Airport.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

It's been turned down in FOIs I think.

There have been at least seven, not all to the correct Departmnet (DoI).  Most recently in October (ref 2694889 ) :

"I seek a weekly breakdown of the total amount paid to underwrite Loganair's Heathrow route since it was introduced in May, up to October 4 2022. The Department for Enterprise said it did not hold this information, but said the DoI might."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt from disclosure under section 30 of the Act as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Department of Infrastructure.
As section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.
Factors in favour of disclosure
• Transparency by disclosing the information.
Factors in favour of withholding
• Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Department if a similar agreement needed to be reached in future.
• Public disclosure of the information may damage the working relationship between Loganair and the Department.
• The need to protect the commercial interests of the private sector, which plays an important role in the general health of the island's economy.
In taking these factors into account the Department of Infrastructure determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

 

Now it's possible that this particular FoI is too specific, but I can't see a reason why a request for the total amount of subsidies by year for example shouldn't reveal any details of commercial agreements or the calculations used.  It would still be refused of course, but if someone was willing to appeal to the Commissioner, you can see the figures being revealed eventually.

[asitis]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

you can see the figures being revealed eventually.

TBH, I see the important question to be " why are we subsidising a lack of passengers on Loganair routes, when large numbers are hoovered up by a lo cost carrier paying little or nothing in fees to the airport "

I don't get how we subsidise lack of bums on seats, whilst the bums are on other seats !

Commercially in small airports with very small catchment areas the lo cost carriers are a disaster and airports putting all their eggs in one basket have failed spectacularly !

[Andy Onchan]

11 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

There have been at least seven, not all to the correct Departmnet (DoI).  Most recently in October (ref 2694889 ) :

"I seek a weekly breakdown of the total amount paid to underwrite Loganair's Heathrow route since it was introduced in May, up to October 4 2022. The Department for Enterprise said it did not hold this information, but said the DoI might."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt from disclosure under section 30 of the Act as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Department of Infrastructure.
As section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.
Factors in favour of disclosure
• Transparency by disclosing the information.
Factors in favour of withholding
• Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Department if a similar agreement needed to be reached in future.
• Public disclosure of the information may damage the working relationship between Loganair and the Department.
• The need to protect the commercial interests of the private sector, which plays an important role in the general health of the island's economy.
In taking these factors into account the Department of Infrastructure determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

 

Now it's possible that this particular FoI is too specific, but I can't see a reason why a request for the total amount of subsidies by year for example shouldn't reveal any details of commercial agreements or the calculations used.  It would still be refused of course, but if someone was willing to appeal to the Commissioner, you can see the figures being revealed eventually.

I'm pretty sure I heard or read a politician let slip £2m being the amount paid for the previous 12 months up to the month preceding the "announcement" (Sept I think). Having said that I've just spent an half an hour looking for it online and can't find any reference to it. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. We know that during CV it was in excess of £5m and that's well documented and given the initial slow take up/return earlier this year it wouldn't surprise me if that £2m is not far wide of the mark.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm pretty sure I heard or read a politician let slip £2m being the amount paid for the previous 12 months up to the month preceding the "announcement" (Sept I think). Having said that I've just spent an half an hour looking for it online and can't find any reference to it. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. We know that during CV it was in excess of £5m and that's well documented and given the initial slow take up/return earlier this year it wouldn't surprise me if that £2m is not far wide of the mark.

I remember that figure, also, @Andy Onchan. I think it was the subsidy during covid when only Logan was flying a daily London rotation and the PT flights to/from Liverpool. Virtually no one was flying. Políticos, civil servants, key workers to/from the south east. No EZY.  That stopped autumn 2021, I think. Logan dropped LHR for winter 21/22 and started again with the underwriting for Summer 2022.

[John Wright]

12 hours ago, asitis said:

1. TBH, I see the important question to be " why are we subsidising a lack of passengers on Loganair routes, when large numbers are hoovered up by a lo cost carrier paying little or nothing in fees to the airport "

2. I don't get how we subsidise lack of bums on seats, whilst the bums are on other seats !

3. Commercially in small airports with very small catchment areas the lo cost carriers are a disaster and airports putting all their eggs in one basket have failed spectacularly !

1. But are we?

We did it for a year during the worst of Covid, just after Flybe collapsed, BA pulled out, EZY pulled out. We paid for a year to maintain essential links like Liverpool ( for PT ) and LHR for politicians and civil servants.

That stopped. EZY returned. Logan pulled off LHR.

We then agreed a six month underwriting to reintroduce LHR. That has expired. We are told bum on seat figures are better than predicted.

Have you any evidence that LHR is still being underwritten?

2. But are we?

3. IoM has never put all its eggs in one basket. It’s really hard to balance the demand for the lowest fare with sustainability. I’d prefer to see a PSO for a regular, 3 or 4 rotations per day Liverpool service and same to LCY. With the new London tube/rail links LCY to LHR or LGW or City, West End or mainline rail is much improved, regular, fast ( out with strikes )

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm pretty sure I heard or read a politician let slip £2m being the amount paid for the previous 12 months up to the month preceding the "announcement" (Sept I think).

I think that more related to the flights before restrictions ended, although I also remember the figure.

The announcement at the time was that it was an underwriting basis but that there would be "no cost to the taxpayer" if Loganair filled 50 seats on their plane. So the actual amount paid will depend on load factors and Loganair's cost base. Both of which are genuinely commercially sensitive, so you won't have much luck with an FOI.

[Andy Onchan]

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I remember that figure, also, @Andy Onchan. I think it was the subsidy during covid when only Logan was flying a daily London rotation and the PT flights to/from Liverpool. Virtually no one was flying. Políticos, civil servants, key workers to/from the south east. No EZY.  That stopped autumn 2021, I think. Logan dropped LHR for winter 21/22 and started again with the underwriting for Summer 2022.

What I'm trying to recall was definitely post-CV, only a matter of a couple of months, three at the most.

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

What I'm trying to recall was definitely post-CV, only a matter of a couple of months, three at the most.

Yes, but maybe it was telling us of the cost of first subsidy period. However my memory of that cost is £4.5m

Edited December 9, 2022 by John Wright

[NoTailT]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes, but maybe it was telling us of the cost of first subsidy period. However my memory of that cost is £4.5m

I seem to recall a similar figure as you John. It was in the 'use or it lose it' speech - I think by Allinson, maybe Hooper - of a maximum possible exposure to the Government for underwriting the two London routes.

It was specific to those 2 routes for a limited period of time. Doesn't include any subsidies during COVID and any new possible agreement being reached recently to extend the routes. Soon be at Aurigny's £10mln/yr level just for two routes.

Edited December 9, 2022 by NoTailT

[Omobono]

surely Tim Glover  who has responsibility for the airport and is always going on about  excuses for confidentiality  is the one who  should be  giving the figures , as someone said its taxpayers money , there appears to be no one else competing for the routes  so why not come clean and tell us  what many think there entitled to know , 

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I seem to recall a similar figure as you John. It was in the 'use or it lose it' speech - I think by Allinson, maybe Hooper - of a maximum possible exposure to the Government for underwriting the two London routes.

It was specific to those 2 routes for a limited period of time. Doesn't include any subsidies during COVID and any new possible agreement being reached recently to extend the routes. Soon be at Aurigny's £10mln/yr level just for two routes.

No. The £4.5 million was the cost of LPL, MAN, LHR between March 2020 and April 2021. 

No cost of the seat underwriting between April and October 2022 on LHR has ever been given. The only thing we’ve been told is that break even was 50 seats

[Andy Onchan]

37 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes, but maybe it was telling us of the cost of first subsidy period. However my memory of that cost is £4.5m

Possible John but not sure why £2m would have been mentioned against the background of the final CV number which was closer to £5.5m.

Whatever, the fact that Loginair are the only operator on the LHR & LCY routes I don't see a need for non-disclosure of the costs if taxpayer funds are involved.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Andy Onchan

[NoTailT]

56 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No. The £4.5 million was the cost of LPL, MAN, LHR between March 2020 and April 2021. 

No cost of the seat underwriting between April and October 2022 on LHR has ever been given. The only thing we’ve been told is that break even was 50 seats

There was definitely one of the Ministers, be it Hooper or maybe Thomas actually - on the radio that said it could be up to an amount, I'm sure it was in the 2-4mln range. But only IF it was fully exposed.

[Roger Mexico]

44 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No. The £4.5 million was the cost of LPL, MAN, LHR between March 2020 and April 2021. 

No cost of the seat underwriting between April and October 2022 on LHR has ever been given. The only thing we’ve been told is that break even was 50 seats

The monthly passenger numbers for London airports are shown below (derived from Airport figures rather than CAA):

With 2021 shown for comparison

May to October inclusive, LCY had an average of 70.5 pax per day and LHR 85.5.  Even one return flight a day would be under 50.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

There was definitely one of the Ministers, be it Hooper or maybe Thomas actually - on the radio that said it could be up to an amount, I'm sure it was in the 2-4mln range. But only IF it was fully exposed.

Ie. If no one travelled. But we know that they did. And I’m fairly sure it was LHR only. Not LCY