hboy Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The latest airport figures show "hope of improvement", despite a 8.3% drop, its director says. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/8045772.stm Another press release and chief executive quote from bullshit-central. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Yes, Declan, but there is also the business travellers into and from the island. Some (not all, by any means) people from our office would make that number of trips easily. What would be more revealing is to know actual numbers to see if the projections bear any resemblance to the historic actuals Well this page says 747,985 this year and 794,315 last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Yes, Declan, but there is also the business travellers into and from the island. Some (not all, by any means) people from our office would make that number of trips easily. What would be more revealing is to know actual numbers to see if the projections bear any resemblance to the historic actuals Well this page says 747,985 this year and 794,315 last year. So, we can hope for something like a 50% increase in passenger numbers for next year? About as likely as us all jetting off 15 times over the next 12 months. How much does it cost to land a plane here? Does that have any bearing on this at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooks Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 the spin on the down turn is comical, the figures are not as bad as expected?? implies they are actually better and that things are doing well. why don't they release the predicted drop in figures (as they must have them to make the original claim ) so we can see for our selves what the drop is by comnparrison. i suppose though that fat and ginger is expecting NO travellers to use the farce that gets passed of as an airport so ANYBODY flying in or out is better than expected. I'm only a three, maybe four, times a year user. Generally I find Ronaldsway to be very pleasant compared to other airports. Why is it a farce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 *i suppose though that fat and ginger Was there any need for that? fat and ginger or 'that' , whatever the designation, there is certainly NO need for her. the only 'need' is for her to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 the spin on the down turn is comical, the figures are not as bad as expected?? implies they are actually better and that things are doing well. why don't they release the predicted drop in figures (as they must have them to make the original claim ) so we can see for our selves what the drop is by comnparrison. i suppose though that fat and ginger is expecting NO travellers to use the farce that gets passed of as an airport so ANYBODY flying in or out is better than expected. Why is it a farce? because of 10's of millions of public money being wasted on achieving naff all except a CV padding for a 'misleader' and brown envelope sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooks Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 the spin on the down turn is comical, the figures are not as bad as expected?? implies they are actually better and that things are doing well. why don't they release the predicted drop in figures (as they must have them to make the original claim ) so we can see for our selves what the drop is by comnparrison. i suppose though that fat and ginger is expecting NO travellers to use the farce that gets passed of as an airport so ANYBODY flying in or out is better than expected. Why is it a farce? because of 10's of millions of public money being wasted on achieving naff all except a CV padding for a 'misleader' and brown envelope sales. £10's of millions really? From where do you get that figure? What would you prefer - a field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 How much does it cost to land a plane here? Does that have any bearing on this at all? It's in here somewhere... Airport Fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I just read that Ryanir carried 4.1 million passengers in April 2007, 4.7m in April 2008 and 5.3m passengers in April 2009 – an average increase of 15% per annum. Shame we can't achieve that sort of airline passenger growth!!!! Apparently Ryanair is now the world’s largest international scheduled airline by passenger numbers (and most probably profit). For all the criticism of budget airlines people seem to respond to low fares by travelling more. A message for Bee Gees Global Airport management, carriers and the IOMSPC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 the spin on the down turn is comical, the figures are not as bad as expected?? implies they are actually better and that things are doing well. why don't they release the predicted drop in figures (as they must have them to make the original claim ) so we can see for our selves what the drop is by comnparrison. i suppose though that fat and ginger is expecting NO travellers to use the farce that gets passed of as an airport so ANYBODY flying in or out is better than expected. Why is it a farce? because of 10's of millions of public money being wasted on achieving naff all except a CV padding for a 'misleader' and brown envelope sales. £10's of millions really? From where do you get that figure? What would you prefer - a field? No one wanted a field in the same way no one wanted sewage in the streets, I for one wanted projects which were properly researched, costed and fit for purpose, not some dream world where public money was of no concern and the grandiose result whilst a source for self congratulation is a burden on the Island for years to come. The airport badly needed some maintenance and improvement and making fit for purpose none of that included the use of millions of pounds to comply with a best practice directive which may never be mandatory and whose only effect would have been to restrict the type of aircraft which could use the airport to those which it in reality needs. Public money is a precious resource and the quantity which has been wasted here in the last few years is mind boggling, it is future generations who will be saddled with the legacy of this profligacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 the spin on the down turn is comical, the figures are not as bad as expected?? implies they are actually better and that things are doing well. why don't they release the predicted drop in figures (as they must have them to make the original claim ) so we can see for our selves what the drop is by comnparrison. i suppose though that fat and ginger is expecting NO travellers to use the farce that gets passed of as an airport so ANYBODY flying in or out is better than expected. Why is it a farce? because of 10's of millions of public money being wasted on achieving naff all except a CV padding for a 'misleader' and brown envelope sales. £10's of millions really? From where do you get that figure? What would you prefer - a field? what there was as regards runway length was perfectly ok for the planes that will be using it. they can't fill the seats of the 'little' planes they have now so why have a longer runway for 'bigger' planes that won't need be coming here. it was obviously a job for the boys, when the 'need' for a longer runway was first put forward it was all about growth and a grand business plan based on BS passenger figures, this was meant to convince us we needed it!! then someone got the real facts together regarding passenger numbers and runway lengths of other airports, and it worked out our runway was one of the LONGER ones, with the LEAST amount of passengers using it!!! and that the bigger planes could actually use it at the length it is NOW!!. the extra length is some 'recomendation' that other busier airports are not even planning on doing cos it's not 'needed'. once the BS business model had been exposed, then the H&S BS route began and as we all see, H&S gets invented as you go along. and there are other methods, CHEAPER, than extending the runway to achieve the same safety levels, as i said before elsewhere, if the runway isn't at a safe length??why are they allowed to use it??? where's the H&S in that?? spending a few quid on a modern tower and equipment, and resurfacing the runway and taxiways would be ok, but the extension, is a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 £10's of millions really? From where do you get that figure? What would you prefer - a field? Don't worry smooks isn't the sharpest tool in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daco Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 £10's of millions really? From where do you get that figure? What would you prefer - a field? Don't worry smooks isn't the sharpest tool in the box. And you are a sharp pencil, blobby? Cough. Smooks talks a lot of sense, I note that Mr "Tens of Millions" has yet to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Good job we have a captive audience then, some of the background to this is remarkably similar ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8055957.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIVER Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yes, Declan, but there is also the business travellers into and from the island. Some (not all, by any means) people from our office would make that number of trips easily. What would be more revealing is to know actual numbers to see if the projections bear any resemblance to the historic actuals Well this page says 747,985 this year and 794,315 last year. So, we can hope for something like a 50% increase in passenger numbers for next year? About as likely as us all jetting off 15 times over the next 12 months. How much does it cost to land a plane here? Does that have any bearing on this at all? I think it is £42.50 per head but it varies, twice the price of liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.