Airport.

[NoTailT]

9 hours ago, snowman said:

If business demand is insufficient for it to operate without subsidy then I suggest questions are asked about the state of business on the isle of man and the fare prices.

 

If the government are going to pay airlines, they might as well give Ryanair a bucket of money. At least the fares would be cheaper and the passenger numbers would increase 

Ryanair subsidies by airports for launching a handful of routes historically would likely be less than we've thrown at Loganair. That is the sad reality.

How can any department determine to throw away millions in taxpayers cash without Tynwald approval anyway?

Edited November 29, 2022 by NoTailT

[asitis]

Lo cost carriers here are not the answer, they may appear to be the maidens prayer to the travelling public, but to the airport they are toxic in terms of revenue and the undermining of all other carriers. The lo cost business model is suited to large airports with large passenger numbers and alternative ways of raising revenue i.e. Shopping, dining etc.

Easy jet are fine for the travelling public but not good for the taxpayers, as if we want alternative services and destinations we end up having to pay anyway.

[swoopy2110]

So what's going on down there this morning?!

90 min delays on both flights

[Ringy Rose]

Just now, swoopy2110 said:

So what's going on down there this morning?!

90 min delays on both flights

De-icing I'd imagine, it's cold.

[Ringy Rose]

50 minutes ago, asitis said:

Easy jet are fine for the travelling public but not good for the taxpayers, as if we want alternative services and destinations we end up having to pay anyway.

Easyjet hoover up people with a 180-seat aircraft that regional airlines can't with 70-seat aircraft, but because they have a big plane they fly less frequently. EasyJet continue to be the reason why a daily Belfast flight hasn't happened, its hard to compete with the weekend capacity-dumping.

I wouldn't mind, but once you add any sort of luggage EasyJet aren't really any cheaper.

If the Heathrow flight can't run without subsidy then I'd let it die tbh. I'm not sure about City, but I think it's important for patient transfer purposes; a friend is regularly at GOSH with their kid, and EasyJet is useless for that.

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Easyjet hoover up people with a 180-seat aircraft that regional airlines can't with 70-seat aircraft, but because they have a big plane they fly less frequently. EasyJet continue to be the reason why a daily Belfast flight hasn't happened, its hard to compete with the weekend capacity-dumping.

I wouldn't mind, but once you add any sort of luggage EasyJet aren't really any cheaper.

If the Heathrow flight can't run without subsidy then I'd let it die tbh. I'm not sure about City, but I think it's important for patient transfer purposes; a friend is regularly at GOSH with their kid, and EasyJet is useless for that.

I agree on Heathrow.

Problem is, Loganair will play the same card they've played twice already: If you don't support this, we will pull one of our aircraft from the Island and use it elsewhere.

[asitis]

20 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

De-icing I'd imagine, it's cold.

Fog I think.

[asitis]

25 minutes ago, swoopy2110 said:

So what's going on down there this morning?!

90 min delays on both flights

Fog in the UK

[IOM]

10 hours ago, snowman said:

If business demand is insufficient for it to operate without subsidy then I suggest questions are asked about the state of business on the isle of man and the fare prices.

 

If the government are going to pay airlines, they might as well give Ryanair a bucket of money. At least the fares would be cheaper and the passenger numbers would increase 

And what frequency are you proposing for these Ryanair flights ? 

[snowman]

17 minutes ago, IOM said:

And what frequency are you proposing for these Ryanair flights ? 

I won't enter into this hypothetical response since I was not being realistic in my post about Ryanair 

[Ringy Rose]

31 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Problem is, Loganair will play the same card they've played twice already: If you don't support this, we will pull one of our aircraft from the Island and use it elsewhere.

Edinburgh is flown from Scotland and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham can all be flown with one aircraft. So yes, if all the London flights are pulled, they will only need one aircraft here. That is just a fact.

The question is whether the London City flights are worth subsidising/underwriting. I think they probably are.

I don't see anyone else coming in to fly the City route. Flybe showed the financial reality of the situation when they pulled the IOM flights to do Newcastle flights instead.

[IOM]

7 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Edinburgh is flown from Scotland and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham can all be flown with one aircraft. So yes, if all the London flights are pulled, they will only need one aircraft here. That is just a fact.

The question is whether the London City flights are worth subsidising/underwriting. I think they probably are.

I don't see anyone else coming in to fly the City route. Flybe showed the financial reality of the situation when they pulled the IOM flights to do Newcastle flights instead.

Except the data consistently shows that more people are flying to Heathrow on one flight a day than the two flights a day to London City . 

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Edinburgh is flown from Scotland and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham can all be flown with one aircraft. So yes, if all the London flights are pulled, they will only need one aircraft here. That is just a fact.

The question is whether the London City flights are worth subsidising/underwriting. I think they probably are.

I don't see anyone else coming in to fly the City route. Flybe showed the financial reality of the situation when they pulled the IOM flights to do Newcastle flights instead.

There’s are real issues with one aircraft and so many routes. Only one can be a red eye, any delay or tech leads to all being screwed, no resilience.

As for London, we should be able to support 3 - 5 a day to 2 airports. We’ve got to decide whether that’s LHR or LCY or LGW. It’s different markets. 

For London as a destination/business in London I prefer City. For onward cheap budget links I prefer Gatwick. If I was doing long haul onward connections it’s Heathrow. 

That being said for cheap budget onwards and London access Stansted is good, as is Luton with the new direct rail link.

I know I assess from a chair user point of view. LGW to Victoria is not the best, need staff member and ramps at each end. Stansted Liverpool Street is level and no gap and straight onto Elizabeth Line - which is the same. City is OK. Heathrow is hard work.

[Cascarino]

10 minutes ago, IOM said:

Except the data consistently shows that more people are flying to Heathrow on one flight a day than the two flights a day to London City . 

The City route would have been great as it gave an opportunity for a day trip with savings on a London hotel stay, but between airline and ATC staff shortages it has been unreliable and not worth the risk. They need to run it effectively for a few months to ensure an increase in passengers.

[Ringy Rose]

22 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There’s are real issues with one aircraft and so many routes. Only one can be a red eye, any delay or tech leads to all being screwed, no resilience.

Absolutely, but in the current climate having spare aircraft sitting around costs money that airlines don't want to spend. The bigger airlines can juggle things around but smaller airlines don't have the resilience. 

As we've seen recently, if either of the Loganair ATR72s goes tech then flights get cancelled or delayed. Having two aircraft means they can prioritise the Liverpool patient transfer flight, at least. But if there aren't the London flights to justify the second ATR72 then it will be moved somewhere else.

Interesting that Heathrow has higher loads than City. I suppose it doesn't help that transfers at Manchester continue to be a shitshow.