IOM Covid removing restrictions

[NoTailT]

2 hours ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

Do you actually have any evidence that they are "chomping" to get back to the island though?.

Their Manx routes appear largely from the awful schedules, timekeeping and propensity to cancel to make up delays elsewhere, to be  only slot and schedule fillers. Neither you or I really know if they are profitable or not or the yield.

As we have open skies , which let EZY in in the first place,  there is nothing to stop Aurigny, or anyone else, doing LGW anyway.

Not that I think Aurigny is the correct way forward, they appear to me to be the DOI of the skies

 

I can tell you now that the good folk at the airport have a monthly eMeeting with easy ops and they are wanting to get these routes going again as soon as the borders permit more people to flow to/from.

We may have OpenSkies, but it is completely irresponsible for the CoMin lot to be courting Aurigny for routes like Gatwick when the team at the airport have their own strategy for route development. Loganair want to increase their routes, Stobart want to fly to Belfast City, it's all waiting to happen as soon as the border situation improves. We don't need Aurigny, it's a fucking basketcase and the people pushing the Aurigny agenda don't care that it doesn't need to make money because it's Government owned.

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I think the Aurigny proposal is a sensible deal to discuss. EasyJet are going to have massive problems for a long period of time and do they even want to come back to a low volume route like the IOM? Again the IOM and Guernsey seem pretty aligned here as Guernsey has told EasyJet to pretty much piss off more than once. Taking control of the route (even if it’s temporary) seems to make good sense to get things moving again. Just get them to add the cost of a covid test to the ticket price and you’re done. 

Anyone who wants to cannonball lower fares for Aurigny to come in is delusional, I'm sorry. This administration may have an Aurigny-agenda all of a sudden, but who is to say that the next one will wish to prop up the basketcase airline?

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, Out of the blue said:

I am one of the supporters of having a state backed airline for the island. I do not know what form any alliance may take, but the possibility of a link up with a government owned airline, which cannot go ‘bust’ as a life line service is not one to be dismissed lightly. Open skies only works properly in good times, and even then we are at the mercy of profit orientated businesses switching routes, hiking fares etc. Not a problem when you have rail and car as alternatives to a ferry, but I am sure that business and leisure travelers would like to see some price, route and timetable stability.

I too support the idea of a state-backed operation. But it must be clean-slate or in partnership with a commercial operator, which I know is one of the other options out there. Aurigny isn't the right partner for that venture. At all. It already carries far too much baggage (if you'll pardon the pun).

[Apple]

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

t’s nobody’s duty to report anyone. The rules of entry and the system in place to control the border should be being policed by the people being paid to protect the public from this alleged health crisis. It is not up to the public to voluntarily police an empty honesty based system that seems to include very few checks and balances for government. I have better things to do than be snitching on my neighbours because we’d rather employ people to not drive horse trams or to man empty castles than to actually be part of our frontline defense against C-19 by monitoring and calling on people. We need a system that has integrity and proper controls and testing at the heart of it - not a Dads Army of nosey busybodies sticking their heads through people’s windows shopping friends and neighbours.

I agree. Lets remember this when they further develop Integrated Care and want the postmen and postwomen armed with their lists of "vulnerable ' people in the community with their five questions and details if who to report them to. All in the cause of protecting the population ,you understand. Why employ trained community care staff ?

[Non-Believer]

5 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

I pity you with such an accepting, supine attitude.

Realism. Until somebody proves otherwise.

[Banker]

3 hours ago, Cambon said:

They should not be socialising. The two isolating should be isolating. No contact . You should report them. It is your duty.

 

But the son who lives at home with them is going out to work, pub,girlfriend house etc.

also grandkids dropped around for child minding. Not sure what policy is other than not go out of property boundaries 

[hissingsid]

You should report them, if you do not you are as guilty and selfish as they are.

[Banker]

1 minute ago, hissingsid said:

You should report them, if you do not you are as guilty and selfish as they are.

Report them for what ? They are not going out, anyone else residing there doesn’t need to isolate, so if they have virus it will be spread around .

also can’t see restrictions saying no visitors in gardens or child minding. This is why the policy is shit 

[NoTailT]

Here in lies the problem.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-run-airline-could-make-a-profit-perkins

This guy sums up what the problem is but makes it out to be positive. His 'fag packet maths' only work if you charge £150 per one-way ticket. Do you folk really want that?

[Banker]

6 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Here in lies the problem.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-run-airline-could-make-a-profit-perkins

This guy sums up what the problem is but makes it out to be positive. His 'fag packet maths' only work if you charge £150 per one-way ticket. Do you folk really want that?

Absolute bollocks! If it’s so easy why do Aurigny lose £7m last year and probably £10m last year.

if EasyJet go because of borders issue then we would be saddled with high fares plus costs of subsidies and several £m set up costs,

[Non-Believer]

5 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

Thank you.

Do you believe the proposed policy of friends & family entering is a safer alternative to testing on arrival?

I think its ludicrous. But Govt is trying to keep many, many interests happy (just look at this thread) and in doing that mistakes will be made. This is a learning curve for Govt as well as public. Let us just hope that there are not too severe consequences of any such mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love the borders to be open and everything back to "normal". But beyond our borders it's not "normal", not at all. It's easy to forget that. And the only thing allowing us to have the social "normality" we currently enjoy is our border restrictions. And until those outside jurisdictions provenly get on top of their infection rates, it's the way it will be.

[NoTailT]

4 minutes ago, Banker said:

Absolute bollocks! If it’s so easy why do Aurigny lose £7m last year and probably £10m last year.

if EasyJet go because of borders issue then we would be saddled with high fares plus costs of subsidies and several £m set up costs,

This is precisely why if we do anything of a sort in 'partnership' it MUST be done with a real commercial operator, maybe Loganair or Eastern or Stobart. NOT this Aurigny nonsense.

[wrighty]

25 minutes ago, Banker said:

But the son who lives at home with them is going out to work, pub,girlfriend house etc.

also grandkids dropped around for child minding. Not sure what policy is other than not go out of property boundaries 

Nobody else to enter the property, not even grandkids who need child minding.  Rest of the family living with the returnee have to keep social distance from him/her, who should use own bathroom if possible, otherwise clean it after use, and basically stay in a room, not taking meals with the rest of them etc. They only have to isolate if the returnee develops symptoms and then tests positive.

[Banker]

10 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Nobody else to enter the property, not even grandkids who need child minding.  Rest of the family living with the returnee have to keep social distance from him/her, who should use own bathroom if possible, otherwise clean it after use, and basically stay in a room, not taking meals with the rest of them etc. They only have to isolate if the returnee develops symptoms and then tests positive.

Ok if we see anyone else going in will consider reporting but don’t think anyone can police the keeping distancing from family in own house rule and I’m sure not many will keep to this rule 

[Out of the blue]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

This is precisely why if we do anything of a sort in 'partnership' it MUST be done with a real commercial operator, maybe Loganair or Eastern or Stobart. NOT this Aurigny nonsense.

My concern with this is that if we did underwrite/partner with a commercial operator on lifeline routes we would still be exposed to the pressures that inevitably exists within commerce i.e. profit. If they do not make one, they disappear like Flybe, along with any partnership. I would like to see a not for profit, arms length state backed entity. I do not know much about Aurigny, other than they make a loss, so cannot really comment as it would be down to the details involved in any partnership.