Flybe News and Discussion Thread

PlymSpotter · Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:25 pm

Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
I think blocking the planes in is a little over the top.

Not really - those planes have and will still be incurring unpaid landing, parking and potentially other fees. The aircraft's owners just want the planes back, so they need to be given an incentive to pay the outstanding fees before the aircraft is released.

As mentioned who would try to sneak in and ‘steal’ the aircraft?

ATC would just permit the aircraft leaving. It’s just not plausible.

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

SueD · Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:43 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:

Not really - those planes have and will still be incurring unpaid landing, parking and potentially other fees. The aircraft's owners just want the planes back, so they need to be given an incentive to pay the outstanding fees before the aircraft is released.

As mentioned who would try to sneak in and ‘steal’ the aircraft?

ATC would just permit the aircraft leaving. It’s just not plausible.

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

There are companies whose business is indeed to recover lessors property seized by third parties when companies go bust . Ensuring seized goods remain where they are is a counter measure of creditors.

That said once the legal niceties are concluded , the owner well have the right of recovery .

The idea of mounting parking charges whilst true the aircraft tend to be moved away from operating lines pretty soon.

In many cases that is onto private areas such as hanger strips or cargo areas where charges can literally be NIL cost .

This may be at the request of the owners or simply to ensure the airport continues to function for other customers.

By the way charges for overnight parking at Heathrow are NIL anyway.

What is certain once ownership is established many of the Dashes will be off somewhere probably the likes of Shannon or The Baltic states where they will be stored or quickly released to new operators.

F9Animal · Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:39 pm

Did Flybe try to cut costs and cut non profitable routes? Would be nice to see a timeline of the airline during its peak, to it's demise. What was the situation to bring them to this? Did Flybe put all it's hope on the sale, only for the buyer to back out at the last second?

And most importantly, do we have any members here that worked for Flybe? I just want to send my deepest sympathies to you, and wish you a speedy process of finding work.

I know some of the answers are deep in this thread, but I honestly don't have enough time to read 14 pages right now.

Arion640 · Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:58 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:

Not really - those planes have and will still be incurring unpaid landing, parking and potentially other fees. The aircraft's owners just want the planes back, so they need to be given an incentive to pay the outstanding fees before the aircraft is released.

As mentioned who would try to sneak in and ‘steal’ the aircraft?

ATC would just permit the aircraft leaving. It’s just not plausible.

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

Still completely pointless in my opinion. The planes still wouldn’t go anywhere. There’s no way they’d be allowed to leave without checking all relevant fees had been paid.

AirKevin · Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:33 am

Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
As mentioned who would try to sneak in and ‘steal’ the aircraft?

ATC would just permit the aircraft leaving. It’s just not plausible.

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

Still completely pointless in my opinion. The planes still wouldn’t go anywhere. There’s no way they’d be allowed to leave without checking all relevant fees had been paid.

Who would stop them. There was the one bloke a while back who jumped into a Horizon Air Q400, started it up, and off he went, so what's to say somebody trying to recover the plane wouldn't do the same.

Arion640 · Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:41 am

AirKevin wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

Still completely pointless in my opinion. The planes still wouldn’t go anywhere. There’s no way they’d be allowed to leave without checking all relevant fees had been paid.

Who would stop them. There was the one bloke a while back who jumped into a Horizon Air Q400, started it up, and off he went, so what's to say somebody trying to recover the plane wouldn't do the same.

The RAF would, as soon as such a plane became airborne.

baje427 · Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:12 am

With BE's closure as the largest Q400 operator how will this impact on the viability of the aircraft going forward?

FabDiva · Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:34 am

Arion640 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

As mentioned who would try to sneak in and ‘steal’ the aircraft?

ATC would just permit the aircraft leaving. It’s just not plausible.

It is standard operating procedure for basically all airports where fees are outstanding, so more than plausible.

Consider how ATC would know that the fees have or have not been paid off - it's not their job, they are not the accounts department who are typically separate to both ATC and operations at major airports. The simple thing is for the airport authority to get airfield operations to block the relevant aircraft in place, until accounts confirm that the relevant fees have been settled and the aircraft can be released.

Still completely pointless in my opinion. The planes still wouldn’t go anywhere. There’s no way they’d be allowed to leave without checking all relevant fees had been paid.

Not really - ATC wouldn't have access to the accounts, they could even depart VFR so no flight plan needed.

Given the current warm weather and the relative infrequency of impoundings, it's cheaper and easier to grab one of the snow ploughs that isn't doing much and use it to block the aircraft in, then to bother ATC with checking the tab of all departing aircraft.

BDKLEZ · Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:21 am

So given that the Connect consortium would themselves have put BE into administration, are they now just left to lick their wounds?

leghorn · Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:07 pm

Nice graphic overview of FlyBE's operations:
https://aviationweek.com/flybe

No particular talking point.

leghorn · Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:10 pm

Hopefully the old FlyBE Q400s are leased somewhere near the British Isles because the MRO operation didn't go out of business and needs customers: https://aviationweek.com/mro/flybe-avia ... e-collapse

FabDiva · Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:04 pm

That's some good news at least. They are also an ATR and Embraer centre so hopefully will pick up some work. IIRC they also do work on the RAF's A400Ms.

fiddlerkrt · Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:54 am

I'm a bit late to the party, but very sad news to see the end of BE. It was always nice to see a bit of colour on aircraft and I really hope their employees will be snapped up by other carriers as soon as they can.

It seems that LM and T3 are filling in some of the domestic flights at SOU. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any international flights have been announced yet. I believe AMS was the busiest route out of SOU (4 or 5 daily on BE) and I'm selfishly hoping it gets reinstated before I arrive.

Does anyone think KL might reinstate service with 2 or 3 daily Cityhopper flights? It would also be great to see a couple of daily flights to ABZ, CDG, and DUB back at SOU.

Phosphorus · Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:53 am

leghorn wrote:
Hopefully the old FlyBE Q400s are leased somewhere near the British Isles because the MRO operation didn't go out of business and needs customers: https://aviationweek.com/mro/flybe-avia ... e-collapse

Right. So, am I correct:
1) there is an airline that goes bust, as it ran out of cash
2) this airline has a solvent standalone MRO subsidiary; this subsidiary continues trading
3) MRO subsidiary was not sold, to replenish cash reserves of the airline
4) no foul play is suspected in item "3"

Is this normal? Of course, administrators did their job, by discovering this asset, and letting it operate. Did the last set of management, prior to bankruptcy, did their job, by not trying to sell assets (this; maybe others too) to raise cash?

Bongodog49 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:32 am

Phosphorus wrote:
leghorn wrote:
Hopefully the old FlyBE Q400s are leased somewhere near the British Isles because the MRO operation didn't go out of business and needs customers: https://aviationweek.com/mro/flybe-avia ... e-collapse

Right. So, am I correct:
1) there is an airline that goes bust, as it ran out of cash
2) this airline has a solvent standalone MRO subsidiary; this subsidiary continues trading
3) MRO subsidiary was not sold, to replenish cash reserves of the airline
4) no foul play is suspected in item "3"

Is this normal? Of course, administrators did their job, by discovering this asset, and letting it operate. Did the last set of management, prior to bankruptcy, did their job, by not trying to sell assets (this; maybe others too) to raise cash?

The problem is that if you sell off the parts that are profitable, what do you have left ? If the proceeds can be used effectively to turn round the loss making part alls well and good, but so often its just sending good money after bad. In this case if you listen to the consortium who snatched FlyBe from its shareholders they say they put in something like £135m, if this was in the form of cash the airline was truly a basket case, its more likely however that their investement was in the form of loans secured on company assets such that they now walk away with most of their "investment" intact. The private equity firms do this all the time, often it puts the business in a worse position than before, as the asset is transferred over to the ultimate owner and leased back at a rate way above the open market cost.

Phosphorus · Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:01 am

Bongodog49 wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
leghorn wrote:
Hopefully the old FlyBE Q400s are leased somewhere near the British Isles because the MRO operation didn't go out of business and needs customers: https://aviationweek.com/mro/flybe-avia ... e-collapse

Right. So, am I correct:
1) there is an airline that goes bust, as it ran out of cash
2) this airline has a solvent standalone MRO subsidiary; this subsidiary continues trading
3) MRO subsidiary was not sold, to replenish cash reserves of the airline
4) no foul play is suspected in item "3"

Is this normal? Of course, administrators did their job, by discovering this asset, and letting it operate. Did the last set of management, prior to bankruptcy, did their job, by not trying to sell assets (this; maybe others too) to raise cash?

The problem is that if you sell off the parts that are profitable, what do you have left ? If the proceeds can be used effectively to turn round the loss making part alls well and good, but so often its just sending good money after bad. In this case if you listen to the consortium who snatched FlyBe from its shareholders they say they put in something like £135m, if this was in the form of cash the airline was truly a basket case, its more likely however that their investement was in the form of loans secured on company assets such that they now walk away with most of their "investment" intact. The private equity firms do this all the time, often it puts the business in a worse position than before, as the asset is transferred over to the ultimate owner and leased back at a rate way above the open market cost.

Excellent question. Again, the picture is much fishier than "ah, how nice there's a business still existing in the ashes and rubble of FlyBe's collapse, it's all rainbows and unicorns now", from this angle.
There was value in FlyBe, this value was first snatched from previous shareholders last year, and while a part was frittered away, some was still stashed away, on the company balance sheet, while it went bust.

seansasLCY · Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:47 am

The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:06 pm

There was value in Flybe but the losers were/will not be the shareholders. The creditors and lessors will lose out because loans to Cyrus (probably) will be secured and settled first, after HM Gov

Shareholders are bottom of the pile when a company goes bankrupt and would have got nothing last year either.

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:06 pm

3AWM wrote:
There was value in Flybe but the losers were/will not be the shareholders. The creditors and lessors will lose out because loans to Cyrus (probably) will be secured and settled first, after HM Gov

Shareholders are bottom of the pile when a company goes bankrupt and would have got nothing last year either. They already lost there money when the shares went to junk prices

BrianDromey · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:09 pm

I guess NQY might become a year-round service. I’m guessing the proposed BE 4x Daily LHR-DUS won’t be one of these. Not sure BA have enough aircraft to operate all these slots - might be some interesting wet-leases. Not that BA has enough customers right now...

vfw614 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:11 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

So much for the legend that those slots were the jewels in Flybe's crown and the bearded one was only interested in Flybe/Connect in order to get them into his greedy hands.

mattyfitzg · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:58 pm

vfw614 wrote:
seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

So much for the legend that those slots were the jewels in Flybe's crown and the bearded one was only interested in Flybe/Connect in order to get them into his greedy hands.

I believe if Flybe had operated them for a little longer, they would have been grandfathered, but they never made it that far.

BrianDromey wrote:
Not sure BA have enough aircraft to operate all these slots - might be some interesting wet-leases. Not that BA has enough customers right now...

Perhaps BA Cityflyer will be bought in, would save a ton of leasing costs

Aisak · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:02 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

So... more LHR-LGW flights then...

Not a good time to adquire new-ish slots now half of Europe is reducing flights...

Andy33 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:10 pm

mattyfitzg wrote:
vfw614 wrote:
seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

So much for the legend that those slots were the jewels in Flybe's crown and the bearded one was only interested in Flybe/Connect in order to get them into his greedy hands.

I believe if Flybe had operated them for a little longer, they would have been grandfathered, but they never made it that far.

BrianDromey wrote:
Not sure BA have enough aircraft to operate all these slots - might be some interesting wet-leases. Not that BA has enough customers right now...

Perhaps BA Cityflyer will be bought in, would save a ton of leasing costs

Yes, if Flybe had made it to the month end, the slots would have become grandfathered, though even then could only be used for European/domestic flights. the assumption was that Virgin would then engineer a slot swap with AirFrance/KLM so they acquired the ex-Flybe slots and used them on European routes, while Virgin Atlantic gained an equivalent number of AirFrance/KLM slots which could be used for flights to anywhere. But the deal where AFKLM was going to purchase part of VS's equity fell through, and as a result this deal might not have seemed attractive enough to be worth funding Flybe for several weeks more of ever-increasing losses.

I think BA Cityflyer is excluded from LHR under the agreements with BA pilots and cabin crew.

mattyfitzg · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:16 pm

Andy33 wrote:

I think BA Cityflyer is excluded from LHR under the agreements with BA pilots and cabin crew.

I think there is an “exceptional circumstance” clause to it, as they operated during the Mixed Fleet strikes back in the day. Whether this is classed as that is another matter, but I think IAG would prefer not to charter in a costly lease or lose slots.

BrianDromey · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:25 pm

mattyfitzg wrote:
Andy33 wrote:

I think BA Cityflyer is excluded from LHR under the agreements with BA pilots and cabin crew.

I think there is an “exceptional circumstance” clause to it, as they operated during the Mixed Fleet strikes back in the day. Whether this is classed as that is another matter, but I think IAG would prefer not to charter in a costly lease or lose slots.

CityFlyer have their own schedules and slots to maintain too. There just isn’t a large number of slack in the BA fleet to operate 12 daily slots. They might be able to postpone some retirements, of course as NEOs arrive. Of course if ACL suspends slot rules due to coronavirus, that’s a different thing. BA will still need 4 more aircraft and crew than planned at some point though.

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:41 pm

I would imagine the slack can come from reduction of other routes which will easily produce enough capacity to fill these slots.

Andy33 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:57 pm

3AWM wrote:
I would imagine the slack can come from reduction of other routes which will easily produce enough capacity to fill these slots.

BA mainline (as opposed to BA Cityflyer) only operate to and from either LHR or LGW. If they cancel other services in order to free up planes to operate the 12 returned slot pairs, that will leave at least 12 other slot pairs unused and therefore at risk of having the slots cancelled. Now if (highly unlikely) they cancelled LHR-SIN-SYD, which requires several planes in circuit to operate daily in each direction, that would provide enough aircraft to use all the slots, including the one that the SYD route uses. But I really don't think this is remotely on the cards, and most routes are out and back within 24 hours, or less (much less in some cases).

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:08 pm

There is 80% slack in the frequencies over the course of the year in order to retain slots, they don't need to cancel any routes just serve them less frequently. I would expect some reduction in capacity due coronavirus to produce the spare frames to operate these routes.

User001 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:34 pm

The EU has temporarily abolished the 80/20 rule until June, which means airlines don't have to use slots to keep them. This gives BA a bit of breathing space to decide what to do with the slots until then.

jomur · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:14 pm

User001 wrote:
The EU has temporarily abolished the 80/20 rule until June, which means airlines don't have to use slots to keep them. This gives BA a bit of breathing space to decide what to do with the slots until then.

Just because the EU has said that it does mean that LHR has to follow it? Isn't it up to ACL how they are used and not an EU regulation?

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:19 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

This document appears to show a request to change the timing of operation of the slots but I don't see anything about the return of slots to BA. It's also dated on the last day of ops for Flybe - so to me appears to show Flybe registered to operate the slots in the next IATA season. As long as the retain an AOC they could technically still do that.

User001 · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:25 pm

[url][/url]

jomur wrote:
User001 wrote:
The EU has temporarily abolished the 80/20 rule until June, which means airlines don't have to use slots to keep them. This gives BA a bit of breathing space to decide what to do with the slots until then.

Just because the EU has said that it does mean that LHR has to follow it? Isn't it up to ACL how they are used and not an EU regulation?

We’ll, that the EU has mandated it means ACL can choose to follow, and given the unprecedented state of the industry right now, it would be a pretty hard nosed ACL to force airlines to use slots in such a slump in demand

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:30 pm

But they do choose to follow it as they have posted it on their website:
https://www.acl-uk.org/news/european-ai ... -outbreak/

seansasLCY · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:33 pm

3AWM wrote:
seansasLCY wrote:
The Flybe slots have been returned to BA: https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/12 ... 96321?s=20

This document appears to show a request to change the timing of operation of the slots but I don't see anything about the return of slots to BA. It's also dated on the last day of ops for Flybe - so to me appears to show Flybe registered to operate the slots in the next IATA season. As long as the retain an AOC they could technically still do that.

The document is filed on the ACL website as "Remedy Slot Returns. 12 daily flights".

3AWM · Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:41 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
The document is filed on the ACL website as "Remedy Slot Returns. 12 daily flights".

And it requests a change of flight times for each of the destinations to take a late night slot at 23.00 in exchange for another BA time slot. There is a transfer back to BA but it's in exchange for another timing.

jomur · Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:02 pm

3AWM wrote:
But they do choose to follow it as they have posted it on their website:
https://www.acl-uk.org/news/european-ai ... -outbreak/

Thats just a request only.

EUACA members consider that such a general waiver to the EU Slot Regulation’s use-it-or-lose-it rule
should be granted at this stage for operations planned approximately between mid-February/beginning
of March 2020 and until the end of June 2020 at the latest as a first step, with a provision for a possible
extension should the COVID-19 outbreak crisis continue. Decision to prolong the waiver should then be
made by the Regulators by the end of May 2020 based on supporting data provided by the air carriers’
community.

RyanairGuru · Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:57 pm

3AWM wrote:
There is 80% slack in the frequencies over the course of the year in order to retain slots, they don't need to cancel any routes just serve them less frequently. I would expect some reduction in capacity due coronavirus to produce the spare frames to operate these routes.

Exactly. BA can easily absorb 12 slots by tinkering with their schedules to exploit the 80% rule. By running slightly different schedules each day of the week they can make sure that each individual slot across their portfolio is used at least 5-6 days per week. They are already masters at this, so their scheduling department won't loose any sleep working it out.

vaughanparry · Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:59 pm

The BBC has this piece re: the impounding due to unpaid fees at IOM (Isle of Man/Ronaldsway) of a FlyBe aircraft: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... n-51824849. Is this practice - the impounding of a failed airline's aircraft - common? What happens when/if the debt is paid?

TUGMASTER · Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:14 pm

Aircraft will be held until fees paid.
When .£££. Coughed up...
Dash8 released.
Q.E.D.

jghealey · Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:21 pm

vaughanparry wrote:
The BBC has this piece re: the impounding due to unpaid fees at IOM (Isle of Man/Ronaldsway) of a FlyBe aircraft: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... n-51824849. Is this practice - the impounding of a failed airline's aircraft - common? What happens when/if the debt is paid?

I guess if the debt is paid it'll be returned to the administrators, to then try and sell on? Didn't GLA (I think...) impound a flybe aircraft just before they collapsed as well due to unpaid fees? I don't think it's all that common - last example I can think of was the Air Tanzania A220 being impounded in JNB due to some kind of political feud between the two countries - but that wasn't related to an airline failure.

vaughanparry · Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:23 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
Aircraft will be held until fees paid.
When .£££. Coughed up...
Dash8 released.
Q.E.D.

Not entirely. Where in the first instance - once IOM has its money - does the Dash 8 go? Any thoughts as to who might buy it (and some or all of its siblings)?

vaughanparry · Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:26 pm

jghealey wrote:
vaughanparry wrote:
The BBC has this piece re: the impounding due to unpaid fees at IOM (Isle of Man/Ronaldsway) of a FlyBe aircraft: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... n-51824849. Is this practice - the impounding of a failed airline's aircraft - common? What happens when/if the debt is paid?

I guess if the debt is paid it'll be returned to the administrators, to then try and sell on? Didn't GLA (I think...) impound a flybe aircraft just before they collapsed as well due to unpaid fees? I don't think it's all that common - last example I can think of was the Air Tanzania A220 being impounded in JNB due to some kind of political feud between the two countries - but that wasn't related to an airline failure.

Very helpful, thank you! I've flown on a few of their Dash 8s and will try keep an eye on where they end up. Early days, of course...

jghealey · Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:29 pm

vaughanparry wrote:
jghealey wrote:
vaughanparry wrote:
The BBC has this piece re: the impounding due to unpaid fees at IOM (Isle of Man/Ronaldsway) of a FlyBe aircraft: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... n-51824849. Is this practice - the impounding of a failed airline's aircraft - common? What happens when/if the debt is paid?

I guess if the debt is paid it'll be returned to the administrators, to then try and sell on? Didn't GLA (I think...) impound a flybe aircraft just before they collapsed as well due to unpaid fees? I don't think it's all that common - last example I can think of was the Air Tanzania A220 being impounded in JNB due to some kind of political feud between the two countries - but that wasn't related to an airline failure.

Very helpful, thank you! I've flown on a few of their Dash 8s and will try keep an eye on where they end up. Early days, of course...

Sadly, I think their days are numbered. The E175s will find new homes but I can't think of many Dash 8 operators who are able to take on several more and aren't actively phasing them out - Air Canada Jazz and Wideroe (to replace older Dash 8 non-Q400s) as well as SpiceJet spring to mind - and they certainly won't be willing to take on 50 of them (even if sold at dirt cheap prices)!

VS4ever · Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:36 pm

jghealey wrote:
vaughanparry wrote:
jghealey wrote:
I guess if the debt is paid it'll be returned to the administrators, to then try and sell on? Didn't GLA (I think...) impound a flybe aircraft just before they collapsed as well due to unpaid fees? I don't think it's all that common - last example I can think of was the Air Tanzania A220 being impounded in JNB due to some kind of political feud between the two countries - but that wasn't related to an airline failure.

Very helpful, thank you! I've flown on a few of their Dash 8s and will try keep an eye on where they end up. Early days, of course...

Sadly, I think their days are numbered. The E175s will find new homes but I can't think of many Dash 8 operators who are able to take on several more and aren't actively phasing them out - Air Canada Jazz and Wideroe (to replace older Dash 8 non-Q400s) as well as SpiceJet spring to mind - and they certainly won't be willing to take on 50 of them (even if sold at dirt cheap prices)!

I could see Porter potentially taking a few, given that their fleet is all Dash 8's (29) if they have the markets they can serve with them.

LHRFlyer · Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:00 pm

Airports have very little chance of getting any money back from the administrators once an airline goes into administration as there's whole hierarchy of creditors who need to be repaid first.

It's a familiar pattern of aircraft being impounded immediately before an airline goes into administration.

McG1967 · Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:08 am

If the aircraft is leased, the leasing company usually pays the outstanding airport fees in order to get the aircraft back and prepped for their next client.

CcDash814 · Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:32 am

Anyone looking for a full CC uniform from flybe, check this out.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Full-Flybe-C ... 487a710a96

A380MSN004 · Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:06 pm

McG1967 wrote:
If the aircraft is leased, the leasing company usually pays the outstanding airport fees in order to get the aircraft back and prepped for their next client.

Wow. Do we have an idea of how much money we are talking in that case ?

phollingsworth · Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:00 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
Aircraft will be held until fees paid.
When .£££. Coughed up...
Dash8 released.
Q.E.D.

Yup the Civil Aviation Act allows airports to seize aircraft without first having to go to court for non-payment. In normal UK contract law this would not be allowed unless the asset was used to secure the debt. My guess the reasoner this is that since aircraft are easy to remove from a relevant jurisdiction. However, it means that airports have significant ability to force and airline that has a lot of aircraft flying through their airspace to do what they want.

The real question is "is it the correct balance"?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net