Could FlyBe/Connect be resuscitated
The first European airline to fail in the very beginning of CoVid19 was Connect Airways or FlyBe as most like to call it. Was that necessary.
From a pure financial standpoint it certainly looked that way. Running constant losses and with owners tired of constantly refilling it with money. I say money because it wasn't really cash but more promises of such.
As an airline it had some things going fore it. A good AOC for a multiple of types of aircraft that made it a vendor in a market of its own. Large enough but not a direct threat to the likes of easyJet and Ryanair. And for the network airlines it was more a supplier than a competitor.
However for many years it had leaders and management that took it in to many directions spending money on costly rebranding and too many different types of aircrafts.
Many thinks it would be better as a regional with the smallest of aircrafts but those kind of routes are better left to even smaller niche players. It could have carved out a market of its own if it had continued with the Embraer.
Since the Low Fare players keep moving to larger aircrafts. Ryanair went from a 130 seat to a 186 seat to, with the Max, above 210. They have left the 130 seat market behind. However FlyBe failed by trying to be a full service airline. Probably because its constantly changing CEO's would see that as more of a respectable airline to be head of.
Single class and free seating is as made for this market. We are talking early Ryanair with strict focus on simplicity and costs. And preferably single type aircraft. Also utilize the FlyBe resources by pulling light maintenance inhouse for full cost control and more effective utilization.
The tendency now is for outsourced ground handling but if you want to optimize how it is done you need also that under direct control, at least at your more busy airports. Unless you can get others to do it below cost over time that is.
Going further towards Northern Europe, rather than the Amsterdam and to the south from the smaller airports in the UK, would have captured markets that could only carry a smallish plane, like the Embraer for a regular, read daily, schedule.
We are talking Scotland/Midlands/Ireland to Bergen/Trondheim/Denmark west and middle Sweden.
Also cover smaller airports in Germany but avoid major airports like the plague.
Yes do regional UK flying where the market supports a medium 110-130 seat plane, but under own name. Flying branded as others make you dependent on their vagaries and don't give your income from side sales for rental cars and hotels. Steady income but marginal without great potential and subject to sudden stops.
Avoid connection deals since it disturbs your operations. If potential passengers want to connect they will if you are the only airline flying the route at suitable times. Take advantage of flight aggregators and scanners for this, without the legal/financial responsibility for making the connection work. Combining own brand flying with connect for other airlines and wet leasing to others should be avoided unless you can keep them divided into 2 separate entities but under the same ownership with some flexibility in fleet movement between them. That could also open up the possibility of 2 different sizes of plane expanding the flexibility one have for route building and variances over the seasons.. But never sub 75 seats for a relatively large sized airline like FlyBe.
Optimum would be a 120 seat jet for main and a 75 seat prop for wet. It is better to be known as an airline flying jets since some customers are vary about propellers and wouldn't like the uncertainty. If the props fly for others in neutral colors they won't hurt your own brand. Alternatively you could brand them FlyBe jets and Connect props.
Or maybe some alternative names since FlyBe as a brand could be tainted with the general public. Any rebranding would have to be very low cost and would have to be weighted towards the alternative initial cost of marketing that New FlyBe was a well backed airline. For the potential customers the proof would be in the pudding showing that booked flights are flown, minimising negative speculations and strict internal control on rumour spreading.
From a pure financial standpoint it certainly looked that way. Running constant losses and with owners tired of constantly refilling it with money. I say money because it wasn't really cash but more promises of such.
As an airline it had some things going fore it. A good AOC for a multiple of types of aircraft that made it a vendor in a market of its own. Large enough but not a direct threat to the likes of easyJet and Ryanair. And for the network airlines it was more a supplier than a competitor.
However for many years it had leaders and management that took it in to many directions spending money on costly rebranding and too many different types of aircrafts.
Many thinks it would be better as a regional with the smallest of aircrafts but those kind of routes are better left to even smaller niche players. It could have carved out a market of its own if it had continued with the Embraer.
Since the Low Fare players keep moving to larger aircrafts. Ryanair went from a 130 seat to a 186 seat to, with the Max, above 210. They have left the 130 seat market behind. However FlyBe failed by trying to be a full service airline. Probably because its constantly changing CEO's would see that as more of a respectable airline to be head of.
Single class and free seating is as made for this market. We are talking early Ryanair with strict focus on simplicity and costs. And preferably single type aircraft. Also utilize the FlyBe resources by pulling light maintenance inhouse for full cost control and more effective utilization.
The tendency now is for outsourced ground handling but if you want to optimize how it is done you need also that under direct control, at least at your more busy airports. Unless you can get others to do it below cost over time that is.
Going further towards Northern Europe, rather than the Amsterdam and to the south from the smaller airports in the UK, would have captured markets that could only carry a smallish plane, like the Embraer for a regular, read daily, schedule.
We are talking Scotland/Midlands/Ireland to Bergen/Trondheim/Denmark west and middle Sweden.
Also cover smaller airports in Germany but avoid major airports like the plague.
Yes do regional UK flying where the market supports a medium 110-130 seat plane, but under own name. Flying branded as others make you dependent on their vagaries and don't give your income from side sales for rental cars and hotels. Steady income but marginal without great potential and subject to sudden stops.
Avoid connection deals since it disturbs your operations. If potential passengers want to connect they will if you are the only airline flying the route at suitable times. Take advantage of flight aggregators and scanners for this, without the legal/financial responsibility for making the connection work. Combining own brand flying with connect for other airlines and wet leasing to others should be avoided unless you can keep them divided into 2 separate entities but under the same ownership with some flexibility in fleet movement between them. That could also open up the possibility of 2 different sizes of plane expanding the flexibility one have for route building and variances over the seasons.. But never sub 75 seats for a relatively large sized airline like FlyBe.
Optimum would be a 120 seat jet for main and a 75 seat prop for wet. It is better to be known as an airline flying jets since some customers are vary about propellers and wouldn't like the uncertainty. If the props fly for others in neutral colors they won't hurt your own brand. Alternatively you could brand them FlyBe jets and Connect props.
Or maybe some alternative names since FlyBe as a brand could be tainted with the general public. Any rebranding would have to be very low cost and would have to be weighted towards the alternative initial cost of marketing that New FlyBe was a well backed airline. For the potential customers the proof would be in the pudding showing that booked flights are flown, minimising negative speculations and strict internal control on rumour spreading.
Comments
Post a Comment