Airport February Numbers

[ste1205]

Another major fall - down 12.7% on March last year.

 

"Ann Reynolds, Airport Director, confirmed that the decline had been very much as expected."

 

"Flybe’s Manchester and Liverpool routes, two of the busiest from the Island, experienced the greatest falls. Both were down by about 2,200 passengers contributing to over half of the airport’s total decrease for the month."

 

This suprises me because March had 31 days and I thought that would have helped keep the numbers up.

 

I wonder why they don't seem to include the number of pax carried on the Manx 2 operated DHSS charters to Chester - I would imagine this would account for a significant number of the missing Liverpool passengers.

[WTF]

Indeed.

are you pam crowe???

[emesde]

Easter was in March last year so would expect higher figures then. It will be interesting to see if there is a growth in this April v 2008 .

[Bombay Bad Boy]

Indeed.

Are you Teal'c?

[Sebrof]

This suprises me because March had 31 days and I thought that would have helped keep the numbers up.

 

Did March last year have fewer than 31 days? Have to say, I didn't notice.

 

S

[asitis]

I cannot believe we are still blaming Euromanx ! and indeed we predicted this once again !!

 

 

NO - we predicted 1,000,000 passengers by 2010 1.75 million passengers by 2015 and 2.5 million passengers by 2030 to get public money.

 

Any ideas what Aprils excuse will be ?

[Gladys]

Indeed.

are you pam crowe???

How very dare you!

[Gladys]

Indeed.

Are you Teal'c?

And you (if I knew who or what Teal'c is).

[Utah 01]

'Any ideas what Aprils excuse will be ?'

 

There's a 'p' in the month and Euromanx (again) - never in the field of airport statistics has so much been blamed by so many on so few.

 

'But don't worry, 'we' have squandered needlessly £40M of taxpayers money at a time when the national budget is precariously balanced BUT 'we' can boast one of the best equipped and underutilised regional airports in Europe. Oh, and my job is still as rock solid as the new promintory is going to be' said the Directress.

[manshimajin]

I wonder if Stu would dare interview her again????

 

 

Edited to add a few maxims to go with the photo....

 

There are few people more often in the wrong than those who cannot endure to be so.

 

We confess our little faults only to persuade others that we have no great ones.

 

The world more often rewards the appearance of merit than merit itself.

 

Runway extensions are often smaller than the ambitions of those who order them.

 

Do not judge an Airport CEO by the size of her control tower.

 

Increases in passenger numbers are better believed after they have happened.

[Dave Hedgehog]

'Any ideas what Aprils excuse will be ?'

 

They are planning on denying the existence of April 2008.

 

As a result April 2009 figures will show an infinitesimal increase compared to last year

[hboy]

and indeed we predicted this once again !!

 

NO - we predicted 1,000,000 passengers by 2010 1.75 million passengers by 2015 and 2.5 million passengers by 2030 to get public money.

 

That's the real point isn't it. If these decreases in passengers were, as she says, "predicted" why have they used a completely different set of "predictions" to fleece raise £50m from the taxpayer to expand the airport.

 

Could we make the IOM Government a bullshit free zone just for a week and see what actually happens?

[manshimajin]

I am still scratching my head as to how a longer runway and a taller control tower will increase passenger numbers?

 

As I understand it (and resident aviation experts please correct me) -

• It is very unlikely that Ronaldsway will attract serious low cost carriers with Airbus and Boeing size planes.
  
• We will therefore continue to be serviced by smallish commuter turbo-props which do not need the runway extensions.
  
• This means at best slow passenger number growth through expansion possibly of the likes of Aer Arrann and FlyBe plus regional airlines using even smaller planes.
  
• A relatively small number of passengers will have to pay for a big capital cost through 'taxes and charges'.
  
• In turn this means that Ronaldsway fares will remain uncompetitive in the wider UK/Ireland market - limiting growth.
  

Now I know that when the commercial argument was found not to fly the safety argument was trotted out - but could safety have been improved for the types of equipment using Ronaldsway without spending £50-60 million? Creating a cost competitive airport does not seem to have been one of the CEOs goals.

[asitis]

I am still scratching my head as to how a longer runway and a taller control tower will increase passenger numbers?

 

As I understand it (and resident aviation experts please correct me) -

• It is very unlikely that Ronaldsway will attract serious low cost carriers with Airbus and Boeing size planes.
  
• We will therefore continue to be serviced by smallish commuter turbo-props which do not need the runway extensions.
  
• This means at best slow passenger number growth through expansion possibly of the likes of Aer Arrann and FlyBe plus regional airlines using even smaller planes.
  
• A relatively small number of passengers will have to pay for a big capital cost through 'taxes and charges'.
  
• In turn this means that Ronaldsway fares will remain uncompetitive in the wider UK/Ireland market - limiting growth.
  

Now I know that when the commercial argument was found not to fly the safety argument was trotted out - but could safety have been improved for the types of equipment using Ronaldsway without spending £50-60 million? Creating a cost competitive airport does not seem to have been one of the CEOs goals.

 

 

You are correct in every way, low cost carriers are all about bums on seats firstly, and we do not fit the criteria. Modern turbo prop aircraft were designed to be cost effective and make use of small airfields, indeed for publicity the forerunner to the dash series of aircraft landed in a baseball stadium ! The safety criteria is at best shaky in terms of a justification, yes if the resa became mandatory the declared runway length would most certainly have precluded the use of 737 airbus etc, but they weren't going to come anyway ! , if the airport really wanted to develop then it should have been moved to a location where the island could have had all weather capability last week was a prime example of how the facilities even after all the expenditure are closed by weather on a regular basis.

 

The trotting out of the safety argument is a real cover all after the business plan in its current form did not stand up to scrutiny even before the downturn, we shall have to wait and see if the resa recommendations ever become mandatory. Basically for huge cost we have achieved nothing in real tangible terms just a very underused over the top facility in the wrong location.

 

I would much rather the money have gone to health and education where we should be providing the best for ourselves that we possibly can not Heathrow on Sea !!