopefully an opportunity for other carriers to fill the gap and connect the UK’s regional airports.

Below are flybe’s top 30 domestic routes in 2019 – complete with The Route Shop profile links to featured airports – and all of us at anna.aero hope to see the UK regional market recover soon. Anecdotally, Ryanair senior executives talk about the need to have 100,000 passengers on a route “before they would get out of bed”. Nonetheless, all routes on the list have sufficient existing traffic, even pre-stimulation, to sustain at least a daily turboprop service.

Our hearts go out to all our friends at Flybe – and our dear colleagues at many UK regional airports who have been badly impacted.

Further information on other routes is available on request.

Route 2019 estimated passengers PDEW
Birmingham – Edinburgh 185,146 254
Belfast City – Birmingham 177,990 244
Birmingham – Glasgow Airport 164,616 226
Belfast City – Manchester 158,110 217
Belfast City – London City 146,881 201
Guernsey – Jersey 136,421 187
Edinburgh – Southampton 122,195 167
Manchester – Southampton 119,474 164
Edinburgh – London Heathrow 117,697 161
Glasgow Airport – Southampton 116,461 160
Jersey – Southampton 111,425 153
Edinburgh – London City 105,456 144
Belfast City – Leeds Bradford 101,314 139
Belfast City – Edinburgh 98,054 134
Aberdeen – Manchester 97,679 134
Belfast City – East Midlands 97,269 133
Isle of Man – Manchester 96,233 132
Guernsey – Southampton 93,663 128
Belfast City – Glasgow Airport 91,489 125
Isle of Man – Liverpool John Lennon 89,832 123
Cardiff – Edinburgh 76,750 105
Newcastle – Southampton 76,261 104
Belfast City – Southampton 75,088 103
Aberdeen – Birmingham 71,614 98
London Heathrow – Newquay 70,031 96
Exeter – Manchester 69,027 95
Edinburgh – Manchester 64,822 89
Aberdeen – London Heathrow 59,042 81
Edinburgh – East Midlands 47,053 64
Belfast City – Cardiff 46,385 64
Source: OAG Traffic Analyser

 

[miami]

For a lot, yes - but not all, and it could have a big impact on the various smaller islands from which there isn't a rail alternative.

Loganair seem to operate those fine. Which islands are only served by flybe?

 

[BananaRepublic]

...... 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.

For many of Flymaybe's journeys (though perhaps not the Scottish ones), the car is a viable option and is often quicker than the train because it's door to door. .....

But it's not viable for business people who wish to use time semi-productively.

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.

 

[FQTV]

Flybe were charging say £70 return for Manchester to Southampton, with another £26 to offset the damage those flights did to the environment.

You are implying if flybe got that extra £26 they wouldn't have a problem.

In that case, why didn't they increase fares to £96 return (£122 return including APD). If their product was so much better than the competition, that would be fine.

They didn't charge enough, presumably because not enough people were willing to pay the actual cost of the flight. Blaming it on high landing fees, or APD, or other costs is disingenuous, it is a product with low running costs, hence undercutting train, coach and driving costs.

Rather than leaving home at 6am to get the 0835 flight from southampton (1h30 to airport, and a bit of leeway for heavy traffic), getting you to southampton airport for 0940, your journey will take an extra hour - at least until HS2 opens. A shame, but there are far more worthy cases of state subsidy than saving 20 businessmen an hour off their trip to southampton.

Flybe was badly run, asset stripped, and Branson tried to get more money from the taxpayer. Hopefully a properly run airline will be able to deliver commercially suitable routes.

Your analysis is, I would suggest, pretty much exactly right.

Anna Aero has an interesting analysis of the top 30 routes formerly operated by Flybe.

It would suggest that the Belfast City routes are an attractive proposition for other airlines, but what is disappointing from a rail point of view is the number passengers still choosing air for Birmingham/Manchester to Edinburgh/ Glasgow - an ideal rail distance.


https://www.anna.aero/2020/03/05/flybe-the-top-30-routes/

The thing is that, if you look at the PDEW figures (Per Day, Each Way) you're looking at the equivalent of only one five car Voyager per day, each way, between Birmingham and Edinburgh, and the same to and from Glasgow. Aviation still has a low market share of public transport between these points, and very very low when driving is included.

The problem with these routes is that, if there's an hour or so's flying time invoved (let's say), and the only high(ish) yield market is for the business day return market, then what do you do with the airframe for the rest of the day, after the morning inbound and before the evening back? Answer: you make very little money, or lose a lot.

flybe operated some very important routes, economically or socially as far as the UK is concerned, of which arguably only a few were under Public Service Obligations.

The question is, can such important services be operated sustainably by a private operator within a deregulated market? I'd argue not, and that it would be better for the government to work out what it wants from domestic aviation and then set up a regulatory framework that can support a stable network than just keep looking startled when another carrier goes bump. Remember that bmi Regional was part of the company that still is Loganair, so other than getting rid of some routes by busting them under bmi, any systemic issues with that company may still persist.

Having said that, since recent administrations don't seem to have been capable of working out a practical strategy for what they want from almost any transport mode, I hold out little hope for them coming up with anything rational for domestic aviation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it's not viable for business people who wish to use time semi-productively.

You can't use your time in Standard on XC productively either, unless you're fortunate enough to sit in one of the very few tables or extra legroom seats, given that almost all work these days involves laptops and the pitch of the regular seats is too narrow to use a normal sized laptop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with these routes is that, if there's an hour or so's flying time invoved (let's say), and the only high(ish) yield market is for the business day return market, then what do you do with the airframe for the rest of the day, after the morning inbound and before the evening back? Answer: you make very little money, or lose a lot.

Not only that, but the business day return market by air should be heavily discouraged. If flying is the only option, a multi-day trip for a planned set of meetings is an environmentally better option, and furthermore that makes slower modes more viable.

 

[davido39]

I live and work in Malta. We have several public Transport services to and from MIA people are still coming here without a care in the world, all I can think about is the effects of Coronavirus to airline services, and the volatility of flights being cancelled at short notice. Especially as Italy is our close neighbour. There's been whispers for a while now on the sustainability of Air Malta, this could be next, but as Ryanair have been knocking on the airlocked door for a while so all it takes is something like the Coronavirus. By by Air Malta, hello Malta Air a Ryanair registered company.

It is almost as if they are waiting in the wings...or on

 

[FQTV]

Not only that, but the business day return market by air should be heavily discouraged. If flying is the only option, a multi-day trip for a planned set of meetings is an environmentally better option, and furthermore that makes slower modes more viable.

The problem with this is that this is what actually makes at least some reasonable money; without this high yield business, other things are affected, which could range from the overall sustainability of a particular airport which may provide other low yield but 'essential' services, to things like the transport of transplant organs, blood etc., which can and do go by means of inland passenger air service.

The notion that 'business' just means 'meetings' is not necessarily accurate, either. Some of these 'day returners' are doctors, surgeons, barristers, specialist engineers etc. Suggesting that an engineer should wait until a few ships' satellite communications systems have broken in Aberdeen Harbour, to make a multiday trip nice and efficient and low-carbon, is obviously not going to wash.

 

[duffield]

Some posts have dismissed the effect of 'a few extra passengers' on the XC routes obviously haven't seen the hell that is standard class on some XC services. For example, having a pint while sitting on the platform at the York Tap you can see that on some southbound XC services it is just barely possible to cram the passengers in. Even a handful of extra passengers per service will potentially mean people being left behind.
If we had a joined-up government they would be *urgently* trying to increase XC capacity.

On the other hand, maybe demand for all rail travel will be temporarily suppressed due to COVID-19...

 

[miami]

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?

 

[Tetchytyke]

another £26 to offset the damage those flights did to the environment.

No, APD is just another way for our government to rinse tax out of people. If it was about "environmental damage" it would target private aviation, especially private jets, far more than it does.

Aviation accounts for a tiny proportion of carbon emissions. The Dash 8s and ATR72s aren't actually much more polluting than older diesel trains, like Voyagers.

 

[DarloRich]

Loganair seem to operate those fine. Which islands are only served by flybe?

None: irc Logan air operate the services ( perhaps badged as flybe)

 

[47271]

None: irc Logan air operate the services ( perhaps badged as flybe)

Flybe walked out on its marketing relationship with Loganair a few years ago, so the island routes have all been flying as Loganair branded planes for quite some time.

Scottish internal routes operated by Eastern Airways (for example Aberdeen-Wick) may have been branded as Flybe, but the collapse has no impact on Eastern's operation.

Flybe made some very stupid decisions over their Scottish domestic operations, not least their mad attempt to go into competition with Loganair to Orkney and Shetland and then withdraw within months. Then there was the Dundee-Amsterdam debacle.

A brand that had few positive associations in Scotland.

 

[Skymonster]

Not only that, but the business day return market by air should be heavily discouraged. If flying is the only option, a multi-day trip for a planned set of meetings is an environmentally better option, and furthermore that makes slower modes more viable.

What a load of bollards... (1) face-to-face meetings are often the only way of really securing major business and if you don’t understand that you haven’t really been at the cutting edge of securing important deals - and (2) if we adopt that stance with air travel we should adopt it with rail journeys too because they also have environmental impact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What a load of bollards... (1) face-to-face meetings are often the only way of really securing major business and if you don’t understand that you haven’t really been at the cutting edge of securing important deals

The vast, vast majority of business travel is not about "securing deals".

And how were they secured prior to mass air travel?

 

[davido39]

Hide your straws folks we have a climate alarmist here.

 

[The Ham]

No, APD is just another way for our government to rinse tax out of people. If it was about "environmental damage" it would target private aviation, especially private jets, far more than it does.

Aviation accounts for a tiny proportion of carbon emissions. The Dash 8s and ATR72s aren't actually much more polluting than older diesel trains, like Voyagers.

Dash 8's produce 158g/km
Source
https://frontier.ac.uk/About-Us/Climate-Change/Calculating-Emissions.aspx

Voyager (30% full) 108g/km
Source
https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw35QyliXsd6HpfPPhg2rWgQ

That's about 146% of the value of the Voyagers. That's not only a little bit more, that's quite a bit more. On a train with 60 people on board that would be an extra 2.4kg, or over a 360 day year about 0.85 tonnes.

Given there's often 15 services a day of they flew instead over a year that would be 13 times of emissions.

That's when the Voyagers are 30% full, if they are fuller than that (which they often are, and by quite a large margin) then the emissions per person would drop significantly.

35% full would be 93g/km
40% full would be 81g/km
50% full would be 65g/km

Given that it's easy to have Voyagers with people standing any of the above could be fairly likely.

 

[miami]

Dash 8's produce 158g/km

Assuming a full plane. 81 seats per plane, so it produces 12,798g/km.

Manchester to Exeter - 187 miles, or 300km, produces 3.8 tons per flight. 3 return flights a day is 23 tons a day, for 93 return journeys. Each return journey produces 247kg of co2.

Manchester to Exeter via the M6/M5 is 241 miles, 480 mile round trip, 768km.

A BMW "3 Series 330 Saloon 2.0i 258 SS Sport A8 20MY" producing 133g/km will generate 102kg of co2 for the same journey.

So someone driving a BMW, on their own, will produce less than half the CO2 as the flight generates.

The BMW driver will get about 48mpg, using about 45 litres of petrol, paying £26 in fuel tax, and a further £9 in VAT.

So the driver on his own in the fancy car will pay more in tax and generate less than half the co2 than the plane, and that's before any difference of releasing CO2 at altitude.

What a load of bollards... (1) face-to-face meetings are often the only way of really securing major business and if you don’t understand that you haven’t really been at the cutting edge of securing important deals

I find evening dos are also essential parts of such deals. I doubt there are many "major deals" signed by someone flying in and out the same day on flybe.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dash 8's produce 158g/km
Source
https://frontier.ac.uk/About-Us/Climate-Change/Calculating-Emissions.aspx

That source lists two aircraft in the same item- the Q400 and a 737-400. The Q400 is more fuel efficient (and the ATR72 is more fuel efficient again). It also adds a 9% altitude premium. It's a rough and ready calculation, sure, but no more.

Aviation remains a tiny proportion of carbon emissions.

 

[Skymonster]

Assuming a full plane. 81 seats per plane, so it produces 12,798g/km.

Manchester to Exeter - 187 miles, or 300km, produces 3.8 tons per flight. 3 return flights a day is 23 tons a day, for 93 return journeys. Each return journey produces 247kg of co2.

Manchester to Exeter via the M6/M5 is 241 miles, 480 mile round trip, 768km.

A BMW "3 Series 330 Saloon 2.0i 258 SS Sport A8 20MY" producing 133g/km will generate 102kg of co2 for the same journey.

So someone driving a BMW, on their own, will produce less than half the CO2 as the flight generates.

The BMW driver will get about 48mpg, using about 45 litres of petrol, paying £26 in fuel tax, and a further £9 in VAT.

So the driver on his own in the fancy car will pay more in tax and generate less than half the co2 than the plane, and that's before any difference of releasing CO2 at altitude.



I find evening dos are also essential parts of such deals. I doubt there are many "major deals" signed by someone flying in and out the same day on flybe.

Who gives a rats ass about the numbers... Business trips have to be made.... Road and rail can be too slow... So plane wins and always will... The answer is not banning flying but working to reduce aviation emissions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Business trips have to be made

The vast majority of them in fact do not.

 

[Skymonster]

The vast, vast majority of business travel is not about "securing deals".

And how were they secured prior to mass air travel?

It’s about relationships, and that’s what busies is about now.

And how about addressing the issue of people using the train / car too much too? Like all the commuters who, if they cared about the environment, should be pushed to move closer to their workplace to cut down on “unnecessary” journeys?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Flybe was badly run

That's pretty much the nub of it. I was against them getting a refund of the APD; the tax wasn't why they failed. The leases on the Embraers did a lot of damage.

That, and EasyJet seat-dumping at the busiest times on their key routes had a huge impact on their yield. And then EasyJet bugger off for the rest of the week, having done the damage.

 

[Skymonster]

The vast majority of them in fact do not.

Rubbish

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how about addressing the issue of people using the train / car too much too?

The car also needs addressing. Rail (particularly electric rail) and bus/coach are the least polluting modes (other than walking or cycling) and so people should switch to these as far as feasible.

But this thread is about air, and air is the most polluting form of passenger transport.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The vast majority of them in fact do not.

The vast majority of any travel does not have to happen. Fundamentally most travel is a luxury- including trains and cars. Aviation is not particularly egregious.

You're a HS2 fan because it allows business travel and frees commuter capacity into London. 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?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're a HS2 fan because it allows business travel and frees commuter capacity into London. 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?

I'd certainly be in support of measures taken to make living in London if you work there more affordable (or to encourage businesses to relocate from London to other cities; the only reason I even became "Bletchleyite" was work, before the days when remote working was feasible), and measures to encourage remote working with perhaps one or two days a week in the office in more jobs, as per my current one.

 

[Cardiff123]

The answer is not banning flying but working to reduce aviation emissions.

How can that realistically be done?

 

[The Ham]

That source lists two aircraft in the same item- the Q400 and a 737-400. The Q400 is more fuel efficient (and the ATR72 is more fuel efficient again). It also adds a 9% altitude premium. It's a rough and ready calculation, sure, but no more.

Aviation remains a tiny proportion of carbon emissions.

Whilst it may be tiny have been tiny it is getting larger and larger every year.

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 has, in comparison gone from 17mtco2e to 35mtco2e between 1990 and 2016 (circa double). That compares to 2mtco2e for rail for both years.

Now whilst the 35mtco2e is dwarfed by the 119mtco2e from road based transport (which has also gone up from 104mtco2e circa 14% increase).

 

[The Ham]

How can that realistically be done?

Simplicity, more rail services. Why should anyone need to fly Manchester to the Central Belt?