Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 12:55 29 Mar 2024
* Delays at Dover as millions begin Easter getaway
- Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
- KFC Nigeria sorry after disabled diner refused service
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
13:21 Newbury to Bedwyn
13:48 Bedwyn to Newbury
14:12 Newbury to Bedwyn
14:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
14:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
15:28 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
15:50 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:15 Newbury to Bedwyn
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
12:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:10 Penzance to London Paddington
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:20 Penzance to London Paddington
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
14:03 London Paddington to Penzance
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 13:10:27 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[153] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[97] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] Travel for free on the m2 metrobus - Bristol - 4,5,6 April 202...
[41] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[38] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[37] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: FlyBe - gone into administration  (Read 14802 times)
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2020, 13:20:08 »

... 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.)
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2020, 13:21:40 »

... 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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 13:39:14 by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2020, 14:54:40 »


...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...  Smiley

Paul
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2020, 16:22:19 »

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...  Smiley

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.
Logged

Now, please!
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 858



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2020, 21:56:25 »


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" !
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 793


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2020, 10:40:10 »

Quote
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.

Quote
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).



 
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2020, 11:43:28 »

Quote
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?   Grin  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
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 793


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2020, 13:24:58 »

Quote
Does this mean we’ll see the aviation equivalent of “livery froth” before long?

There was already plenty of that within the Flybe fleet - I've seen Q400's in at least 4 different paint jobs recently, and none of the Embraer 175's were painted Flybe purple.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2020, 15:10:17 »


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 looked at a sample, all of which were previously registered to BMI Regional, some from new in 2001.


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).

The service ceiling for a Q400 is 27,000 feet*. There is a crew oxygen system supplied by a bottle in the nose, and three masks with microphone. The cabin crew have access to a portable oxygen bottle that can also be used for emergency supply to passengers, but you're right, there are no oxygen masks fitted above the passenger seats. The plan is for a descent to 14,000 feet to be made within 4 minutes, which is breathable. Decompression at 27,000 feet would probably not cause loss of consciousness on its own, although I don't think it would be at all enjoyable. The difference in pressure from 25,000 to 14,000 feet would be about 330 hPa on a rule-of-thumb calculation. The crew supply lasts at least 2 hours. In a nutshell, if a Q400 decompressed at its ceiling, and nothing else went wrong, everybody would survive, but they would be inconvenienced. The lack of passenger oxygen systems gives a reduction in weight and cost, and is actually a safety benefit. The ones that drop down in emergencies (or system failure more often) are fed from a chemical reaction, and cost several hundred pounds each. The reaction is exothermic, and fires have happened when they have malfunctioned.

Aircraft leasing is a very mysterious business, even more mysterious than train leasing. There are many leasing companies, many of them subsidiaries  of the manufacturers, but the people who actually run the whole show are generally very anonymous, and sit at a level in the commercial world way above Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Donald Trump et al. They do very well out of the business, which has long been a source of puzzlement. Billions of dollars worth of serviceable aircraft are parked in deserts, the assets cost typically $250 million each and the airlines upgrade regularly, but even with a seat costing a pittance, a profit is turned at each level, except Flybe.

*The difference between 27,000 feet and FL (Flight Level) 270, if you were wondering, is the pressure. If you weren't wondering, skip to the next post. Up to a transition altitude, usually about 3000 to 5000 feet depending on the aerodrome, pilots set the altimeter to the "QNH" pressure, which is whatever a barometer at sea level would show for that area. They might land with "QFE" set, where the altimeter shows zero on the ground at the arrival airport rather than height above sea level. Above that transition altitude, the altimeter is set to the standard sea-level pressure of 1013.25 hectoPascals (hPa). This way, everybody flies at the same 27,000 feet, no matter what the air pressure is where they took off from. We recently had a pressure of 1050 hPa recorded in UK, and a low of 926 hPa has been recorded. That difference of 124 hPa represents an altitude difference of over 4,000 feet. Separation is usually 1,000 feet using the semi-circular rule: aircraft flying a course between 000° and 179° magnetic do so at flight levels with odd numbers of tens, those heading 180° to 359° on evens. Not having a standard altimeter pressure setting would lead to "loss of separation" in aviation jargon, or "collision" is common parlance. Next time you go to Mallorca, you will know why you go there at 37,000 feet , but home at 36,000.

To convert hectoPascals to millibars, multiply by 1.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2020, 15:21:32 by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 858



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2020, 15:28:05 »

The ones that drop down in emergencies (or system failure more often) are fed from a chemical reaction, and cost several hundred pounds each. The reaction is exothermic, and fires have happened when they have malfunctioned.

Indeed !    ValuJet Flight 592 in the Florida Everglades, 110 dead.
Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3457

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2020, 19:42:19 »

Quote
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.
3 hrs to Plymouth is not doable in a day return to/from London? I suspect the stats would show quite a lot of such journeys are undertaken.

I did Plymouth to London on a day trip recently, and then went via Cardiff on way home to get a HST (High Speed Train).... £6 all in. One of the big plusses driving buses for First group is our GWR (Great Western Railway) day rover rates
Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 858



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2020, 14:56:07 »

Interesting ! From yesterday's Telegraph Business & Money section:

https://postimg.cc/G95ZSjwQ
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2020, 17:46:13 »

Interesting ! From yesterday's Telegraph Business & Money section:

https://postimg.cc/G95ZSjwQ

Someone will have the calculator out as we speak. Ultimately, it will be down to the government. It could mean economic sense, given what they would have to pay otherwise. Or not.
Logged

Now, please!
southwest
Guest
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2020, 18:12:14 »

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

The Q400 can fly up to FL270, but requires an additional approvals/work from the manufacturer. Given that more Q400 operators don't need to go above FL250 as the flights are too short, hardly any if any airlines have taken it up.



 
[/quote]
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 793


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2020, 08:08:46 »

Quote
Given that more Q400 operators don't need to go above FL250 as the flights are too short, hardly any if any airlines have taken it up.

Flybe didn't and were restricted to FL250, but some of their sectors were definitely not short (for a turboprop), eg, the likes of Southampton-Alicante at about 2hrs 45min. Saying that, due to the speed of the Q400, even these sectors were only about 15-20mins longer than they would be in a pure jet.

Out of interest, very few of the ex-Flybe aircraft have moved since the Company folded at the beginning of March. For example, I believe the 6 Q400's that landed at Southampton on that final evening are still there (although they are having engine runs on I think a weekly basis). One of the few that has moved was the one that ended-up at Heathrow that night, it was ferried to Exeter on 3rd April. Only a few others of their approx. 65 aircraft fleet have moved since.
Logged
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 5
  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 customers 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 to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page