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

Privatise the Airport

Recommended Posts

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
52 minutes ago, P.K. said:

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...

When strategic national assets can not be afforded then there are only two realistic options.

#1. Privatise it and amongst other things release it from political interference and influence.

#2. Close I down.because it's unaffordable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

#2. Close I down.because it's unaffordable.

Reopen Jurby and staff it with inmates, in shackles if need be :ph34r:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rog said:

When strategic national assets can not be afforded then there are only two realistic options.

#1. Privatise it and amongst other things release it from political interference and influence.

#2. Close I down.because it's unaffordable.

The clue is in the name.

A STRATEGIC national asset is one that you can't afford to do without.

So the best you can do is keep it's costings as manageable as possible and it seems here that there is scope for improvement.

Got to say you come across just like this from earlier in the thread:

On 7/9/2019 at 6:38 PM, P.K. said:

I always prefer to look at the figures first. Unlike some who think just trilling "Privatise! Privatise!" like some demented Thatcherite is going to somehow solve all the ills at Reynoldsway.

 

Share this post


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

The clue is in the name.

A STRATEGIC national asset is one that you can't afford to do without.

So the best you can do is keep it's costings as manageable as possible and it seems here that there is scope for improvement.

Got to say you come across just like this from earlier in the thread:

 

I think this is the root of the problem " can't afford to do without" whilst true, is a safety net for sloppy management and practices as there will always be joe public to pick up the tab ! There are too many people on the island in various silos of Government who are supposed experts in the field on big salaries, who suddenly find themselves needing independent reports as to the state of what they are supposed to be running ! Airport management seemed to be experts in the field when spending huge amounts of money on some fanciful set of figures about expansion etc etc ! 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P.K. said:

The clue is in the name.

A STRATEGIC national asset is one that you can't afford to do without.

So the best you can do is keep it's costings as manageable as possible and it seems here that there is scope for improvement.

Got to say you come across just like this from earlier in the thread:

 

Well Maggie politics and principles solved the problems that had drained the lifeblood from Britain to the point where if radical surgery had not taken place the patient  would have died.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

When strategic national assets can not be afforded then there are only two realistic options.

#1. Privatise it and amongst other things release it from political interference and influence.

#2. Close I down.because it's unaffordable.

Silly Rog. It is a lifeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Alf Cannan said there were NO plans to privatise it, but set up a company effectively owned by IOMG to run it more efficiently. Is Ann Reynolds still in charge - someone suggested maybe she's not?

 

Edited by Stu Peters
Fat fingers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Alf Cannan said there were NO plans to privatise it, but set up a company effectively owned by IOMG to run it more efficiently. Is Ann Reynolds still in charge - someone suggested maybe she's not?

 

She's too busy with the role of head taster at Morgan's pies.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Alf Cannan said there were NO plans to privatise it, but set up a company effectively owned by IOMG to run it more efficiently. Is Ann Reynolds still in charge - someone suggested maybe she's not?

 

Bit like the Steam Packet. We could end up with quite a lot of these Govt-owned "satellite" companies if this is to be the solution to many ills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dilligaf said:

Silly Rog. It is a lifeline.

Fine, so it's #1then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Alf Cannan said there were NO plans to privatise it, but set up a company effectively owned by IOMG to run it more efficiently. Is Ann Reynolds still in charge - someone suggested maybe she's not?

 

So nationalize as opposed to privatize. ?  BTW, loved your bit on TH about your statue. Class and probably well deserved. Very funny :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well Maggie politics and principles solved the problems that had drained the lifeblood from Britain to the point where if radical surgery had not taken place the patient  would have died.

Lots of communities DID die.

Strange when you think the government of the day have a duty of care to ALL of their citizens.

It's almost as though the government of the day just looked out for those who voted for them and the rest could just go hang.

But, of course,  being mindful that a democracy should NEVER be a tyranny by the majority no British PM would ever let tnat happen.

Because the government of the day have a duty of care to ALL of their citizens..

Isn't that right Rog...?

  • Thanks 1

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...