HUYfan From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
Flybe British European is in the final stages of closing a deal with Bombardier Aerospace to trade in its entire DH1/DH3/CR1 fleets for newer, larger DH4 variants. The number of aircraft in the deal (which includes the replacement of 2 146-100s) is to be 17 new DH8-400s.
This will help simplify the Flybe. fleet to two types, the Q400 and the BAe146.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12165 posts, RR: 35 Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2441 times:
Also disorganised as far as its identity is concerned; what is it trying to be? Low cost or a hybrid. The latter has been a minefield for other airlines. As good an aircraft (when it works) as the 8-400 is, I hardly think it's ideal for low cost operations.
Surely they could acquire something more appropriate for a real operation: A319s or 73Gs, for example. Although considerably larger than the 146s, at the rate aircraft prices are going, there must be good deals available, especially if a larger operator were to go under, releasing many A319s onto the market . . .
Thomas_Jaeger From Switzerland, joined Apr 2002, 2334 posts, RR: 29 Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
I think that the regional low-cost concept of Flybe. can work out fine. You have to take into account that offering flexible types of fares especially targeting business travellers Flybe. is able to get a higher yield than other low-cost airlines. Together with the lower operating costs of an aircraft like the Dash 8-400 I am convinced that they can be successful, they of course also need high load-factors above 70% I'd say to be profitable. However, I think it's the only way to survive for regional carriers to offer flights in niche market with a combined low-cost/business model offering cheap fares to leisure travellers and more expensive fares still cheaper than C Class or Y Class full fares at traditional airlines for business travellers who need flexibility.
Swiss aviation news junkie living all over the place
HUYfan From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
The Q400 has lower operating costs than the Airbus and Boeing series and the reliability of the Q400 is in the high nineties at the moment!
The company may have been a bit disorganised in recent years but to be quite honest i think the flexibility shown since 9/11 has been exemplary.
And to say the company will fail is ridiculous, we are on course for profit this year DUE to the changes we have made and our Southampton-Geneva as just one example is running at a 82% load factor in the first month of operations alone!
The 737/32s series are TOO BIG for flybe, and in any case, BE could not operate either type on their AF routes anyway! I WISH flybe would order the 717 to replace the 146s, it would be ideal for low fares operations and wouldnt present any operational problems where AF are concerned.
T prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1015 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
"We look for the best seat-mile cost for the two aircraft types we operate- a 75 seat turboprop and a 110- seat jet. And for the turboprop requirement. the Q400- and I don't think anyone will deny this- has BY FAR the lowest seat cost. So for our operations, the turboprop is absolutely critical."
Managing Director FlyBE.
Regional Airline World Jan/Feb 2003.
Sounds like he likes it.
HUYfan From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2120 times:
He IS very keen on the aircraft and personally i love it too
For flybe's markets, the Q400 is cheaper. It can fill a 78 seat Q400 on SOU-BGY for example, but a 737-700 for example would go half full, so relative to flybe., the Q400 is best. And i much prefer the 2-2 layout of the Q400.
BestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6778 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
Me thinks that FlyBe should move to a 100% Q400 fleet, including switching the AF operations. Have the JY LHR operations suffered of late... The morning TLS rotation was dropped, and fares to LYS have fallen dramatically.
Its time for Mr french to be ruthless to save the company. If routes dont work on a Q-400 they should be dropped, as should any marginal base operation.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
I'd be surprised if the 400 has the same operating costs as a 200. The engines are twice the size, although it will carry twice the pax. If you have 37 pax in a 200, and 37 in a 400, which one is making money?
HUYfan From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1956 times:
It is difficult to say whether EITHER is making money, there are too many variables such as sector length, ticket price etc.
If a Q200 left BHD for BRS with 37 pax and a Q400 did the same with 37 pax, there would be very little difference in costs. I suppose you could look at it in the same way that older 757-200s cost more to operate than 757-300s
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
What I am saying is, are the direct operating costs per hour the same? Or, on the same leg, given the higher speed of the 400, how do they compare? I know that at CRA, the operating costs for the 100 and 300 were very close, with the 300 slightly higher, but not much.