Flybe nosedives on profits warning

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

But just heard on manx radio that aurgriny have consistently for last 5-6 years posted losses in region of £2m-£5m.

Who's picking up that tab?

Effectively taxpayer subsidised connectivity, but it maybe a price worth paying?

Well as reported last year:

Quote

 

Guernsey's government-owned airline Aurigny is predicted to record losses of £9.6m in 2020.

In its budget for 2020, the States of Guernsey has said it expects Aurigny's losses to rise from £7m if it continues as it is.

Any losses at the state-subsidised airline are a direct cost to the government and the taxpayer.

 

So £2 - £5 million would make the Guernsey taxpayer extremely happy.

I never fail to be amazed by the way that some people, especially ex-government employees think the only solution to any inconvenience is to throw vast amounts of taxpayers money at it in the vague hope that something will happen.

Flybe carried about 40% of the passengers who travelled through Isle of Man Airport[1].  Many of these  of those will be on the patient transfer flights[2] for which alternative arrangements are being made.   Another 172,445 passengers flew to/from Manchester - nearly half of all Flybe passengers.  It's not actually that much longer to get to Manchester City Centre from Liverpool Airport than it is from Manchester's because you don't have to trek through the latter to get to the station - maybe an extra half hour.  

Airlines have collapsed before and the Island has coped without setting up yet another government department to lose money.

 

[1]  349,289 out of 865,617 passengers in total.

[2]  According to an answer given in the Keys last year "the Patient Transfer Office books around 17,000 return journeys a year", so 34,000 flights in total - about 10% of all Flybe passengers

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

But just heard on manx radio that aurgriny have consistently for last 5-6 years posted losses in region of £2m-£5m.

Who's picking up that tab?

Effectively taxpayer subsidised connectivity, but it maybe a price worth paying?

I am, by inclination, not an interventionist. However, if you have to intervene then you should only do so if you can make it work to your advantage. And I can see some advantage in terms of driving customers/[passengers to Mann for the benefit of the visitor economy by offering limited heavily discounted pricing.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Andy Onchan

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

Someone on the radio asked why there was no contingency plan in place and that's a very good question. Place is deserted now, Flybe plane still sitting there unable to go anywhere. Sad.

Yes it's the One Cameraman of the Apocalypse.  More reliable than circling vultures as a portent of impending doom!  Though I must point out that Ronaldsway often looks deserted in the middle of the day because of flight patterns and Manxies only ever turning up at last minute.

They claim to have something sorted out for the patient transfer (presumably from Tuesday), but the problem is that no one knew exactly when this would happen.  So unless you were prepared to pay for an entire parallel airline sitting around doing nothing for possibly months on end, even the best planning will take time to get into gear.  That said they could have been more pro-active about it - was it beyond someone to issue a statement last night about what patients should do today?  Given what all these managers are paid, a bit of initiative and working outside 9-5 might be expected.

For the rest we'll just have to wait I suspect.  The airline industry is quite good at jumping in and filling the gaps where there is an actual need.

[dilligaf]

2 hours ago, mojomonkey said:

They get hungry?

All at the same time. Shouldn’t they stagger the lunches and be open all day?

[Donald Trumps]

The state owns the Steam Packet

Government should use it

 

[Roger Mexico]

15 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I am, by inclination, not an interventionist. However, if you have to intervene then you should only do so if you can make it work to your advantage. And I can see some advantage in terms of driving customers/[passengers to Mann for the benefit of the visitor economy by offering limited heavily discounted pricing.

We keep on repeating this thing about the cost of getting to the Island by air as if we were still living in the 60s.  It simply isn't true.  You only have to look at the sort of prices easyJet have been offering for years.  If you avoid TT (where there's no more space for people anyway) flights are pretty cheap through the Summer.  You'd be pushed to find many over £100 and there's loads in the £20-£30 range.  People may be unaware of how cheap it is to get here, but  it is.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

But just heard on manx radio that aurgriny have consistently for last 5-6 years posted losses in region of £2m-£5m.

Who's picking up that tab?

Effectively taxpayer subsidised connectivity, but it maybe a price worth paying?

£7 million last year. Cumulatively over £30 million. Expected £9.6m this year taking it up to £40m

[asitis]

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I wonder what, if anything, is owed in landing fees and charges?

I bet a lot !

[Utah 01]

Yes, easyjet fares are great - if you want to pitch up at Gatwick at 2200 or Bristol at 2140 on a Friday evening - or have to get to Belfast for an 0530 check-in.  We are at the arse-end of easyjet's scheduling thought process and will always remain so.

The Island requires regular, timetabled services and not as-and-when-it-suits (the airline) schedule. There are some services that cannot be left to laissez-faire economics and have to be underwritten by the state - and transport services to and from an island community is surely one of them.

Gladys; it is well documented that the then MD of Manx Airlines offered Manx Airlines plus Heathrow slots to that intellectual colossus Brown T - and it was turned down.

[Frances]

wasn't Manx Air downed by the panic following 9/11 after which it was impossible to gain insurance to be allowed to fly over London etc - whether the Manx Gov could have stepped I don't know but shortly afterwards didn't BA buy Manx Air, shift its routes to Gatwick with the transfer of the valuable Heathrow slots allowing another jumbo to land + take off during a key morning and evening slot.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Frances

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

wasn't Manx Air downed by the panic following 9/11 after which it was impossible to gain insurance to be allowed to fly over London etc - whether the Manx Gov could have stepped I don't know but shortly afterwards didn't BA buy Manx Air, shift its routes to Gatwick with the transfer of the valuable Heathrow slots allowing another jumbo to land + take off during a key morning and evening slot.

Actually BA bought Manx Airlines six months before 9/11 happened, so that is irrelevant (though I don't think the insurance thing was true anyway).  BA did of course asset strip the Heathrow slots, but there was nothing that could be done by the Manx government at that stage.  Possibly they could have bought Manx Airlines, but you can only shudder to think how much money would have been lost by them running it.

[asitis]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

£7 million last year. Cumulatively over £30 million. Expected £9.6m this year taking it up to £40m

Those sort of figures are what we subsidise the airport for in any case, just to run !

Edited March 5, 2020 by asitis

[Rog]

When it comes to Flybe losses bear in mind that it would be the UK government that was and will be  picking up a shed load of these losses.

[Roger Mexico]

26 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Yes, easyjet fares are great - if you want to pitch up at Gatwick at 2200 or Bristol at 2140 on a Friday evening - or have to get to Belfast for an 0530 check-in.  We are at the arse-end of easyjet's scheduling thought process and will always remain so.

The Island requires regular, timetabled services and not as-and-when-it-suits (the airline) schedule. There are some services that cannot be left to laissez-faire economics and have to be underwritten by the state - and transport services to and from an island community is surely one of them.

But we were talking about people coming on holiday in this case and holiday flights very often are at odd times.  Some will pay extra for more convenient travel, but we simply can't pretend that the barrier to more visitors is that it is too expensive to get here.  People have been using this as an excuse for decades rather than actually trying to find ways of bringing over more tourists.

One of the more bizarre things about travel and tourism is that the hardest-headed capitalists suddenly start believing that the world has the obligation to provide whatever they want for next to nothing.  People who will lecture you for hours on the laws of supply and demand, start whinging about unfairness because it costs more for a family holiday when the schools are off.  Businessmen who scream at the slightest hint of state interference, demand that airlines be made to provide flights at times when it suits them, no matter what it costs the airline or government (and whether they actually bother to use those flights anyway).  It's all very odd.

[sir nige]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Flybe carried about 40% of the passengers who travelled through Isle of Man Airport[1].  Many of these  of those will be on the patient transfer flights[2] for which alternative arrangements are being made.   Another 172,445 passengers flew to/from Manchester - nearly half of all Flybe passengers.  It's not actually that much longer to get to Manchester City Centre from Liverpool Airport than it is from Manchester's because you don't have to trek through the latter to get to the station - maybe an extra half hour.