Jump to content

Ringy Rose

Regulars
  • Posts

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Ringy Rose last won the day on April 10

Ringy Rose had the most liked content!

About Ringy Rose

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ringy Rose's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • One Month Later
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Week One Done
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

475

Reputation

  1. EasyJet have also done that: their proposed twice daily Manchester is now daily. I've had cancellation notices through for EZY and I'm expecting more soon for some bookings I've got with both airlines in the autumn. It's almost as though the proposed frequency for both airlines was insane. I still don't quite know what you're arguing here. I'm not sure you quite know what you're arguing either. It's like you're blinded by hatred of Loganair. I find it very bizarre. I think the government have found the right balance with London: underwriting the route as startup funding for 6-12 months, then leaving the airline(s) to it. I think Heathrow will go- clearly Loganair are just babysitting slots for BA- but City will stay. Loganair fares to LCY are competitive; with luggage, the difference between LCY and LGW fares is buttons, with the bonus of LCY actually being vaguely near London. If it doesn't work I wouldn't see it as wasted money, but the funding should stop at the end of the trial. Nor would I see it as Loganair deliberately failing. They're a business, they won't fly if they're losing money, but equally they don't care where the money comes from. Not sure where the three airports you mention come into it. Carlisle shut to commercial aviation when Stobart went bust, Teesside has been a basket case for as long as I can remember, and the all-year routes to Newquay have always been under PSO contracts, even back in Flybe days when Newquay Airport changed you a tenner "facility fee" at security. ETA: posted before I saw @John Wright's post. I've said all there is to say.
  2. I didn't quote me, I quoted you, but here it is again anyway with your name on it. You said you heard the Menzies handler say there were 48 people on board. Why they'd be saying that when the crew have the manifest and the same crew operate all day is, of course, by the by. But if it is somehow true you won't need to worry yourself about Loganair for much longer.
  3. Absolutely agree, although I'm not sure how co-operative the Nunnery would have been given the ludicrous fencing they've recently been installing down there. I don't see the point of the Pulrose Bridge cycle lane, but the comments on here about how "it'll cause a crash" terrify me. These people are driving cars.
  4. You said (ignore the quote, I'm quoting you not me): It's *almost* like you're chatting complete bollocks. Still, if you're right we'll know soon enough- Manchester and Liverpool operate commercially.
  5. The LCY flights were lobbied for by the Chamber of Commerce. It wasn't a tourism thing, it was the island's existing CSPs and financial services companies wanting easy access to London. Maybe the flights aren't worth the cost, but clearly business leaders think otherwise. FWIW I don't see the point of the LHR flight and don't see it lasting.
  6. It's almost as though Jersey had the same restrictions as the UK, whereas US and Guernsey had quarantine. Plus, y'know, better weather and duty free.
  7. The funding is time-limited. If it is not commercially sustainable by then, the route will end. Like it did before- it is only back on a trial basis as the Chamber of Commerce lobbied for it. I'm genuinely at a loss to work out where the controversy is with this? So in your sample size of 1 we have a load of 48. Which as the Embraer jets seat 50, and the ATRs seat either 42 or 72, is clearly a commercial disaster. Or perhaps not, seeing as the Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester routes all operate commercially. I would ask what you'd do differently, but I'm guessing the answer is "olololol don't be Loganair I hate them!" so I don't really see the point. It's "clear" that EasyJet's business model is pile-it-high, which is why they provide erratic frequencies and erratic flight schedules, and also why they have cheap headline fares but staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. They simply don't fly if they can't sell 150 seats. Which is why they just halved their proposed Manchester frequency. As LCY is constrained to 100-seat A318 aircraft at a maximum, due to the steep approach, the pile-it-high model won't work there. Perhaps Loganair should go down the route of cheap headline fares and staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. Travelling won't be any cheaper, of course, but it might help the simpler traveller actually make a fair comparison between the two airlines.
  8. No, they're only twats when you overstay your disc by five minutes. Actually park "illegally", with the rear wheels and rear overhang of a stupid Outlander pick-up blocking up the pavement in a reverse-park space- as happens frequently on Hope St- and the wardens couldn't give a toss.
  9. It is, except there never used to be a free hour. I checked using archive.org. Still think RingGo is a problem pretending to be a solution looking for a problem.
  10. You *do* realise EasyJet have done exactly the same thing with Manchester, don't you? It's almost as though both airlines have realised the proposed frequency was insane. Source please for the pax numbers. Or are you just making it up? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, other than- yet again- professing your blind hatred for Loganair. Did they turn you down for a job or something? If LHR and LCY were already commercially sustainable someone would already be flying them commercially. As they're not, then clearly they're not. The initial start-up subsidy might give headroom to grow into a commercially sustainable operation, or it might not. If it does, hooray, we have an important link. And if it doesnt then the funding stops and clearly the LCY and LHR links aren't as important as the Chamber of Commerce say they are. And if another airline thinks Loganair are shit and *that* is why the route failed, then hey, we have OpenSkies, they can fill their boots any time they please.
  11. The biggest origins for asylum seekers to the UK are Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran and Iraq. 70% are from Syria. Travelling "directly" does not mean they cannot pass through other territories on their way. It means they cannot settle somewhere then decide to move on. The solution, though, is to deal with the problems at source. Asylum seekers are coming from some of the world's scariest countries; Syria is Syria, but Sudan and Eritrea are just as bad. Sadly, though, dealing with these countries at source is difficult and dangerous. There's no easy answer; the Syrian, Iranian and Eritrean leaders aren't going to stop torturing their citizens any time soon. It's just a good job for Priti Patel that we didn't take the same attitude to people fleeing murderous tyrants back in the 70s when her parents rocked up here after they fled Idi Amin's Uganda.
  12. High quantity users pay a commercially agreed rate with Manx Gas. Crucially the entire cost of these commercial operations now sits outside the regulatory framework- network costs, supply costs, the lot. So MG can't cross-subsidise; CURA won't let them. So the high quantity users will be paying enough to keep MG in profit. But yes, I expect these users are paying less per unit than domestic users, as the costs of supplying domestic users is usually quite a bit higher.
  13. I'd be interested to hear more from Ivan Kiely about it, that's for sure. I think he'll be an interesting speaker. Hope you get it sorted. I'd also listen to Jo Cox, even though we all know she'd be setting a new world record for lies-per-minute.
  14. The word if is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I don't think Paul Staines has ever knowingly told the truth about anything. As @John Wright suggests above, Staines is being disingenuous here too. And even if it is true, the Danish government have also repeatedly faced criticism for their immigration policies, including a previous plan to seize all the personal possessions of asylum seekers. So I'm not quite sure why Thirsty Paul thinks anyone needs to sit down.
×
×
  • Create New...