Flybe

[Jerry]

Re scheduled long haul, especially transatlantic to the US East Coast, much may demand in the coming years whether LHR gets a third runway or at least whether an additional runway is built in South East England.

If there is no third runway and air travel continues to increase airlines will have to look elsewhere and, although MAN and BHX are the obvious choices to see most of such an expansion, smaller regional airports may also benefit to a lesser degree.

Regarding long haul charter services, for many years CWL was pre-eminent on Severnside for routes to Florida and the Caribbean. It was only after First Choice became part of TUI along with Thomson that the CWL flights largely ceased (except for Caribbean cruise flights mainly in winter which still exceed those of BRS in number). Paradoxically, BRS came later (than CWL) to a regular and substantial transatlantic charter programme thanks to First Choice but retained these flights whilst CWL lost its own flights.

I do wonder if the only reason why Thomson are still doing the cruise flights is because they require the plane to be fully loaded on takeoff. I went on a cruise from Southampton last year and people took a lot of luggage! Plus they might also be carrying cargo for the ship itself? The only way I could see long haul happening is if a low cost carrier with narrow bodied aircraft decided to do long haul flights from regional airports. In the long run the airports that will benefit will be MAN, BHX and maybe BRS. CWL will be long way down the list.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Flybe passenger figures at CWL, May 2016

Now that the CAA has finally published May's statistics it's possible to have a look at the loads that month. I've based this on all scheduled flights operating which I believe they did. All flights were on 118-seat Embraer 195 aircraft except where indicated.

Faro 3370 passengers, average load 93.6, load factor 79.3%
Belfast City 3681, 59.4, 76.1% (operated by 78-seat Q400)
Edinburgh 7658, 72.2, 61.2%
Paris Cdg 4055, 65.4, 55.4%
Jersey 1678, 64.5, 54.7%
Verona 508, 63.5, 53.8%
Glasgow 3367, 60.1, 50.9%
Dusseldorf 291, 36.4, 46.7% (operated by 78-seat Q400)
Cork 990, 55.0, 46.6%
Milan Malpensa 1847, 51.3, 43.5%
Munich 1715, 50.4, 42.7%

Not in the peak summer season it is true, but the loads on many of the routes show how difficult it is to fill the E195. How much healthier these load factors would look on an E175.

The last overall load factor for the airline that I could find was for the year 2014 when it was 69.5%.

 

[Tinkerman]

Not great loads there at all if i'm honest ! The E175 is a much nicer fit for the current CWL offering, the E190 at 118-122 seats is a little large if i'm totally honest.

BE won't be around CWL when the E190's leave the fleet anyway, it was just an exercise for them to use aircraft which would otherwise run up huge losses. And to top it all off they've got the WG to pay them for the privilege of doing so. Operating on behalf of 'Cardiff Airport Ltd' ... Remember that ? Hats of to BE though for trying to make some money, and given the level of funding which appears to be coming their way from the WG, even at these loads i could hazard a guess that they're breaking even at CWL at worst.

To be fair though from analysing stats from others on the BE network, BE aren't exactly doing too well LF wise at the moment. Luckily for their sake the oil price still remains low !

To cut it short, get shot of the E190's and get some E175's in, which may happen when the E190's leave. Depends on if the routes are actually that 'bad'. For some to think on here that BE would ever base more aircraft than present then i'd like some of the substances that you may be administering !!!

Besides, subbing the E175 for the E190 changes the whole dynamic of the cost model, fares increase, lower passenger numbers, more to BRS and EZY.

 

[Aviador]

Using load factors as a gauge used to be a reliable indicator as to how well a service is performing. 70% plus used to be regarded as a good load factor. I don't think it is as simple as that these days. Route funding, discount operating costs and the general price structure of most airline seats make it almost impossible to tell how well or poorly an airline is doing.

 

[Jerry]

Wonder if Tinkerman is refering to me?

I said it before and by looking at those numbers that CWL European city routes (excluding Spain) are the perfect fit for a 80 seater aircraft. The numbers will probably go up a bit during the rest of the year and also in the long term on Berlin (unknown how this route will fair) and Munich Air Berlin codeshares will come into effect so should boost those numbers a bit it also doesn't mean that the route isn't profitable and also considering Verona is new that isn't a bad beginning. The one disappointment is Milan though maybe it would be better if that was dropped to 3 weekly. From what i've read in a Flybe financial statement for 2015/16 pdf there LF was 72.5% across the company (you can google it). Also there is another document google flybe 2014/15 H1 results and it brings up a pdf that tells you there future restructuring plans.

Cardiff airport is a regional airport so it fits the model for Flybe. I very much doubt that those numbers would be any different if Ryanair or Easyjet flew them from CWL! I also think that the people flying on these routes will stick with them as long the service is provided and i doubt very much even if the aircraft size was reduced (doesn't mean price increase) people would move to BRS and EZY. Otherwise they would be doing it already as Flybe will never outprice EZY.

I would also be very surprised if the airport would make the same mistake twice after giving Flybe a big chunk of money and knowing that by 2019 the E190's will be gone so it would be sheer common sense for a clause in the contract that those aircraft have to either replaced like for like or that the number of seats has to maintained at that level until the 10 year contract is up. So it would be reasonable to assume CWL will either get 2 E170's or 3 Q400's or possibly 1 E170 and 2 Q400's. Personally I think the last option would be best with the jet doing mostly Europe and the turboprops doing mostly British but that's just my personal opinion.

Disclaimer: no substances have been administered during the writing of this post!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

So far as load factors are concerned - and Aviador is right of course that loads alone are not a guide to a route's profitability - for those outside the airline they are the only clue we have as to whether a market is likely to exist.

I'm pretty certain that if Ryanair or easyJet were operating these routes from CWL loads would be higher. They might not be high enough to satisfy easyJet or Ryanair in terms of yield but I suspect that the likes of CDG, EDI and GLA would be seeing more passengers, and so probably would some of the other routes.

Ryanair and easyJet, especially the former, need very high load factors on most of their routes to make them sustainable. It's the nature of their business model. Flybe has 'traditionally' got by with noticeably lower load factors than the major lo-cos.

Tinkerman makes a valid point about the difference in dynamics if the E195 is switched to the E175. As he points out, the former had become white elephants in the fleet and Flybe must have thought that birthday and Christmas had come together when the CWL management agreed to have them operate, no doubt effectively underwriting their use. I presume some sort of similar deal was done at Doncaster-Sheffield.

The E175 is more useful to Flybe and might not be so easily lured to CWL unless a continuing 'too good to refuse offer' is made by the airport.

 

[Jerry]

The only route I could see Ryanair taking off Flybe would be Faro. They'd probably fill the flight.
From what i've read Flybe have an extra 4 E175's to come (starting 2018) they will own them taking there fleet up to 15 E175's. So whether they would use them to replace the 195's at CWL and DSA or put 1 at each i don't know but whether CWL gets E175's or Q400's or a mix of both in the end might not be important as having a Flybe base of 2 or preferably more aircraft because without them what options would CWL have? CityJet? Easyjet will never start flying from CWL and in the end they are the airline that everyone really wants flying out of CWL. Can't see Ryanair running those routes or Jet2?
So for CWL it may be in the long term worth giving Flybe an offer to base at least 1 E175 at CWL when the E195's start going back and replace the other one with Q400's but know ones what's in the agreement though i would be surprised if there wasn't a E195 succession plan.

 

[Jerry]

Was in Cardiff city centre yesterday in the St Davids centre (forgot how large it was!) and noticed a nice Flybe advert on the lift doors to the car park. Had all the routes flying from Cardiff with the background the Brandenburg gate in Berlin. Also the London City route was advertised as a new route in a red circle though if i wasn't already aware it does insinuate it's permanent as their are no dates. Glad to see they are pushing the new routes! Hopefully the advertising is working in bringing pax back to CWL!

 

[Severn]

An alter ego of mine posted something like this on a certain welsh aviation forum....

Flybe - A comparission with last year

Flybe based their second E195 in September 2015, and as we are now just about a year on, I thought i'd compare the schedules for a week in Sept 2015 and the same week in Sept 2016:

In summary:

Flights per week:
September 2015: 128 (64 departures)
September 2016: 120 (60 departures)

Destinations:
September 2015: 11
September 2016: 12

Based Aircraft:
September 2015: 2x Embraer E195
September 2016: 2x Embraer E195​

Breakdown by route:

BHD: no change

2015 - 7 flights per week
2016 - 7 flights per week​

ORK: no change

2015 - 2 flights per week
2016 - 2 flights per week​

DUB: 3 flights per week less in 2016

2015 - 12 flights per week
2016 - 9 flights per week​

DUS: 3 flights per week less in 2016

2015 - 4 flights per week
2016 - 1 flight per week​

EDI: 1 flight per week less in 2016

2015 - 13 flights per week
2016 - 12 flights per week​

FAO: 1 flight per week more in 2016

2015 - 3 flights per week
2016 - 4 flights per week​

GLA: 1 flight per week more in 2016

2015 - 5 flights per week
2016 - 6 flights per week​

JER: 1 flight per week more in 2016

2015 - 2 flights per week
2016 - 3 flights per week​

MXP: 1 flight per week more in 2016

2015 - 3 flights per week
2016 - 4 flights per week​

MUC: 1 flight per week less in 2016

2015 - 5 flights per week
2016 - 4 flights per week​

CDG: no change

2015 - 7 flights per week
2016 - 7 flights per week​

VRN: New route for 2016

2015 - No flights
2016 - 1 flight per week​

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Many thanks for that, Jamesc909.

A bit of tweaking here and there which is no real surprise when a clutch of new routes is started in one go. There is a bit more tweaking for the forthcoming winter schedule.

As has been discussed recently herein, the E195 is probably too big for some of the routes but necessary for others.

 

[Jerry]

G-PRPB arrived this afternoon from BHX is readiness to start the LCY route tomorrow and is now parked on Stand 3. I don't know if it'll be based here for the full 6 weeks or whether the aircraft will be rotated. Personally I hope the route will be a success and will lead to a permanent Q400 base as I believe that at least 1 rotation a day to LCY could work but i guess from tomorrow we will see the if there is potential for a LCY route from CWL!

 

[jason1-11]

There has been a big advertising campaign recently in the London press by Flyby reference the London City - Cardiff route.

Can only assume London based bookings must be light, but good luck to Flybe for giving it a go.

 

[Jerry]

There has been a big advertising campaign recently in the London press by Flyby reference the London City - Cardiff route.

Can only assume London based bookings must be light, but good luck to Flybe for giving it a go.

Good to hear it's been advertised on the London end. From what i've heard the bookings are ok but as it will be a more buisness orientated route many people will book up at the last minute. I think the key load factors will be the first departure of the day from CWL and the return at the end of the working day. Though unfortunately the times Flybe originally had which were good for an LCY service were taken off them by LCY. Hopefully the route will be viable for the future and Flybe will consider it and new routes to make a based Q400 work from CWL.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I would have said that there is no chance of a regular Cardiff-London air service. It's been tried more than once in the past and has failed, simply because the distance is too short to make it viable against alternative forms of transport.

However, it appears that Flybe is making some sort of success of its Exeter-London City service - Exeter-London is another route with an unsuccessful history - so it might just work at CWL too. The rail journey takes about the same time to Paddington from both Cardiff and Exeter, although the Cardiff route will be speeded up within the next few years when electrification begins.

EXT is of course Flybe's headquarters and it may be that the Q400 on EXT-LCY fits easily into the Exeter Flybe flying programme. CWL would need a Q400 crew team based at the airport and 2 x daily to London City, plus perhaps another route or even two in the downtime, might not be the best use of the aircraft in terms of overall yield. They would almost certainly need two sets of crew each day to operate such a schedule.

 

[Jerry]

EXT is of course Flybe's headquarters and it may be that the Q400 on EXT-LCY fits easily into the Exeter Flybe flying programme. CWL would need a Q400 crew team based at the airport and 2 x daily to London City,

I had a look at the way they operate the exeter LCY and in the week it roughly does this EXT-LCY-CDG-EXT-CDG-LCY-EXT. EXT only gets 1 rotation a day and I could see something similar working with CWL.
A suggestion would be CWL-LCY-GLA-CWL-GLA-LCY-CWL. GLA doesn't have a Flybe LCY route so it would be offering 2 new routes out of LCY for Flybe and the LF's on CWL's GLA route suggests a Q400 would fit well.
The Cork and Jersey flights could be switched to the late evening on the Q400 or considering CDG is switching to a morning flight a 2nd evening flight could be introduced or a new daily or 5 weekly route like LBA or MAN could be introduced. If Cork and Jersey were switched to a CWL based Q400 then the non based Q400's that sometimes do those routes could be used for something else out of their bases.

It would also have the effect of freeing up the E190s to do extra FAO flights which seem to be very popular and maybe a new route as well ie Southern france for the summer maybe or and I'm going to chuck in a wildcard here Madrid with a codeshare with Iberia and BA twice a week to see how it fares. On the weekends then the Q400 could used to increase weekend frequency on EDI and maybe another route.
But it would naturally depend on whether Flybe could get the 08.00-08.15 landing slot that they would need at LCY to make it work. Or whether they would be willing to expand the CWL base at all.

 

[Jerry]

I've also noticed that the Etihad codeshare also now applies to MUC. CWL-MUC EY7176 MUC-CWL EY7175.
Wonder if MXP will be next?

 

[Jerry]

The new Flybe LCY route that started today was well promoted on social media today. There was plenty of photos and even the Welsh Secretary got in for a photo op! Good PR for Flybe as a whole.
What was interesting to me and the way it came over through social media was that it was like they were launching a new permanent route and not a temporary one with quotes from Roger Lewis that 'Wales was open for buisness' and photos with a model of Canary Wharf and when Saad Hammad was asked if it could go permanent he was quoted as saying that Flybe 'will keep an open mind' on extending the route.
From what i read on another forum there was 66 passengers on board with roughly 10 being dignataries and press.

 

[superking]

I cant see it staying,perhaps till its all finished and fully working. when the train service starts with new trains and eletricfied then it will be quicker by train. you have no security or check in like the plane.from plane time departure you have about 2 hours till it leaves,then you got the other end to get through. with the train you will be nearly in London with out the hassle,and the plane still in cwl. its been tried twice before and it did not work. it was used with smaller planes and no where half full.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I cant see it staying,perhaps till its all finished and fully working. when the train service starts with new trains and eletricfied then it will be quicker by train. you have no security or check in like the plane.from plane time departure you have about 2 hours till it leaves,then you got the other end to get through. with the train you will be nearly in London with out the hassle,and the plane still in cwl. its been tried twice before and it did not work. it was used with smaller planes and no where half full.

I tend to agree with the thrust of your post, superking. On a domestic route where rail is frequent and takes less than two and half hours, as is the case with Cardiff-Paddington, it's often difficult for air to compete (unless the route is between two huge cities that generates a frequent air schedule) as time taken to reach/leave the airports and the need to check in at least half an hour before the flight, usually earlier than that, brings down the overall elapsed time to much nearer the rail timings.

Given the much greater frequency of rail it's usually more attractive to most people.

The last airline to try Cardiff-London was Air Wales (to LCY) with their ATR42s at the beginning of the present century. They began at 3 x daily on weekdays, initially involving Swansea on some of the rotations as well as CWL. Within a year the frequency was reduced to 2 x daily and Swansea dropped. Within another year the service had become a skeletal Monday and Friday only between CWL and LCY and it soon ceased altogether (towards the end of 2004).

My only caveat, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the fact that Flybe seems to be successfully operating an Exeter-London City route where the train service between Exeter St Davids and Paddington takes approximately the same time as Cardiff-Paddington, with the Cardiff and Exeter rail frequencies to Paddington broadly similar. Given that Exeter, although probably the most economically successful city region of Devon and Cornwall (even though Plymouth is a larger city), has a smaller catchment and economy than the Cardiff region it might be thought that if EXT can support a LCY service then so ought CWL.

I know things are not always that simple when it comes to air routes as I alluded to in my earlier post.

 

[Jerry]

I cant see it staying,perhaps till its all finished and fully working. when the train service starts with new trains and eletricfied then it will be quicker by train

Cardiff to Paddington 2 hours 5 mins Paddington underground to Baker Street 5 mins, Baker Street to Canary Wharf 17 mins. Add on 20 mins say for waiting and walking so 2 hours 50 mins to Canary Wharf.
CWL to LCY 1 hour 15 mins, LCY DLR station to Canning town underground 7 mins, Canning Town to Canary Wharf Underground 5 mins. Add on 20 mins for waiting and walking 1 hr 50 mins. Even if you add on 30 mins of getting through security and to the gate at CWL it's still faster. Obviously some people will go to different areas of London and people have different travelling time from there homes. And in reality how much will electrification shave off the journey? 15 mins? And as well the route may be attractive to London city types who might not want a 6 hour roundtrip in a day to Cardiff. The same could be said with tourists to Wales and from Wales the train journey may put them off.

The last airline to try Cardiff-London was Air Wales (to LCY) with their ATR42s at the beginning of the present century

I can't remember much about Air Wales operation but the difference may be now that it's Flybe that is doing the route which they could have the potential of codeshares with other airlines that Air Wales may not have been able to get. And another factor could be that a Q400 could take some of the routes off the E190's which are to small LF wise and could release them for other routes like increasing FAO and introducing another Spanish sun route Murcia comes to mind. Plus there might be routes that CWL may want but that the E190s are to big for an example would be Brussels.
In the end this 6 weeks is almost like a pilot episode and if it's successful and Flybe find some money dangled in front of them then CWL might get a Q400 based from next summer! The LF's for LCY will be interesting to see!