Andy Onchan

I see that MR Statement of Programming Policy (as agreed with the IOM Communications Commission) expired 31.03.2016. http://www.manxradio.com/about-us/statement-of-programme-policy/ Does that mean it's operating illegally?

That's what I said earlier in the thread. To sustain a service operators will require some support.

Stobart are as likely to walk away from IOM as any other airline if they can't make it pay. However Stobart's haven't over-reached themselves be aiming to be the premiere regional UK service and started flying from all kinds of far flung destinations. They just fly select routes that they can make some money from. The Isle of Man will make an airline some money if it did it correctly. My guess is that any routes they or any other operator to/from IOM would need is to have some form of support similar to the ferry agreement. The open skies policy hasn't worked. It should therefore come out of the Enterprise Fund and not go to friends of friends. There is nothing more important to an island's economy than it's transport links. Absolutely agree about your last sentence. However, it should not be necessary for any money to change hands to get what is required.

Stobart are as likely to walk away from IOM as any other airline if they can't make it pay. However Stobart's haven't over-reached themselves be aiming to be the premiere regional UK service and started flying from all kinds of far flung destinations. They just fly select routes that they can make some money from. The Isle of Man will make an airline some money if it did it correctly. My guess is that any routes they or any other operator to/from IOM would need is to have some form of support similar to the ferry agreement. The open skies policy hasn't worked.

Stobart are as likely to walk away from IOM as any other airline if they can't make it pay.

From The Times this morning: Everything that could go wrong is going wrong for the regional airline Flybe, which says a tough aviation market will send it into the red, even without other issues to spook investors. In a statement before the close of its financial year tomorrow, Flybe said that its online offering was not what it could be and it has issues with software and IT contracts which will take up to £10 million off profits. Even before that, Flybe was going to make “a small loss”. The news sent the airline’s already depressed share price down more than 5 per cent before it recovered to close 50p down at £42.50. For a company that has used its fair share of excuses over the years Flybe’s statement was vintage. “The [fourth- quarter] period has been characterised by weak demand in an uncertain consumer environment, together with price competition arising from overcapacity amongst airlines and sharpened price activity from rail operators,” it said. “Weather related and operational cancellations, as well as industrial action, mainly by French air traffic controllers, also impacted revenue.” Saad Hammad quit as chief executive in the autumn after three years of what Flybe billed as “a major transformation”. It then announced a 70 per cent plunge in pre-tax profits at the half year to £7 million. The statement continued: “Flybe is planning a major upgrade to its core systems, which will significantly improve the customer experience and allow greater ecommerce. A full review of software assets and IT contracts is expected to result in additional cost and non-cash writedowns, which could impact profit by around £5 million to £10 million. Excluding this, adjusted profit before tax for the year ended March 31 is expected to be a small loss.” Christine Ourmières-Widener, chief executive, said that she remained “very excited about the opportunities in Flybe”. Announcing plans to reduce its fleet of 85 aircraft, Ms Ourmières-Widener said: “We must first rebuild some of our core systems and this is now starting. “We shall continue to reduce costs, work with our partners to improve efficiency and stop unprofitable flying.” Oh dear... could reduced number of aircraft = reduced number of flights to/from IOM?? IMO DED should be seriously worried about this.

Thing is John.... how much influence does IOMSPCo have with Peel Ports to insist on regular dredging? The build up silt has been known about for some years and it seems to be getting worse to the extent that IOMSPCo has to arrange it's schedule to fit in with Peel Ports inability to do something about it. I recall being on the Ben about 7 years ago when it got stuck on a sand/silt bank on the entrance to the harbour, we had to wait 2 hours before there was sufficient draft to float off it. And so it goes on....

Trump = obnoxious..... the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind with Boyle as the author. Difference being that one is a comedian (irrelevant of whether he is to your taste or not) and one is occupying the highest office in the land (of the US)... Boyle's a comedian?

Trump = obnoxious..... the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind with Boyle as the author.

And Nostrodamus no doubt.

Loon? I didnae have you down as Aberdonian. scottardHe is, I'm not.

Double post

Loon? I didnae have you down as Aberdonian.

Yes, I thought I remembered reading about this last year... it's nowt new and he actually had some support from the centre (or should that be center!) ground Republicans as I recall.

I run my own business which affords me the time to log on here whenever/wherever I want. It's the flexibility that working hard when I was younger gave me. I didn't get too preoccupied with ideals and things going on in the wider world I couldn't do anything about. Try it, I can guarantee it will enrich you. If you say so...but then Woolley has the same back story for his character... Amazing innit? Two successful businessmen on the Island. Who'd have thought it? three ETA: I didn't get where I am... etc!

No he is doing what he said he would do, but not in the way he said he would. Yes, he's building a wall...but the American taxpayer is paying for it, it will cost anywhere upto 4-5 times what he said it would cost, and he has no sensible way of making Mexico pay for it. Yes, he is banning Muslims, but not from majority Muslim countries that he does business with. He promised a lot, but is peddling snake oil all the while. It has to be admitted that Trump's ham-fisted and inarticulate way of putting his point over doesn't do him any favours. As far as the Muslim issue is concerned it seems to me that the Administration are using existing laws to restrict/refuse entry to USA. As at January 2016 there were 23 "recalcitrant" countries and Yemen is the only country that I can see that needs adding to the list. Frankly linking this to his business interests to this is a red herring.

Well, he's done most of what he said he would do..... why does it come as a surprise to some people? Heavens above... a politician honouring his pledges. Whatever next?

Imagine if the UK had banned Irish people from Britain. People forget today how dreadful those IRA gangs were - especially in the 70s and early 80s before they switched to more economic targets. They killed a lot of people in Britain. Do you believe it would have made any difference or been right if the UK had excluded Irish people? Is there a Mexican nationalist terrorist organisation bombing in USA to gain independence? No comparison.

I think you're jumping the gun.

any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! How do you know that IOMSA haven't taken account of the tidal conditions? IOMSA has already posted on here so is obviously keeping abreast of feelings on this issue, so if he could come back on and clarify yes or no would be great !! I'll have a grand bet with you now Andy ,that I and most Douglas Butties know more about the Area behind Douglas Head and it's tides than Mark Robershaw .Lars Ugland and Terry Toohey combined !! Why would I take a bet with you when neither you or I know if IOMSA have done their technical due diligence? Hence my question. And yes, it would be useful if IOMSA can at least confirm that some technical due diligence has been carried out.

One day fella.... one day!

The Francis Frith Collection has 71 photos of Victorian/Edwardian Port Erin. And as far as I can see the breakwater wasn't of a particularly large construction. But I agree, why this proposed project should be Douglas centric should be questioned. Someone mentioned Peel before.

any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! How do you know that IOMSA haven't taken account of the tidal conditions?

The estimated economic benefit to Orkney was £7m in 2016, the total cost of their berth was £29m (original in 2002 and then extension in 2013) The deep water berth will not cost "hundreds of millions" and its expected lifespan is 100 years. The £50m includes an estimate for shore-side infrastructure modifications, and is only an estimate based on feasibility study designs, not the final design. As stated, the business case detailing ownership/funding/revenues has to stack up, and this is the next step. If the project gets the go-ahead based on a sound business case, and for whatever reason the assumptions in the business case do not materialise over the longer term, there is still the option to sell the asset, as clearly it is moveable and it has 100 year design life. This also mitigates the financial risk. Can we just stand back for a second an take in what is being proposed here A 170 meter linkspan to a floating pontoon anchored on the outside of the current breakwater, this structure will then have ships from 20,000 to 60,000 tons berthed alongside If you consider the structure in isolation it may make sense, but when you put in in the context of the location it is a ludicrous proposal Anyone unfamiliar with conditions in that area should take a drive to the breakwater and park above the old coastguard stores On the surface it holds the biggest swells between here & Langness, the reasons being that there is a large reef which rises up in line with the lighthouse and pushes up the sea being driven toward it by the prevailing wind. These conditions are amplified when the tide ebbs and runs into the oncoming swell There is a tidal range of up to 10 meters and swells there frequently make 7 metres, The tidal flow exceeds 6 knots on a spring Oil & gas rig technology could be used to place a structure in this area with no problems, trying to berth a ship alongside it in adverse conditions would be a prospect only the skipper of the Costa Concordia would contemplate. There is also the scenario of berthing alongside it in calm conditions the morning and discharging the passengers then having to leave the berth when the wind gets up and having the passengers re-embark by ships boat back in the bay All of must have seen footage of rig support vessels trying to supply oil rigs in open water, a highly dangerous task. My background is rooted in the Manx tourist industry, my great grandparents came here and bought a hotel on the prom over 100 years ago, my grandparents, parents and parents in-law all had hotels. My own restaurants derived around 30% of their turnover from visitors I have a lot of faith in the Island as a tourist destination, but this scheme, in this location is ill advised and will make us a laughing stock When you say "this location is ill advised", what other location have you in mind?

Out of the same stable.... the offer's there for all to see. He just happens pick up on it (pussy grabbing or not). Causality.