Pat Ayres Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 You can land an aircraft of your own, hold up other aircraft waiting to land and take off for safety reasons and get to park it on the perimeter, use re-fueling facilities and the buildings and services for £38:80p??? Scandalous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Well here we go, the new scales of charges have been released, interestingly after the money was granted ! the charges for visiting light aircraft have over doubled !! another death knell for what little tourism we have here. A light single now costs bout £38.80 + handling to land, increased from £18.60 ? Stu knows about this sort of thing, hope he can get her back to ask her why and why not released on the 1st April as in every other year ? Flybe cheapie return Luton to IoM for £10.58 (Sat-Tues) isn't too bad (maybe the threat of competition working), but this goes up to £69.98 (£70) with airport taxes and charges. A similar Sat-Tues cheapy return Luton to Brest is £19.98 (£20) with taxes and charges. With a couple flying the difference pays for car rental for a long weekend break - plus some. Maybe the idea is to build a big runway to attract Ryannair who would then force down these charges so that IoM becomes a more competitive destination? But I very much doubt Ryannair or any other airline would put one of their 737-800s on this thin route in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 You can land an aircraft of your own, hold up other aircraft waiting to land and take off for safety reasons and get to park it on the perimeter, use re-fueling facilities and the buildings and services for £38:80p??? Scandalous. Biggles helmet on then! I haven't seen the charges (I'm on holiday - woot!) but I don't think we have enough light aircraft visiting for it to make much of a difference. A trip over water (I used to fly over for weekends when I lived in Manchester) is an expensive enough adventure that £20 isn't likely to put you off. If we were across the water it might deter the casual flyers just wanting to go somewhere for a brew and a butty. Usually 'local' and regular aircraft get a discount of some sort anyway. As to Skrappey's post - nonsense I'm afraid. We PPL's are the ones usually (and rightly) who are inconvenienced for the sake of the transport operators and instructed to orbit or hold short of the runways while the scheduled flights arrive or depart. Landing fees across average around £10 (big international airports are usually much dearer) and in much of Europe and the USA they're free - after all, an itty bitty Cessna isn't wearing the tarmac out, or using staff or resources that aren't already there and paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Well here we go, the new scales of charges have been released, interestingly after the money was granted ! the charges for visiting light aircraft have over doubled !! another death knell for what little tourism we have here. A light single now costs bout £38.80 + handling to land, increased from £18.60 ? Stu knows about this sort of thing, hope he can get her back to ask her why and why not released on the 1st April as in every other year ? she might have been afraid people would think it was a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Economic climate should delay promontory. Peter Karran wants to know why the construction of a promontory into the sea at Ronaldsway airport hasn't been deferred or cancelled. So do I please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Well here we go again, must confess have lost interest in trying to put a case to sway the spending excesses of the airport, just waiting to sit back and say I told you so. The new car park at some ridiculous cost has yet to have a car parked on it and whilst I acknowledge that it was probably going to be needed in the future it certainly is not now. The tower is very grandiose for an airport of this size and some other much less cost option could have been formulated with an equally good improvement to operational needs. As to the extension, the much lauded business case is and always was fanciful at best, and when shot full of holes by some common sense was quietly retired and safety used as the driver. Two simple questions for the CM and the directress 1. When do the CAA intend to make the increased RESA lengths mandatory ? 2. What type of aircraft that do not currently use Ronaldsway can we expect to be flying here and to what additional destinations ? Money could have been far better spent from the outset never mind now !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 What type of aircraft that do not currently use Ronaldsway can we expect to be flying here and to what additional destinations ? A sunny day at "New Ronaldsway International Airport" I can't see which airline will want to fly in anything much larger than what we have got now - are EasyJet or Ryanair likely to come here? One thing is plane size another is passenger numbers and load factors. Maybe the occasional outbound charter flight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I can't help feeling that this affair is a bit like a little man having a penis extension! He thinks he's going to pull better birds but the fact is he has nothing much to offer them other than his huge member, so once they find that out, he's left playing with himself and regretting all that money he spent for no gain, or just going back cap in hand to all his old reliable girlfriends!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Look at the size of runway they have on Ascension Island compared to its land mass and population, and they only have a few flights a week. If we make ours even bigger maybe we could be an alternative landing strip for the space shuttle and be home to a US military air base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I wonder if this is the company who are doing the rock job, with their side-tipping ships, currently doing sea defences at Felixtowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 'I can't help feeling that this affair is a bit like a little man having a penis extension!'......but the Directress hasn't got one to extend........surely not!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I can't help feeling that this affair is a bit like a little man having a penis extension! He thinks he's going to pull better birds but the fact is he has nothing much to offer them other than his huge member, so once they find that out, he's left playing with himself and regretting all that money he spent for no gain, or just going back cap in hand to all his old reliable girlfriends!! An interesting and perhaps poignant analogy considering the general financial situation. Tony and his pals have been on a hell bent 'spend, spend, spend' mission this last 10 years or so: New Hospital, MEA (various), IRIS (those three bad pennies just roll off the tongue these days). Seriously, once we can land the big aircraft there is a possibility that the Isle of Man will be able to open a new industry once the Tax Dodging Industry leaves us, in that we can service and repair aircraft. Geographically we are ideally located for it. From a UK point of view, the landing and taking off and testing will only piss-off 80,000 irrelevant foreign people at most, who after all will be paid for the inconvenience anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Ive always been under the impression its the airlines coming in now "suggesting" the runway have the recommended runoff length. If its not done the bigger airlines will have an excellent excuse to ditch the crap turnover manx routes. If this extension doesnt happen you could be down to the cr4ppest small airlines charging a fortune then you lot will have something to really whinge about. ps. ryanair /easyjet will never come in here, theres not enough money in it. however long the runway is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 you could be down to the cr4ppest small airlines charging a fortune And this is different to now because... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Ive always been under the impression its the airlines coming in now "suggesting" the runway have the recommended runoff length.If its not done the bigger airlines will have an excellent excuse to ditch the crap turnover manx routes. If this extension doesnt happen you could be down to the cr4ppest small airlines charging a fortune then you lot will have something to really whinge about. ps. ryanair /easyjet will never come in here, theres not enough money in it. however long the runway is. The existing airlines were questioned as part of a research project and were all unrestricted in their operations with our runway. Initially the business case put forward by the proponents (CD from airport) was for huge projected growth etc etc, that was shot full of holes, so to quote the directress as close as I can recall from the press " I am expecting a letter on my desk sometime soon making the extended RESAs mandatory " in other words the business case ceased to be mentioned and safety became the driver. You are correct in saying that the limiting factor here is not runway length but bums on seats and our audience is 80,000 people at best. We will always be down to small aircraft and airlines for simple reasons of economics ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.