Well, should they?

Especially given that flybe owners are Delta and Virgin.

I’m struggling to wee why the taxpayer should help keep a select few people flying to their jobs. Examples given of a guy living in Devon and working in Holland. Move to Holland? Find a job closer to home?

And how does this sit with reducing CO2?

Lots of failing companies get short-term assistance, but normally dependent on some sort of plan being put in place to fix the issues.

However, it does sit uncomfortably with reducing aviation emissions, especially if (as I understand it) PFD is to be reduced for a number of airlines according to route.

LOL – APD, not PFD  🙂

Nope but given it’s connectivity (it’s the airline here for flights to regional airports in GB) within the UK it’d hit hard if it closed.

That said, didn’t virgin say they were buying them a while back?

To play devil’s advocate… The railways are subsidised, the roads are subsidised, driving is subsidised, so why not UK air travel?  Also, much of flybe’s fleet are low altitude, low speed propeller aircraft which I believe are less polluting than jets?   Could’ve wrong on that last one…

Yep virgin & delta own it

But now that Branson has lost some of his tail franchises he’s gotta go over up the taxpayer subsidies somehow, he has a lifestyle to maintain!

I suspect the brexit bailouts will keep on coming for a while

What happens when Airbus & the car manufacturers threaten to pull out?

Getting rid of APD will apply to all internal flights with whichever company.
I’m not sure Flybe are getting public money as such as they will still have to pay the APD that’s due…. But they’re going to get longer to pay it.
So technically I’m not sure they are getting bailed out.

So their only unpaid bill is to the taxman? Yet more corporate gaming of the system.

the roads are subsidised, driving is subsidised

This has been stated as fact in two different threads this week now, but it’s quite hard to justify unless you count only the Dartford crossing and Cleddau bridge as being unsubsidised. Fuel and vehicle duty raise more revenue than road building costs.

It kind of makes sense, they connect places in the UK that no one else does and where driving or trains would be an unholy nightmare. Some off the top of my head…

Inverness to Stornoway
Teesside to Aberdeen
Glasgow to Southampton

Government should fund transport infrastructure. However, I’d rather it also got any profits in return; and I’d also rather it were high speed rail.

To play devil’s advocate… The railways are subsidised, the roads are subsidised, driving is subsidised, so why not UK air travel?

Roads and rail provide for low carbon mass transit. I’d happily increase taxes on private car use though.

It kind of makes sense, they connect places in the UK that no one else does and where driving or trains would be an unholy nightmare. Some off the top of my head…

Inverness to Stornoway
Teesside to Aberdeen
Glasgow to Southampton

Well, some of those problem important routes are subsidised and thats allowed as they’ve basically realised the role of the connection.

Not sure Teeside to Aberdeen, or Glasgow to Southampton are unholy nightmares to be honest though specifically. You can probably pick any two towns 300 miles apart and it’d likely be a nightmare if one of them isn’t London.

Delta/Virgin are one of the more profitable airlines, let them stump up for the tax due.

Fuel and vehicle duty raise more revenue than road building costs

Possibly true but the overall sum depends a bit on what you count, doesn’t it ?

Building AND maintaining roads – ALL roads (the ones that councils pay for too, as well as Highways Agency)
Policing of roads (OK, assuming any occurs) and admin costs of overview of the taxation/MoT/ins status
Direct health and emergency services costs due to crashes etc
Indirect health costs due to sedentary lifestyles, pollution etc
Lost opportunity “cost” for providing all that free space for us to store our vehicles on
(some like to count the cost to businesses of having their deliveries stuck in non-commercial traffic too)
I’m sure there’s more

I don’t understand why they need to keep flybe going. Surely another airline would step in to fill the void if the routes are viable.

And given most of these routes are business routes, why not charge a going rate for the flights?

I don’t understand why they need to keep flybe going. Surely another airline would step in to fill the void if the routes are viable.

The fact that Flybe aren’t making much, if any, money on them would suggest they’re not viable.

However, they are critical to maintaining connectivity, especially in out of the way places like Isle of Man, Exeter, Plymouth etc.

I did a day return trip from Manchester to Southampton last year which simply would not have been possible any other way. Train was 4+ hrs each way, driving would have been 5hrs. Flight was 45mins.

We need more regional connectivity, not super-hub places like expansion of Heathrow.

Interesting one.
Flybe have accrued an APD liability of £100million; how big was the liability before the virgin/delta/stobart takeover?; what is the frequency of APD payments by airlines to gov?; were flybe overstating their profitability based on this?
I’m not convinced it’s correct to describe most of the routes as ‘business routes’.
The UK road and rail networks, other than between major population centres, are not conducive to ‘rapid transit’ so the routes covered by flybe were probably much appreciated.
I can’t see how beardy branson and his mates can avoid any liability but how much little they will cop for remains to be seen.
How long before gov spins this as part of their commitment to support the regions?

They certainly have their flaws but Flybe is extremely useful for me, and offers the only real connection to family on the Isle of Man. They also provide vital medical transport for residents to bigger hospitals in the NW. Yes, if they go bust someone will take over the route but not likely with the same frequency. EasyJet for instance probably isn’t going to offer 4 flights a day to Manchester like Flybe currently does. I’ve also got some Flybe vouchers I need to spend sharpish!

Nationalise them

EasyJet for instance probably isn’t going to offer 4 flights a day to Manchester like Flybe currently does.

easyJet and Ryanair don’t have the small prop aircraft that Flybe do. The only reason those flights are even close to break even is because it’s far cheaper to use them than it is to use an Airbus A320. Also I’d guess that many of the regional airports aren’t big enough to even take an Airbus.

Well, should they?

Nope, commercial organisation funded by shareholders.

But we don’t love in a world of logic, we live in a world of Tory’isms and being told it’s none of our business.

You voted for em’ this is what you get.

How long before gov spins this as part of their commitment to support the regions?

They already have. That was the spin from whatever minister was on the radio this lunchtime.

100,000,000 is best part of 4 million lots of £26 APD. They apparently transport 8 million passengers a year so that’s quite a backlog of passing on of duties.

Torn as environmentally their short hops surely can’t be justified surely in most cases but the current infrastructure for land based travel does not make the case for not using them that compelling to punters.

Car drivers have a massive subsidy. Cost of motoring is far more than roadbuilding

I would say no, but my wife needs to fly from Leeds Bradford to Newquay! It’s either that or eight hours on a train.

The Isle of Man example… shouldn’t tax payers there bail out that route?

If they are bailed out, I am willing to bet some arsehole will take a whopping bonus out again within a year.

If they are bailed out, I am willing to bet some arsehole will take a whopping bonus out again within a year.

Well, they’ve earned it by being a canny operator and timing the bailout ask to perfection. Knowing that the “Brexit is the bestest, let’s level up and unleash Britain” government wouldn’t be able to watch the biggest regional airline in the country go to the wall in the lead up to Jan 31st.

Personally, I’m relieved. I have just taken on some work in Manchester and as noted above it’s an hour on the plane vs 5 on the train. It would have been a deal breaker if they went tits up (which to be honest has probably only been defered).

It kind of makes sense, they connect places in the UK that no one else does and where driving or trains would be an unholy nightmare. Some off the top of my head…

Inverness to Stornoway

Flybe have already given up on flights to Stornoway. They couldn’t compete with Loganair.
Seems Flybe will still sell you a ticket to Stornoway, but that is for the same Loganair flight anyway.

Yes because I’m flying down to Newquay next month.

We can close the shop at 5.30 and be at our friend’s in Crantock just after 9.

As an aside how much pollution does our plane create compared to all those people in a car?

The fact is that folk shouldn’t be taking on roles and responsibilities that require them to travel those sort of distances.

What makes the Eurostar so efficient compared to a normal train?

How does this decision compare to other European countries?

Fewer stops maybe?

Eurostar is electric. A lot of domestic trains are still diesel

‘The fact is that folk shouldn’t be taking on roles and responsibilities that require them to travel those sort of distances’.
Why not?

Because its unsustainable environmentally

the chap who commuted Netherlands to exeter (??) who was complaining bitterly in the press is a prime example. If those flights did not exist he would not be doing it. Same as if yo build more roads more people drive

I bet they will still go under within 5 years anyway…

Wonder how long the magic money pot lasts into this governments term?

Ironic that many people choose to fly because it’s cheaper than the train… And now they (supposedly) haven’t made enough money to pay their taxes!

If we can afford to throw away those kind of sums we can afford to instead invest it in future proof sustainable transport – did we not declare a climate emergency just last year?

TJ – did you not say something about being committed to your holidays, which involved flights, and being (relatively) unconcerned about the environmental impacts?
There are many people whose place of work is more than a bit distant from their home; company won’t move and neither will employee so….they commute.
Are we getting to a point where employee commuting choices are controlled/directed?
If employee (and family) accept a long distance commute, employer is OK with it and performance is not affected – why not?
Not many people are in fortunate position of either walking to work or having only a short commute; how short is short?