Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
piebaps

Privatise the Airport

Recommended Posts

Privatise the bloody lot.  Airport, harbours, busses, trains, in fact the lot. 

 

Governments should govern, no be landlords, manage airports, manage railways, etc and your lot, just as with ours - though privatisation over here has improved efficiency and reduce costs - are demonstrably pretty much incapable of competent government let alone anything else.

Privatise the things, even at a nominal cost providing the buyer takes on the liabilities and staff and if no buyer comes forward then either shut them down or put COMPETENT management in place, which is obviously not the case at present, with a wage based on industrial good practice of a low-ish basic component and a performance related add-on component.

It would of course require a competent person in government, I just can't bring myself to call the present shower as ministers, to manage and take responsibility for the manager which might be asking a bit much, but from the benefit of the view from a distance right now it's clearly a Buggers Muddle.

AND IT'S WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY AND EATING INTO RESERVES.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To drift slightly off topic, does anyone know what qualifications, or relevant experience, Nick Black has to be heading the massive Department of Incompetence. My suspicion is that the answer is 'fuck all' which may explain why he finds himself presiding over one financial and operational disaster, after another:-

  • Airport Finances
  • Cost over-run on Liverpool Docks
  • Richmond Hill fiasco
  • Promenade refurbishment delays lack of progress
  • MER/Snaefell accidents
  • Horse tram deficits
  • Horse tram rebuild fiasco
  • Financially dubious minibus service
  • Endless unnecessary new buses

Please feel free to add to this list......................

At what point, do senior Civil Servants start to become genuinely accountable for stuff like this happening on their watch........ 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know the answer to the first question above, but IoMG and its LA subsidiaries are frequently staffed by highly qualified individuals with little practical experience and low levels of common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rog said:

Governments should govern, no be landlords, manage airports, manage railways, etc and your lot, just as with ours - though privatisation over here has improved efficiency and reduce costs - are demonstrably pretty much incapable of competent government let alone anything else.

OK Roger, this is your chance to show the huge improvement made by privatisation to, say, the UK railway system...

Don't forget to mention the stupidly complicated fare structures, the complete and utter shambles that is the timetable changes, the cost per mile compared to the rest of Europe and the rise in the accident rate due to a fall in H&S standards.

Good luck with that one!

:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

OK Roger, this is your chance to show the huge improvement made by privatisation to, say, the UK railway system...

Don't forget to mention the stupidly complicated fare structures, the complete and utter shambles that is the timetable changes, the cost per mile compared to the rest of Europe and the rise in the accident rate due to a fall in H&S standards.

Good luck with that one!

:)

The BIG one is that the users pay, not the tax payers.  It's bad enough that tax a payers have to subsidise the operating companies but at least Spanish Practices have all but been eliminated plus there's been huge improvement of the rail network.  In Europe governments massively subsidise the rail service so lower rates for the users.  That just ain't right.

You and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum where political ideology are concerned.  I totally support small government and the free market in all things.

Edited by Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to me that most of our problems have arisen from privatisation and outsourcing. Far better to pay a baggage handler 40k a year, that may get spent in the manx economy than a company 39k a year, which they will pay a baggage handler 20k a year to spend in the manx economy. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever your politics the basic premise here is the same, someone (in our case taxpayers) pay the salaries of "top" managers in the field to oversee the running of an airport ! Clearly the running has been reported as leaving something to be desired ! in which case politics aside questions need to be asked !

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:55 AM, bankerboy said:
On 7/11/2019 at 1:30 AM, Roger Mexico said:

(Incidentally I'm not sure to where that last sentence about the fall in income refers to by 'later'.  Any ideas?)

Roger, reading between the lines, I suspect it is linked to variable yields from EasyJet,  

On reflection, I'm not quite sure it is.  The report is referring specifically to the fall in 2017/18 from the previous year.  The variable yields are indeed something worth looking at, but as your longer quote illustrates that's a longer term thing over a decade, as easyJet increased their share of the market.  The change between 2016/17 and 2017/18 was only around a couple of points - they were already around 40%.  Unless there was a further downward negotiation of per passenger charges to easyJet it doesn't explain the big drop in income from  £5,690,949 to £4,864,507 between those two years.

In fact I'm not sure what is going on in table 3.1 at all.  There's also a substantial drop in the payroll (£8,465,259 to £6,447,884), presumably because of the privatisation of the security and baggage handling[1], but also a fall in in Supplies & Services from £2,164,708 to £1,704,30, which you would expect to rise if they are paying directly for the privatised services.  But if the airlines are paying directly for these services, then why does it say the per pax charges haven't gone down?  And why does it say elsewhere that the Airport is paying for the extra security staff if it is now between the airlines and Menzies?  

Thinking about it, I wonder is the DoI insisted on York Aviation dropping the paragraph that explained it all before the report was finalised - rather than redacting it because then presumably at least some politicians would see it.  As with so many government reports it's what not there that is most informative - and in this case there's a lot.

 

[1]  The 2016/17 figure is very high historically and I wonder if it includes redundancy costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the detail however in my simple mind the discussion is a little neater.

1. Do we need an airport?

2. Assuming we do, do we have the PAX numbers to make it a commercial success?

3. If we do, crack on and let an experienced operator take it over. If its capable of profit, there'll be a queue.

4. If we don't then the operation has to be funded by the taxpayer.

If the taxpayer funds it, then there's no reason at all why the operation can't deliver on all the points in the report.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

On reflection, I'm not quite sure it is.  The report is referring specifically to the fall in 2017/18 from the previous year.  The variable yields are indeed something worth looking at, but as your longer quote illustrates that's a longer term thing over a decade, as easyJet increased their share of the market.  The change between 2016/17 and 2017/18 was only around a couple of points - they were already around 40%.  Unless there was a further downward negotiation of per passenger charges to easyJet it doesn't explain the big drop in income from  £5,690,949 to £4,864,507 between those two years.

In fact I'm not sure what is going on in table 3.1 at all.  There's also a substantial drop in the payroll (£8,465,259 to £6,447,884), presumably because of the privatisation of the security and baggage handling[1], but also a fall in in Supplies & Services from £2,164,708 to £1,704,30, which you would expect to rise if they are paying directly for the privatised services.  But if the airlines are paying directly for these services, then why does it say the per pax charges haven't gone down?  And why does it say elsewhere that the Airport is paying for the extra security staff if it is now between the airlines and Menzies?  

Thinking about it, I wonder is the DoI insisted on York Aviation dropping the paragraph that explained it all before the report was finalised - rather than redacting it because then presumably at least some politicians would see it.  As with so many government reports it's what not there that is most informative - and in this case there's a lot.

 

[1]  The 2016/17 figure is very high historically and I wonder if it includes redundancy costs.

But isn't security paid by the airport (which then levy an onward charge to the airline per PAX, if at all) ? And baggage handling and apron services charged direct to the airline?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andy Onchan said:

But isn't security paid by the airport (which then levy an onward charge to the airline per PAX, if at all) ? And baggage handling and apron services charged direct to the airline?

I don't know is the answer.  But the figures don't really make sense either way.  If that were true and the £2 million drop in payroll includes security then services should have gone up.  I suspect there a tremendous mess being covered up here, arising from poor management and badly-drawn up contracts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know is the answer.  But the figures don't really make sense either way.  If that were true and the £2 million drop in payroll includes security then services should have gone up.  I suspect there a tremendous mess being covered up here, arising from poor management and badly-drawn up contracts.

Methinks that if there is shortfall for billing services to the airlines by the airport (for security in particular) then I might suggest that could be deliberate, in the respect of an inducement for the airlines to keep routes open. If that's the case then the books will never balance!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

It would appear to me that most of our problems have arisen from privatisation and outsourcing. Far better to pay a baggage handler 40k a year, that may get spent in the manx economy than a company 39k a year, which they will pay a baggage handler 20k a year to spend in the manx economy. 

I can't say what the contractual terms are in the case of (for example) baggage handlers at the Airport are but I do know that over here semi-skilled labourers on long term contract are usually supplied with a mark-up of around 7.5% max on gross wages with other expenses incurred charged at cost or cost plus 2.5% at most.  The workers are motivated to do a good job or be replaced and they know it.  The other expenses would have to be paid anyway.  If any other terms have been agreed then someone needs to be picked up by the ears and given a severe shaking.  (For a few years after retiring I ran a recruitment and contract staff supply agency) (Very successfully)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rog said:

The BIG one is that the users pay, not the tax payers.  It's bad enough that tax a payers have to subsidise the operating companies but at least Spanish Practices have all but been eliminated plus there's been huge improvement of the rail network.  In Europe governments massively subsidise the rail service so lower rates for the users.  That just ain't right.

You and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum where political ideology are concerned.  I totally support small government and the free market in all things.

Politics has nothing to do with it.

I simply don't agree with strategic national assets being privatised. 

Ronaldsway fits right in that category. Some low level activities that require little or no training then ok, outsource them and make a saving on having easily replaceable non-public servants doing the job.

Also they could save a bit on their electricity bills by getting rid of that fucking stupid noisy helicopter ride before I do it for them!

However it's clear the airport has management "issues" that need to be addressed  - like getting a grip of their financials and having real-world projections...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...