Jump to content

Talk:Flybe (1979–2020)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ERJ-195

[edit]

Johnwalton has stated that the ERJ-195s are not being delivered until August 06, yet FlyBe showed them off and flew them at the Paris air show this year. Ben W Bell 18:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay I see where he is coming from as that is what the press release on the Embraer site states. Odd then that there was one flying at the Paris Air Show in FlyBe colours. Ben W Bell 28 June 2005 06:59 (UTC)
The ERJ-195 aircraft displayed at Paris was an Embraer demonstrator in Embraer's corporate colours. Only a small Flybe logo was added mid-fuselage as a nod to the large order that had just been placed by the airline. --Ayrshire--77 28 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)
is the software problem due to the fact the 195 runs windows???

Air France Codeshare

[edit]

Why do people keep removing the Air France codeshare? To my knowledge it does still codeshare with Air France on flights in and out of Belfast at least. Ben W Bell 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed yet again, yet FlyBE still codeshare with Air France. Do people have something against Air France? Ben W Bell talk 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

[edit]

I moved the destinations to a seperate page which worked, however it has now gone! What do i do User:Flymeoutofhere

I reverted it to before your edit. If you wish to try again then feel free but I don't really think that they need to be moved. The information isn't really enough to justify a new page and the main article isn't long enough to justify splitting. As for where the information went the most likely explanation is that your previewed the changes but forgot to then save them subsequently, it has happened to us all. Ben W Bell 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just split them again. There are more than enough to create a separate list. Unless an airline just flies to a few places (preferably less than 20), the separate page helps avoid clutter on the main article. Dbinder 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

[edit]

Just to explain why I removed the incidents sub-paragraph. I dont think we should include every incident when an inflight problem caused the aircraft to land safely - they are a lots of them !!. Dont think they are relevant to wikpedia unless they are noteworthy in some way MilborneOne 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Why does the article first line say that "the initial letter is shown capitalised due to technical restrictions"? Yet the airline calls itself "Flybe" (with a capital F) throughout its website. I know that their aircraft say "flybe" but the heading of the article is meant to be the name of the company not what's written on the aircraft. So the article's heading of "Flybe" is correct and needs no comment! Am I right? - Adrian Pingstone 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, he's right. Looking on their site they only ever use Flybe to refer to themselves. Only their actual logo is all in lowercase. Ben W Bell talk 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Companies House has FLYBE LIMITED in uppercase ! (but it has all companies as uppercase). I suspect the lower case flybe is just a marketing name or trademark. MilborneOne 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff 'hub' status

[edit]

Cardiff Airport has been added as a Flybe 'hub' in the infobox of this article, on the basis that their marketing department described it as such in a press release [1]. The problem with this is that Flybe's operation at Cardiff is very small relative to their other UK bases which are not described as 'hubs' in this article, for example Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jersey and Norwich (which are all bigger bases than Cardiff and described as 'Focus Cities'), and Newcastle which is a similar size to the Cardiff base but is not mentioned at all in the infobox. I suggest therefore we stick with the wikipedia definition rather than relying on Flybe 'marketing speak' when listing the hubs on this page and would appreciate the views of other editors on this so we can reach consensus. SempreVolando (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It it doesnt qualify as a "hub" or a "focus city" for the airline, fancy telling me how the Isle of man, and norwich both count as focus cities? Both have a similar level or operation. If it isnt a hub, then it certainly qualifies to be a "focus city". Sure it may be marketing speak, but it comes directly from Flybe themselves. Keep it as a hub. Shazz0r (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly do not have "a similar level of operation", Isle of Man has 62 Flybe departures a week (more than double what Cardiff has), while Norwich has 40 per week (two thirds more than Cardiff's 24). Cardiff qualifies neither as a Hub or a Focus City on this basis, it doesn't even have a based Flybe aircraft. I have attached a breakdown of Flybe flights by airport below to illustrate this.
Flybe departures / week by UK Airport
Airport Departures

per week

Article

Status

Manchester 308 Hub
Birmingham 304 Hub
Southampton 282 Hub
Belfast City 235 Hub
Edinburgh 181 Focus City
Glasgow 130 Focus City
London Gatwick 127
Exeter 108
Jersey 106 Focus City
Guernsey 78
Isle of Man 62 Focus City
Newcastle 50
Norwich 40 Focus City
Leeds Bradford 38
Cardiff 24 Hub
Can you see the stupidity of having Cardiff with the other 'hub' airports? It's nearest 'hub' airport in size has 10 times the number of flights. On another note having looked at the number of flights Gatwick and Exeter deserve 'Focus city' status, while Isle of Man and Norwich do not, but the main point is that Cardiff being in the infobox at all is utter nonsense. SempreVolando (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the airline said that then you can hardly disagree Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont think the airline did say it was a hub - if you read the link it is a Cardiff Airport press release not a Flybe one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think we can safely discount the remark made by the Cardiff Airport press department; by their logic KLM also have a hub at Cardiff (more flights than Flybe, and also no based aircraft!). SempreVolando (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're also ruling out the fact they have several more routes in the next few months. Bringing it up to a service level roughly the same as norwich, and i believe some aircraft are being based here (dont have the citation to hand). So by your logic Cardiff should be counted as a "Focus City". It might not be a flybe press statement. Unfortunatly i cant get to the flybe press release. But this also said the same thing.
Granted I had not taken account of the increased level of Flybe flights at Cardiff this summer, however this will still only increase weekly departures to 64, with no CWL-based aircraft for the summer either. Of course all Flybe bases also see an increase in flights during the summer so Cardiff's position on this list doesn't really change. In essence, Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton and Belfast City should be listed as 'Hub' airports and Edinburgh, Glasgow, London Gatwick and Exeter should be 'Focus City' airports. Alternatively, the Focus City list could be expanded to include Jersey, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Newcastle and Cardiff (Cardiff being the smallest there by flights on the summer figures), but 9 focus cities strikes me as a tad excessive, particuarly when we are getting down to airports with no based aircraft. SempreVolando (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i'm aware those flight are here to stay, as part of flybe's long term "expansion plan" for Cardiff, especially as they're now going into competition on many of those routes with bmibaby. Shazz0r (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but the discussion here is whether Cardiff Airport should be listed as a Focus City of Flybe. This has to be based on the airline's current size of operations (and possibly looking forward to this summer). It's certainly not a hub, and including it as a focus city would require eight other larger airports to be listed as such (using my proposed listing order, by # of flights). So what shall we do? SempreVolando (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it as a focus city, because of the proposed expansion that will be happening in the next few months etc. It doesnt mean you "have to" list the others as a hub/focus... Shazz0r (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have revised the lists appropriately on the Flybe page. Included all 9 focus cities so that Cardiff (the smallest, even by the summer 2008 schedule) can be included. It doesn't look as bad as I thought it might. SempreVolando (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest hub

[edit]

Southampton has more routes but Manchester has more departures, so which do we go by? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since several routes have only a few flights a week, my opinion would be to stick with the number of weekly departures at each airport. For example, Southampton to Berne (1/wk), Salzburg (1/wk), Palma (3/wk), Faro (3/wk), Nice (4/wk), etc... should not really swing it in Southampton's favour because more routes in this case does not make a larger operation, which I feel should be judged on flights. SempreVolando (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So say an airline had thirty flights a week to one destination from airport A and one flight to thirty destinations a week from airport B, you'd say airport A is the the largest hub? Anyway I'd have to disagree andd say destinations. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that example both airports A and B would have 30 flights per week and therefore be the same size, but say airport B had 1 flight per week to 29 destinations they yes airport A is bigger, because the airline's operation there is larger since there are more flights operating there. Where the aircraft fly to and from is not really relevant in my opinion, how large a presence an airline has at each base should logically follow from the number of flights. We also have the issue of seasonal variation in the number of destinations (at SOU especially, several routes are summer-only), so if using number of destinations then at what time of year do we take the 'snapshot' to agree this? A third alternative is to base the order on the number of passengers handled by the airline at each airport (over the last year, for example). Food for thought! SempreVolando (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's some number-crunching based on Flybe summer schedules (week commencing 2 June 2008):

Flybe Hub airport departures / week and destinations
Airport Departures

per week

Destinations
Southampton 382 32
Birmingham 354 23
Manchester 349 19
Belfast City 276 18

So Southampton is the biggest base both by destinations and number of flights this summer, BHX second, MAN third and BHD fourth. I have therefore updated the article to reflect this. SempreVolando (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide if this comes under the auspices of original research or not. On one hand it's easily gathered information, but on the other you are collating data yourself and proclaiming a largest hub. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're unsatisified, feel free to find a direct reference for the largest hub Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unsatisfied, but it's possible someone else will come along and fact tag it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say this does probably cross the line of WP:OR, however now that there is no discrepancy between number of flights / number of destinations we can surely agree to maintain Welshleprechaun's original basis for hub ranking (by number of destinations - which is very easily gathered [2])? Otherwise, how can one prove the hub listing of any airline on Wikipedia is not based on WP:OR? SempreVolando (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet

[edit]

I believe Flybe now operate two ATR72s as of 01/06/08 but i don't know how to enter them into the table, could anyone help. [=m_ATR&airline[]=4940&field_dd=1&field_testreg=1&field_fate=1&field_ff=1&rpp=150&search=1] for details. User:kingeorge 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two leased ATR 72s added to table. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Investigation

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning they are being accused/investigated in Jersey for unfair baggage charges by deputy Tadier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.65.238 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

[edit]

Hi, why is it not possible to edit the Flybe page? Q400pilot 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was protected from editing by new and unregistered users due to vandalism. The danger may have passed now so I'll remove the protection and open it for editing again. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

Hello Everyone, Flybe is a great company and offers a great service my only complaint is that it is NOT easy to cancellll a flight obviously a marketing idea but a very BAD one. I will NEVER use this company again, I would rather hitch hike than use this service Even though I cancelllled my flight 10 days in advance, They will not refund a single penny! so think before you buy flybe!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.171.154 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You comment does not appear to be relevant to the article and the talk page is not really the best place for opinion and it may be removed. You agreed to the terms and conditions when you bought your ticket in particular the comments which basically say these are cheap tickets so you dont get a refund. The terms and conditions that you agreed to also suggest you take out insurance to cover cancellation. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flybe logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Flybe logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of Q400s?

[edit]

I deleted unreferenced possibly incorrect statement "The Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Aircraft is due to replaced by the arrival of the new Embraer 170's." This seems to be incorrect, I couldn't find any information confirming it. Flybe's website enthuses about the Q400 and mentions no plan to get rid of the type.Nankai (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they've bought about 20 new Q400s in the last 6 or so years, I very much doubt they're getting rid of them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very very long story, even within the company no one is entirely sure! 87.115.83.170 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

The 3rd para of the introduction needs clarification - what does the "total of 14 aircraft" refer to? Certainly not the total fleet size. Is it the number based at Manchester? If so, at what date?

I think it refers to the total amount of bases the airline has. I rewrote that to read "total of 14 crew and aircraft bases" to reduce confusion. —Compdude123 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Flybe

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Flybe's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bamber, G.J., Gittell, J.H., Kochan, T.A. & von Nordenflytch, A. 2009":

  • From Emirates (airline): Bamber, G.J., Gittell, J.H., Kochan, T.A. & von Nordenflytch, A. (2009). "chapter 5". Up in the Air: How Airlines Can Improve Performance by Engaging their Employees. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • From American Airlines: Bamber, G.J., Gittell, J.H., Kochan, T.A. & von Nordenflytch, A. (2009). "Up in the Air: How Airlines Can Improve Performance by Engaging their Employees". Cornell University Press, Ithaca. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joint ventures and franchises

[edit]

This sentence was removed by SempreVolando:

The franchise has been criticised by residents in the Scottish islands for what are perceived to be excessively high fares,[1][2] and a Facebook campaign set up in June 2015 to highlight the issue attracted over 7,400 "likes" over the course of its first weekend.[3]

on the pretext that is neither notable nor NPOV. This is an issue in which Flybe/Loganair have been frequently taken to task for in recent years, by customers, local politicians and the media. Matters have recently come to a head with a very highly publicised Facebook campaign. I stand by the entry on both terms of notability and consider the statement to be eminently neutral in its tone.

I invite other editors to comment; I'll give it 3 to 4 days, in which time if no valid objections are made - it's going back in! ShugSty (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FLYBE – Is it fleece me?". South of Scotland Liberal Democrats. 23 May 2009. Retrieved 9 June 2015.
  2. ^ "Shetland MSP calls for lower airfares in the face of falling oil prices". Deadline News. 6 January 2015. Retrieved 9 June 2015.
  3. ^ "Islanders mount campaign against Flybe and Loganair prices". The Shetland Times. 8 June 2015. Retrieved 9 June 2015.
Support not including it as it doesnt appear to be particularly notable to Flybe they have made a statement saying it is Loganair that sets the fares so I cant see a need to mention it here. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The franchise routes are flown in planes with Flybe livery, customers pay Flybe for tickets, staff/ cabin crew wear Flybe uniforms - Flybe have the operating contract for the routes and are responsible ultimately for what fares are charged. ShugSty (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a marketing agreement, Flybe have already said they are not responsible for setting the fares and as far as this article is concerned it is just not notable (it would still not be notable enough even if it was Flybe responsible). MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Its just a marketing agreement" - uh... not sure how that absolves Flybe of all responsibility for flights baring their logo and staffed by check-in operators and cabin crew wearing their uniforms; Flybe are the operating contractor, Loganair are effectively their sub-contractors - buck ultimately stops at Flybe, its basic contract law. And the issue of fares is a long running issue on these routes - notable enough to merit a single neutral sentence, at the very least. ShugSty (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont add back to the article without gaining a consensus, and please dont edit war over it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content that is factual, appropriately phrased and adequately sourced. There have been no objections citing adequate reasons over the last month since my initial edit. Consensus is a desirability, not an obligation, and certainly not an expedience for certain editors to censor content that they personally find "undesirable". I request editors to not remove factual content, particularly that is which suitably referenced, or I may find myself obliged to report them for disruptive editing. Thank you.ShugSty (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flybe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flybe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flybe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flybe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flybe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi all

I uploaded the Flybe logo in purple, it seems to have been removed to someones IP address, and now when I've looked someone has deleted the file, and given no reason why?

What the heck is wrong with this site?Gwrhst (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the site, but somebody (wrongly) reverted your change and nobody noticed, the image was deleted for copyright reasons as it was not being used. If you upload the image again and add it to the article it should stay, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what happened, this is why the site should be account only. I won't bother upload it again as the same will probably just happen, then I get problems whenever I keep reverting it!Gwrhst (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not get the same problem again, and if you do then leave me a message. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bases

[edit]

Until six days ago, the Flybe page included a list of bases, these were mostly unsourced so another editor has removed them (but they are still shown as bases on the Flybe destinations page). If anyone can find a source for the whole list of bases, this would be very useful. The bases list included: Aberdeen (Destinations page only), Belfast City, Birmingham (labelled 'Hub' on article and 'Main Base' on destinations page), Cardiff, Doncaster/Sheffield, Düsseldorf (with source), East Midlands (Article only), Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Inverness (Destinations page only), Manchester (labelled 'Hub' on article and 'Base' on destinations page), Newcastle (Article only), Southampton and Southend (Article only). Also, what is the difference between a base and a hub and is it worth distinguishing between the two? Thameslinkrail (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent"

[edit]

"It is the largest independent regional airline in Europe." What is the word "independent" doing there? 31.52.253.128 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" as in not owned by or part of an airline groug – still technically true today, though will no be longer applicable once the Connect Airways takeover is finalised in the next couple of weeks. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last flight

[edit]
to provide the details of the last Flybe flight that landed
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe 2.0 licences

[edit]

According to Flight Global the operating licence was never actually revoked, although the CAA had initially decided to do so and has subsequently repeated the decision. That would suggest the current state of the article is inaccurate. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relaunched Flybe

[edit]

This page needs sorting if the airline is going to be relaunched soon, there are too many references to it being shut down or when it ceased operations. Whilst there needs to be a balance between the "old" Flybe and the "New" flybe. Maybe considering they have different air operator certificates the new Flybe should have it's own independent page? Flynorthern (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the new Flybe should have a seperate page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, in the same way that Frontier Airlines and Frontier Airlines (1950–1986) have different pages. –DMartin 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to create a new page, move all of the content relating to the former incarnation (leaving a summary on the existing page), and restore things like the old AOC number that have been lost in recent edits. I would suggest the name Flybe (1979-2020), except that the former airline didn't take the name Flybe until 2002. Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a new page should be for the new airline, and this one retained as the historical airline, which seems to be the consensus above. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Hi im trying to make a table for the historical fleet but every time i fo it the preview is fine but it wont show up ob the actual website. RoNP123 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undone mass deletions

[edit]

I've just undone the mass deletions to the article to remove it's current content. If you wish an article on the new relaunched FlyBE then a new article should be created, deleting the current article content is not the solution. The current solution deleted all article history and attribution. I've also procedurally deleted the newly created article that had a copy and paste move. One solution may be to move this article using the Page Move functionality, that would retain all history and attributions, or just create a new article for Flybe 2022- and rename this article. Do not however do mass deletions and copy and paste moves. Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion should be opened on this page as to what to do about the article.
  • Should a new article be created for the relaunched airline?
  • Should this article be moved (not copy pasted) to a new title and a new article created at Flybe?
  • Should both co-exist in the same article?

Just remember, don't mass delete information, and don't perform copy and paste moves. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note (for @RoNP123) that WP:SPLIT gives a full explanation of the process. I think this could probably be considered an uncontroversial split that could be done as a WP:BOLD action by one editor – provided it is done properly! Rosbif73 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to the info page, still getting caffeinated this morning. It seems that there's consensus above to keep this page as is, and create a new page for the relaunched airline. Possibly with a rename of this page. The most important thing is to retain the history of this article, which is why I deleted the copy and paste new article creation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is getting into a right mess, perhaps we need a new article for the new Flybe and this should be kept as a history of the original company, suggestion perhaps that this is renamed Jersey European Airlines a name it had for 20 years. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally a fan of keeping it to the name it ended on, moving it back to an old name seems odds to me. However moving it to something like "Flybe (1979 - 2020)" or the like is an option, then back creating a new Flybe page for the new company 2022 onwards may be a solution. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK that seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved the page and created a new page (over the redirect created by the move) for the new airline. Help in tidying up both old and new pages would be much appreciated. Also, there are no doubt many pages that need links changing to point at the old airline. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E175s Incorrect information

[edit]

The fleet list table shows 9 E170(E175 jets), we had 11 delivered (Reg FBJA - FBJK) with 4 on order that were never received. https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Flybe 94.1.96.60 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters,net isn't a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flybe_(1979–2020)&oldid=1207254570"