Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 04/04/2019 - Go-op Frome
06/04/2019 - RailFuture Severnside AGM
13/04/2019 - Long Rock Open Day
13/04/2019 - Great British Spring Clean
19/04/2019 - Easter Highlander
27/04/2019 - TransWilts AGM
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 26, 2019, 05:54:50 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[107] BA in the Grauniad
[78] A (further) example of heritage and main line links
[57] Community Rail briefing
[42] Bristol Temple Meads Station redevelopment
[38] Stranded passengers detrain onto tracks - incident at Lewisham...
[34] Longest distance to walk between platforms in a station
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: FlyBMI - Gone into administration.  (Read 1504 times)
welshman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2019, 09:01:09 pm »

Yes.  Some years ago an acquaintance of mine had his Audi confiscated by HMRC because they did a spot check and found red diesel in the tank.  (He had a few acres and a small tractor to tow the mower).  He had to pay to recover his car and pay a penalty related to the amount of red they thought he'd used.   

Not only that, he got caught at the assessment point at the western end of the M50 (Ross-on-Wye) and had to make his own way home. At least 2 buses and 2 trains and about four hours of travel for a journey which is an hour by car. 
Logged
Surrey 455
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 701


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2019, 10:14:23 pm »

Jumbos are on the way out, with Airbus announcing the end of production of the A380. Although Boeing 747s are still being made, albeit in much smaller numbers, airlines are beginning to replace them with twin engined wide-bodies aircraft with much better fuel consumption, such as the 787 Dreamliner and A350 XWB.

I've learnt something new today. I knew that airlines were mothballing and replacing their 747s. I had no idea they were still being built.

By the way, good to see the BOAC brand back on one 747. I am now waiting to see a BEA  A319 at some point this year to celebrate BA's 100 year anniversary.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2019, 10:20:16 pm »

Quote
The last Delta Airlines 747, then 47 years old

I can assure you that there is no 747 airframe flying that is 47 years old.

BA have some of the oldest, hardest-worked (but well looked-after) 747-400's around, but the oldest currently still flying in their fleet are around 24-25 years (and the youngest around 20), and all will be retired well before they get to 30.

Lufthansa also has some of the oldest, together with some of the youngest 747's, as they are one of very few airlines globally to have ordered the current 747-8 for passenger use (90% of this model so far built are freighters).
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 276


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2019, 11:25:04 pm »

This thread is being drifted by a strong tangental crosswind!

To get back a little on course/topic, I was intrigued by -

Quote
Figures for aircraft and airline fuel consumption are publicly available. Ryanair is a low-cost airline serving mainly European destinations; it seats 189 people in its Boeing 737-800s. Using typical values for sector lengths, fuel consumption and seat occupancy it can be seen that the fuel consumption is marginally greater than 3 litres/100 km/seat - based on typical sector consumption of something over 5 tonnes and a typical sector being something over an hour. This figure will obviously vary depending on sector lengths, cruising altitude, load, winds and air temperature but will remain close to 3 litres/100 km/seat - it will be neither 1.5 litres/100 km/seat nor 6 litres/100 km/seat



Surely aircraft fuel consumption is exponentially greater on take-off? Do the figures above represent cruising consumption or do they take into account take-off as well?

And to get back totally on topic - did I hear correctly that FlyBMI had an average passenger load of 18 per flight? In which case presumably each passenger's carbon footprint would have been enormous!

« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 09:49:23 am by eightonedee » Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2019, 04:16:15 pm »

Quote
did I hear correctly that FlyBMI had an average passenger load of 18 per flight?

That came from Simon Calder, and I think was a crude calculation based upon the no. of pax they carried in a year, divided by the no. of flights operated.

Even given that their aircraft (Embraer 135 and 145 Regional Jets) only have a seating capacity of around 35-45, it indicates a none too stellar business performance.
Logged
Clan Line
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 209



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2019, 04:49:06 pm »

Jumbos are on the way out, with Airbus announcing the end of production of the A380. Although Boeing 747s are still being made, albeit in much smaller numbers, airlines are beginning to replace them with twin engined wide-bodies aircraft with much better fuel consumption, such as the 787 Dreamliner and A350 XWB.

I've learnt something new today. I knew that airlines were mothballing and replacing their 747s. I had no idea they were still being built.


747s are still being built, but....................the last passenger aircraft was delivered to Korean Air Lines in July 2017. Boeing are still producing a small number of "specials" for the military and very rich people. There is also a limited number of freight only aircraft still to be delivered.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2019, 08:49:16 pm »

Quote
"specials" for the military and very rich people

The ones that Donald will get fall into that category (provided he still doesn't think they're too costly!)
- actually the base airframes already exist, and (ironically) were built for Russian airline Transaero that
went out of business a few years ago.

Among the very rich, you could include the Qatari Royal Family, who have the attached beauty based in it's own hanger at Bournemouth Airport.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 08:56:40 pm by Thatcham Crossing » Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4188


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2019, 09:02:38 pm »


I've learnt something new today. I knew that airlines were mothballing and replacing their 747s. I had no idea they were still being built.

By the way, good to see the BOAC brand back on one 747. I am now waiting to see a BEA  A319 at some point this year to celebrate BA's 100 year anniversary.

Six were delivered last year, down from a peak of 92 in 1970, and 70 in 1990. The order book still has a couple of dozen to be made. It's still Boeing's biggest civilian aircraft, and not everyone likes Airbus. BA have 37, I have since found, all to be retired in the next 5 years.

I can assure you that there is no 747 airframe flying that is 47 years old.

No, it retired in 2017.

Age alone doesn't weary an aircraft. Take-offs and landings do, so an aircraft on short-haul duties will age faster than the same model flying longer sectors. 747s aren't often used on shorter journeys, but it does happen in some parts, where a route is popular and runway slots precious. As with trains, refurbs can extend life, but the maintenance regime keeps them safe in the air. The two aircraft I flew when training were around 35 years old when I started, but basically serviced every 50 hours and dismantled and reassembled annually.

Quote
"specials" for the military and very rich people

The ones that Donald will get fall into that category (provided he still doesn't think they're too costly!)

Until 2011, the Donald's personal plane was a 1968 Boeing 727. The current one is a B757 built in 1991. It has the obligatory gold taps, apparently as a sign of class.


Surely aircraft fuel consumption is exponentially greater on take-off? Do the figures above represent cruising consumption or do they take into account take-off as well?

Not half! A lot of fuel is expended on carrying the fuel as well. Sometimes, long haul aircraft will start from the terminal a few hundred pounds over weight, knowing they will have burned plenty by the time they are halfway down the runway. The biggest burn is definitely the take-off and climb.

The biggest skill of a commercial pilot is saving fuel. These days, that's for money primarily, whereas it used to be for range. The pilot will calculate the thrust required to get the plane to take-off speed using a little over three-quarters of the runway - some aircraft do that for him. Then, he will climb at the most efficient rate to cruising altitude, where the jet engine is highly efficient, before calculating an approach as close to a steady glide as air traffic will let him. Fuel is calculated to destination, plus enough for an alternate and circling. Light aircraft, by contrast, always take off on full power, and there is a maxim that you only have too much fuel if you are on fire.

Quote
And to get back totally on topic - did I hear correctly that FlyBMI had an average passenger load of 18 per flight? In which case presumably each passenger's carbon footprint would have been enormous!

I heard that too. It was clearly not sustainable, in the same way that half-full trains running at every peak period wouldn't be. Not that that seems to be a problem!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 09:27:17 pm by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1472


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2019, 08:14:33 am »

Listening to the Beeb Radio 4 financial report it seems Flybe are in a financial mire with a consortium including Virgin having made an offer of 1p per share for the business. The report also stated that Stobart had previously made an offer for the business and that a new prospective owner for the business was now offering 4 1/2p per share.

Not a good sign for the air travel business what with pollution with the Beeb also reporting that greenhouse gases emitted from homes has gone up and the UK are likely not to meet future committed levels and that homeowners will have to take measures to reduce the levels emitted over the next few years from their homes.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4188


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2019, 10:18:17 am »

Listening to the Beeb Radio 4 financial report it seems Flybe are in a financial mire with a consortium including Virgin having made an offer of 1p per share for the business. The report also stated that Stobart had previously made an offer for the business and that a new prospective owner for the business was now offering 4 1/2p per share.

Not a good sign for the air travel business what with pollution with the Beeb also reporting that greenhouse gases emitted from homes has gone up and the UK are likely not to meet future committed levels and that homeowners will have to take measures to reduce the levels emitted over the next few years from their homes.

The original consortium is Eddie Stobart, Virgin Atlantic, and a US hedge fund. Stobart Group are already into aviation, owning Carlisle Lake District Airport and London Southend Airport, and Virgin Atlantic clearly have experience. The rival bid is from Mesa, an Arizona small airline, backed by a different US hedge fund. FlyBe's board is known to favour the former, thinking it is more likely to guarantee the future of the airline, even though the price is a lot lower. Some view the Mesa bid as a Trojan horse to asset strip FlyBe, with valuable landing slots as the prize. FlyBe's board have said that without a buyer, they will wind up the company.

Over to the shareholders, then. Stobart already have a toe in the door, via William Tinkler (12.2% holding). He is on a number of Stobart's boards, and was previously MD of WA Holdings, former owners of Carlisle Airport. The biggest shareholder is Hosking Partners LLP (18.8%) who so far as I can tell are an American investment company. They are similar to Hargreaves Landsdown, who hold 9.55% as a company and 6.39% as asset managers. Those are the biggest shareholders, with UBS, HSBC Global Asset Management, Wellcome Trust being the only others to hold more than 2%. So no shortage of financial expertise there, then!

So: clear to land, or ready for departure? Time alone will tell, but FlyBe say it is business as usual for now, and are still taking bookings to October. The Fly BMI business caused confusion in places beyond the Coffee Shop, which I hope doesn't cause problems. If I do book a flight, though, I shall use a credit card.
Logged

Now, please!
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 575



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2019, 10:59:31 am »

If I do book a flight, though, I shall use a credit card.

I have bought two flights from FlyBe in May. I did use a credit card!
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4188


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2019, 11:11:39 am »

If I do book a flight, though, I shall use a credit card.

I have bought two flights from FlyBe in May. I did use a credit card!

Should be fine. We hope!
Logged

Now, please!
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2019, 08:42:58 am »

The current Flybe board and those of recent years should really be hanging there heads in shame for mainly burying their heads in the sand and tinkering (with a few exceptions) rather than properly addressing the viability of this business over the last few years.

To do so would have been painful for the workforce, but not as bad as what may be coming now, as one has to think there will be more aggressive rationalisation of the operation to transform it into to the self-standing, profitable business that it needs to be (for the sake of many of the passengers and airports it serves around the UK).

I was flying with them again yesterday, and it was very much "ops normal" with pretty-much full aircraft on both sectors. Also the usual professional service from the airline's crews, who don't deserve to have been put in their current position.
Logged
SandTEngineer
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2772


Retired in a Linemans Hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2019, 10:14:29 am »

FLYBE takeover just announced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46834827

New topic required..... Tongue
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24173



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2019, 10:25:48 am »

FLYBE takeover just announced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46834827

New topic required..... Tongue

Started - at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21093.0
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants