Sebrof 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 ! There are lots of small and expensive flights to London everyday. I would much prefer fewer flights at lower cost using larger planes. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 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. Too late now of course...but surely the Minister should have said "OK, when you get the letter let's see what it says!" Certainly it is a good idea to ask to see it now - and if it hasn't arrived to put things on hold until it does (subject to what the building contract says about compensation). i can't see any way that a population of 80,000 (the size of Southport) and 300,000 visitors p.a. (shared between boat and plane) will ever attract a major airline or bigger planes. We need to make things as attractive as possible for the smaller feeder airlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would much prefer fewer flights at lower cost using larger planes How big do you want? They've got to get in (and out) of the short runways both ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Airport City Code (IATA/ICAO) 2006 2007 2008 Isle of Man Airport Isle of Man IOM/EGNS 785,042 753,894 754,387 Jersey JER/EGJJ 1,509,322 1,579,686 1,591,124 We are still half the size of Jersey - that seems a big difference. Any ideas why? Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would much prefer fewer flights at lower cost using larger planes How big do you want? They've got to get in (and out) of the short runways both ends That's the point. A longer runway would allow larger planes which would be more cost-effective on the London route. There isn't enough traffic on other routes to make a difference. So the best solution might be to save the money planned for the airport expansion and use it to reduce the landing fees. That way we'd get cheaper flights and avoid a massive capital outlay which will actually put prices up. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought the runway had to be extended for H & S reasons and it's nothing to do with larger planes landing here, it's for the planes that already land here and if it's not done nothing will be flying in or out. But like someone else said, if at all possible I'd rather bigger planes flying from here, flying fewer trips with cheaper air fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Airport City Code (IATA/ICAO) 2006 2007 2008 Isle of Man Airport Isle of Man IOM/EGNS 785,042 753,894 754,387 Jersey JER/EGJJ 1,509,322 1,579,686 1,591,124 We are still half the size of Jersey - that seems a big difference. Any ideas why? Link First off I was looking at the brekdown of visitor numbers (2006 is latest I found) - 152,000 by air and 154,000 by sea. I guess the numbers above are arrivals and departures combined. So it must mean that locals make 450,000 round trips by air - which works out at about 3 return journeys for every man, woman, baby per annum plus the trips on the IOMSPC. I think Jersey is a much more popular tourist destination . I could only find 2003 numbers for Jersey but at that time they were getting 750,000 vistors - so over double our numbers. I guess the relatively short sea crossing using the IOMSPC will have some impact on numbers travelling by air - it is much easier to bring a car here than to Jersey for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought the runway had to be extended for H & S reasons and it's nothing to do with larger planes landing here, it's for the planes that already land here and if it's not done nothing will be flying in or out.But like someone else said, if at all possible I'd rather bigger planes flying from here, flying fewer trips with cheaper air fares. The reasons given vary as time goes on. Bigger planes tend to require longer runways, and catering for bigger planes was one justification at one time. I suspect that the figures didn't add up, so another justification was sought. Tynwald does like its "grand projets". S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Jersey still has a (large) tourism industry and tourist numbers account for a very large percentage of those figures and during the summer a lot of flights come in from the continent as well as all parts of the UK. The current runway at Ronaldsway requires no extension; its length is quite adequate for the aircraft weights Ryanair or Easyjet (hypothetically) would be operating their aircraft at on routes to and from the Island. Fewer flights in larger aircraft to London = less flexibility for the passenger in terms of timing and destination. Anyway, we've been through discussion many times before and easy/Ryanair ain't going to happen despite the dreams of the fantasists at the DoT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Call me a sceptic, but wouldn't an idea be to save stg40 million on the runway to fund the, strangely, symmetrical deficit in VAT revenue? I know one is a capital cost and the other a revenue shortfall, but cash is king, as they say at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Call me a sceptic, but wouldn't an idea be to save stg40 million on the runway to fund the, strangely, symmetrical deficit in VAT revenue? I know one is a capital cost and the other a revenue shortfall, but cash is king, as they say at the moment. I can tell you are not a member of the old boys club because you clearly understand the concepts of financial prudence, particularly with other peoples money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Heh! Well as Tony Brown, Chief Minister explained himself on Manx Radio, the huge, huge cost of the New Hospital actually cost the Isle of Man taxpayer the princely sum of . . . . . not a penny. This was because it was paid for out of the National Insurance fund which had been invested and accrued. So you see. There is money and there is money. And of course then there is money. Simple innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 So you see. There is money and there is money. And of course then there is money. So let's go out and print £40 million - it'll only cost the paper and ink plus a bit of labour. I think the 14th Earl of Home with his matchbox was better at economics than some of the MHKs... Sadly I think Gladys that your emminently sensible suggestion comes to late - haven't they also turned the first sods (grass) for the new control tower and built in throne room? Far better to increase the base rate of tax to pay for the budget shortfall as Mr Bell has suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 haven't they also turned the first sods (grass) for the new control tower and built in throne room? Perhaps further than you think.... Control Tower Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 But is that the same as the runway extension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.