woolley Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Perhaps IOM should throw it's hat into the ring with Guernsey (Aurigny) and operate concurrent services from both ends into Gatwick and other regional airports utilising the Aurigny ATR's: Stay on the aircraft if you're going to the final destination or get off if you need to terminate in London or some other regional airport. IOM could share the airport slot costs. You should be in Tynwald with sensible ideas like that. I commend it to the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I think Woolley the point is that whilst the airport was spending est. 50 odd million on making itself large no one had their eye on what it was actually supposed to be for, the feeding frenzy of development has left us with services which don't really meet our needs particularly those of business. Had someone had their finger on the pulse maybe some of that massive sum of cash could have been used as some form of development fund ensuring that our vital links were maintained, instead we wished to play at being an "international hub" to quote the buzz phrase of the time FFS we can't even get to London when we need to ! Take your point. I obviously agree about the wasted millions. How would we have spent that fund though? I cannot say I have the answers I don't, but some cash should have been used to ensure what the airport actually should provide it really does. I don't see trying to ensure operators can function financially on routes which do not benefit them but hugely benefit us is much different to the user agreement at sea. All I know is the airport now handles very few passengers in fact about the same as ten years ago but we now do not have the services of ten years ago, progress I think not ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The airport building was a 70s mess and not somewhere nice to use, now it is something we can be proud of. The passenger figures are a result of the global downturn, not because we spent millions making the place better. Who knew that the banking crisis that sparked the whole thing was going to happen? Hindsight is wonderful but I belive that the investments in the main were both needed and although costly, will see the island right for many years to come, its not like we can un-spend the money. At the end of the day we now have a modern, aviation rules compliant, airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The airport building was a 70s mess and not somewhere nice to use, now it is something we can be proud of. The passenger figures are a result of the global downturn, not because we spent millions making the place better. Who knew that the banking crisis that sparked the whole thing was going to happen? Hindsight is wonderful but I belive that the investments in the main were both needed and although costly, will see the island right for many years to come, its not like we can un-spend the money. At the end of the day we now have a modern, aviation rules compliant, airport. It was a 50's mess actually. And where were the other 7 gates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 From the report: "60. We agree with the analysis of Aim2Fly An analysis of the recent involvement of easyJet on the Liverpool and Gatwick routes demonstrates that, so far, there has been benefit to the Isle of Man and its Airport. Air traffic has increased markedly (at a time of recession and downturn) in both markets; there has been no reduction in overall frequency of flights serving these markets, fares have reduced and passengers have more choice. Moreover, the easyJet market penetration has opened up new opportunities for the Island." Yes, but that will not be the case when we lose the regularity Flybe provide to Gatwick, will it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 But we'd be losing Flybe to Gatwick anyway I reckon, so would we be better without Easyjet to Gatwick too, even if it's only once a day? I can't imagine Flybe keeping Gatwick on just for us, really I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Don't Easyjet already do a 07:20-ish flight from Liverpool to IoM a few days a week anyway? Surely we could ask them to route this flight onwards to Gatwick from here at around an 08:30am departure, which would serve the business community. Not an ideal time but if it gets you to an 11am meeting in central London it's better than nothing. As for getting home...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 But we'd be losing Flybe to Gatwick anyway I reckon, so would we be better without Easyjet to Gatwick too, even if it's only once a day? I can't imagine Flybe keeping Gatwick on just for us, really I can't.The point is that yes, we have benefited from the arrival of Easyjet on the Gatwick route - over the last year or so. But, that has come at a cost which we will start to pay next April. Had Easyjet not been encouraged on to the route, it is likely that Flybe would have been in a position to continue profitably without the need to sell the slots there. When Flybe gave evidence to the Open Skies Committee, they were never going to say that they supported anything other than Open Skies, they couldn't, not with their on going 'engagements' with the Guernsey legislature. It would have been hypocrisy. Would they have accepted being the benefactor of a policy that saw them given exclusivity - well, go on then, if you insist. Also, they were never going to admit that the reason they were withdraw from Gatwick was because of a loss of revenue to another carrier, much easier to blame rising operating overheads outside of your control. Having read through most of the report, the bulk of which has already been reported via Hansard over the past year or so, it is obvious that the Committee can see the perils of the Open Skies Policy, but think that it is too difficult implement a system of regulation at this time. We have enjoyed the benefits of the Open Skies Policy up till now, we are about to pay a heavy price for it though. The recommendations that the Government investigate how a regulatory system could be implemented, and asking the Government to effectively consider establishing it's own Airline by way of a franchise arrangement - are encouraging. Slots will always be available if the right price is offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The airport building was a 70s mess and not somewhere nice to use, now it is something we can be proud of. The passenger figures are a result of the global downturn, not because we spent millions making the place better. Who knew that the banking crisis that sparked the whole thing was going to happen? Hindsight is wonderful but I belive that the investments in the main were both needed and although costly, will see the island right for many years to come, its not like we can un-spend the money. At the end of the day we now have a modern, aviation rules compliant, airport. It was a 50's mess actually. And where were the other 7 gates? 7 gates? You have lost me there Woolley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yin & Yang Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 At the old Ronaldsway it only ever had gate 8... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Blade Runner, don't you remember Gate 8 ? Doors slammed shut in front of you as you arrived so that departing passengers could be separated, and don't forget the tea trolley in departures...... those were the days !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 At the old Ronaldsway it only ever had gate 8... Thanks Y&Y IC now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I am ok - spend less than 90 days" line which, as you know is long gone/never actually existed. Perhaps it didn't exist but they still want to know your four year rolling average in their tax return plus the number of visits. I think the "real rules" are concerned with where you really have attachments to the UK whatever they may be. Kids at school there and a wife who stays in a house you own when you come to the island to work are likely much more important than a year's average. 183 day rule is cast in stone though as in many other countries like France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Can you still fly to Luton? It's only half an hour on the train from there to St Pancras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 Who says tax shouldn't be taxing ;-) These are the rules. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/179209/statutory_residence_test.pdf.pdf Explained here. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-updates/11dec12/stat-res-test-note.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.