manxman8180

Only needs a majority in Keys though (the magic 13) to exercise an effective vote of no confidence in the CM. I doubt there is sufficient cohesion within this alternative group though.......yet.

You realise, of course, that published charges likely have little resemblance to the actual fees paid for the services / routes that an Airport wants. Exactly the same at IoM Airport - often used as one of the few levers / incentives / disincentives to support the 'desired' route network and frequency etc. I suspect for HIAL as well, they will seek to run the Airports as a commercial operation - with operating subsidy coming through other mechanism (subvention / underwriting from Transport Scotland). Separation of operation and policy makes sense (sometimes!).

Whilst not doubting the spirit of your argument - Government is too big - but at least compare like for like. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/march2023 There is around 2 million employed by UK NHS alone. 5.83m in public sector employment out of 32m or so total employed. So over 18%......still lower, but if you then consider how many other services are privatised in the UK versus nationalised on the IoM - there would likely be little difference at all. Still too many, I agree, but let's at least try to be more realistic.

To steal from the late Sean Lock......that's a challenging wank!

https://www.gov.im/categories/working-in-the-isle-of-man/employment-rights/minimum-wage scroll down.....

Correct on the first part. So a Visa application for the IoM will be assessed against the IoM Rules. Now some of these will be similar / the same, but for work and business the IoM has different requirements - and the application is made through the UKVI online system (so some of the basic checks are undertaken at that point) but then the application ends up in the IoM and a decision made in the IoM. Visa issued - this allows entry to the IoM (which of course involves entry through the UK Border and then they are inside the CTA. For IoM Work Visas they can't use that to work in the UK, but they are free (within the CTA) to travel etc.

You are usually very well informed and I enjoy your posts....but I suggest you look closer at the differences, specifically those for workers and business. There are significant differences in terms of the roles covered, salary rates etc....including the absolute minimum. The suggestion that entry to the Isle of Man is dependent on UK rules (and thresholds etc.) is wholly incorrect.

Although it isn't correct in the sense suggested in this thread a few times. Yes, the Border is the CTA (so UK or Eire etc.) where any physical / digital check takes place on a person's right to enter. But the decision to issue a Visa for certain routes is taken in the IoM, against the requirements of the IoM Rules at the time. So can someone 'enter' the IoM for work on a lesser salary threshold than the UK - the answer is unequivocally yes. Are they subject to the same requirements (i.e. Health Surcharge)? - No. Does the IoM have to follow the new UK rules (salary, surcharge, dependents on certain visas etc.) - it's a No again.....

Or rather not indeed at all. IoM has it's own Immigration Rules and in respect of workers etc - there are some fundamental differences to the UK equivalent routes.

I wouldn't be so sure.....fat lady only just started warming up on this one yet.

I'm not suggesting it wasn't listed as you posted - but Loganair won't be paying the 'published' passenger departure fee. Same for any scheduled passenger flights..... Standard practice at pretty much every airport, discounts based on which route, volume, timings etc - although not sure on how finessed IoM Airport's approach will be - but fees will be discounted, in some cases very heavily.

No regular passenger aircraft will be charged the full pax rate - so EZY, LA, Emerald etc. And they won't pay landing charges either - so the revenue to the airport is way under what 'published' charges might suggest. APD into Treasury coffers..... Small charge, collected by Airport, managed properly (😀) and ring fenced for specific improvements could be actively considered. If there was transparency, a clear project (or projects) which were well communicated and people could actually see the benefits / improvements - I argue that would be a better situation than at present.

I don't happen to think this is a controversial idea at all. In fact, as you say, I think if there was a clear plan laid out which talked to improving / expanding the departure lounge and facilities, upgrading ILS, upgrading security scanners, recruiting a bigger ATC workforce and so on (there is probably much more) and said - this is going to cost £Xm over the next 3 years and as such we will levy £x onto each Departing pax......and look to generate £xm from car parking etc. I think that would at least be an honest way of approaching it. It would prevent things being drop fed in (random parking charge order etc). Ultimately, the principle should be the passenger pays - in the short term that might needs more direct revenue through an additional departure tax - then on an ongoing basis annual costs are met through standard passenger charges passed through by the airline.

That shows they have? - No Sunday afternoon flight, only evening - that's what the post above said.....

This comment on the article was rather amusing though: Not quite sure David has worked out the whole internet thing....although he did shout it again at the end to make sure his desire to remain anonymous was clear

This. Do not be fobbed off with a transfer to the EZY LPL route or a refund and then leaving it down to you to rebook (unless either suits you of course!). EZY should cover the costs of alternative flights to the same destination - regardless of whether it's within 2 weeks or not.

Yes, you really are.

Exactly. Easy to say I know......however, if I was a TT competitor involved in a 160+mph crash.....decapitation would likely be a better alternative than some of the other possibilities.

I suppose it emphasises it was quick.....nay instant. If we accept that the TT has inherent danger, of which the riders and their families are fully aware, why then do we object to the details of incidents being in the public domain??

Excellent. Well, I'm glad the IoM taxpayer subsidy for MR is keeping fans in the USA happy. Hardly a way to win over the doubters that is it......

I think you believe wrong. They bought the Arrow didn't they???

So you expect someone to make all the capital investment, crew the ships, maintain them, cover the costs of loading / unloading etc....... And then let someone else just collect the cash?? Yeah, I can see operators crawling all over that concept. They have just carried out an expressions of interest. Would be good to see who exactly threw their hat in the ring......as I've said before I'd take a bet that none of the other established Irish Sea operators were among them ( other than the SP of course)......

You can milk a goose??

Who were they before MB?

Just in the interests of balance....... DOI set the spec, carry out a tender and award the contract. Said contractor cocks something up, which is picked up during the delivery phase. Said contractor told to fix it at their cost. Isn't that how things work on construction / civil works. Yes, first time, on time etc.....but reality sucks at times. And it should be a factor when considering future tenders as to how previous contractors have performed, but what else could the DoI have done in this case. The comments about not picking it up earlier are conjecture as we have to rely on pub gossip for 'knowing' when it went wrong. And to re-balance my attempt at balance.........I think the Peel Road works are a complete clusterfuck, piecemeal, patchwork absolute farce of a project which must be a complete waste of resources the way it has been done. It just looks like they are doing, redoing moving, coming back, temp surfaces..........