Airport.

[John Wright]

40 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Pretty much so, though it may be that, as with cheques, a maximum value can be set (though maybe it hasn't been).  The information seems to come from evidence Allinson and Mark Lewin (the CEO of DfE) gave to the Economic Policy Review Committee on Friday:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/listen/AgainFiles/eprc220311a.mp3

(I haven't gone through it yet, so I can't say what the details were). Given that it's only six months it has a bit of an air of a compromise about it - and launching two London routes at the same time seems ambitious.

We’ve been told, somewhere, that break even is 50 seats we know the dates, we know the number of flights, we know what the taxes and charges per seat are. So a ball park maximum is capable of calculation.

[IOM]

20 minutes ago, John Wright said:

We’ve been told, somewhere, that break even is 50 seats we know the dates, we know the number of flights, we know what the taxes and charges per seat are. So a ball park maximum is capable of calculation.

How about placing more emphasis on how we can make this work ? We should be encouraging more business on the island and more tourists . How about letting friends and family know and inviting them here . If we placed our emphasis on this there are considerable upsides for the island and no costs ! The return of strong air links into London is good news and should be welcomed. A few posters on here need to try to be more positive. 

[NoTailT]

14 minutes ago, IOM said:

How about placing more emphasis on how we can make this work ? We should be encouraging more business on the island and more tourists . How about letting friends and family know and inviting them here . If we placed our emphasis on this there are considerable upsides for the island and no costs ! The return of strong air links into London is good news and should be welcomed. A few posters on here need to try to be more positive. 

Agreed it should be welcomed in terms of the new routes.

But what shouldn't be welcomed is IOM PLC once more writing cheques to private sector without tender for services that should be commercially delivered.

EVERY airline knows it takes minimum 3 months to build up demand on routes. That's their business. Why should we be softening the below? Do you think easyjet asked for help on their Manchester flights?

If Loganair are given it, why shouldn't Emerald or Eastern be offered to bid for the same £4m underwrite?

[IOM]

5 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Agreed it should be welcomed in terms of the new routes.

But what shouldn't be welcomed is IOM PLC once more writing cheques to private sector without tender for services that should be commercially delivered.

EVERY airline knows it takes minimum 3 months to build up demand on routes. That's their business. Why should we be softening the below? Do you think easyjet asked for help on their Manchester flights?

If Loganair are given it, why shouldn't Emerald or Eastern be offered to bid for the same £4m underwrite?

I have no idea if it was tendered or not . However all I do know is Loganair are at least providing jobs for the island ( cabin crew , engineers, flight crew ) can you say the same for EasyJet? Also the Manchester route already had strong air connections whereas London was severely under supplied . And Iom plc as you put it are not writing cheques if people use the services and make the most of it there will be no cost . It might be worth comparing the Iom approach to Guernsey where they have had to directly subside Aurigny by over £70m . It’s a ludicrous amount but clearly they see the importance of strong air connections to their island . Please let’s all get behind the plan and encourage as many people as we can to use the new services. 

[NoTailT]

20 minutes ago, IOM said:

I have no idea if it was tendered or not . However all I do know is Loganair are at least providing jobs for the island ( cabin crew , engineers, flight crew ) can you say the same for EasyJet? Also the Manchester route already had strong air connections whereas London was severely under supplied . And Iom plc as you put it are not writing cheques if people use the services and make the most of it there will be no cost . It might be worth comparing the Iom approach to Guernsey where they have had to directly subside Aurigny by over £70m . It’s a ludicrous amount but clearly they see the importance of strong air connections to their island . Please let’s all get behind the plan and encourage as many people as we can to use the new services. 

Ask Newquay Council how the subsidies of 'underwriting Loganair' went for them.

The numbers made Loganair get as much of the underwrite as they possibly could. They're far savvier than the imbeciles in Government.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, IOM said:

How about placing more emphasis on how we can make this work ? We should be encouraging more business on the island and more tourists . How about letting friends and family know and inviting them here . If we placed our emphasis on this there are considerable upsides for the island and no costs ! The return of strong air links into London is good news and should be welcomed. A few posters on here need to try to be more positive. 

I’m not doing anything to discourage. Someone asked if it was a blank cheque. It isn’t. I explained how to calculate the absolute maximum - assuming no one flew, which won’t happen.

We know the figures flying into LCY before covid. BA couldn’t fill 3 x 40 ( total 120 ) seaters a day and make profit. What chance is there of filling 2 x 72 ( total 140 )? Especially as there’s another 430 seats per day with LGW and LHR.  It’s nearly 4000 seats a week. Each way. That’s more than when Manx was flying into LHR and LTN.

I’ll certainly be using LCY. Can’t see the sense or business case of LHR or 72 seaters. Hope it works.

with Belfast, Bristol, Edinburgh, Dublin, having single operators and Liverpool and Manchester having two, in addition to London having 3 airports and two operators, we’ve nearly as many seats as pre covid, hopefully competition will keep prices low.

My preferred option would be 2 per day to LCY and 2 per day to LGW. Can’t see LHR surviving past October.

And don’t forget we already subside Logan on Liverpool, and to a lesser extent Manchester, with patient transfers.

[Two-lane]

The Loganair web site is not showing the London flights at the moment so there is no information on seat prices. Maybe London City for business users might be unaffected by high prices, but for us pensioners and the like on other routes that will not be so.

[IOM]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m not doing anything to discourage. Someone asked if it was a blank cheque. It isn’t. I explained how to calculate the absolute maximum - assuming no one flew, which won’t happen.

We know the figures flying into LCY before covid. BA couldn’t fill 3 x 40 ( total 120 ) seaters a day and make profit. What chance is there of filling 2 x 72 ( total 140 )? Especially as there’s another 430 seats per day with LGW and LHR.  It’s nearly 4000 seats a week. Each way. That’s more than when Manx was flying into LHR and LTN.

I’ll certainly be using LCY. Can’t see the sense or business case of LHR or 72 seaters. Hope it works.

with Belfast, Bristol, Edinburgh, Dublin, having single operators and Liverpool and Manchester having two, in addition to London having 3 airports and two operators, we’ve nearly as many seats as pre covid, hopefully competition will keep prices low.

My preferred option would be 2 per day to LCY and 2 per day to LGW. Can’t see LHR surviving past October.

And don’t forget we already subside Logan on Liverpool, and to a lesser extent Manchester, with patient transfers.

I agree the most important thing is an early morning and evening flight which is what you get with LCY maybe thats where it will settle. Worth noting that the BA offer pre covid was 3 X 50 seats not 40. Also it did 3 rotations Mon-Fri now there is no early Friday flight , no Saturday flight and only one rotation on a Sunday so its not quite comparable. In addition pre covid Easyjet were flying once daily to Luton and I dont think they will do that now they have added in Manchester. 

It is certainly an ambitious plan but please lets all get behind it and encourage its full use some posters are negative before its even started. 

[snowman]

If there's such a high unmet demand why does Loganair require underwriting?

[Numbnuts]

41 minutes ago, snowman said:

If there's such a high unmet demand why does Loganair require underwriting?

Maybe just as an incentive to get up and running ?? 

[IOM]

1 hour ago, snowman said:

If there's such a high unmet demand why does Loganair require underwriting?

Tell you what give EasyJet a call and ask them to offer early morning and evening flights into City , flights into Heathrow and on island jobs . When they say they will come back to me ! 

[NoTailT]

7 minutes ago, IOM said:

Tell you what give EasyJet a call and ask them to offer early morning and evening flights into City , flights into Heathrow and on island jobs . When they say they will come back to me ! 

Bad comparison.

Why not phone Emerald or Eastern and give them a shot at being underwritten?

What we are seeing here is the remnants of Jez being in post. Encouraging Gov to plow money in to an ailing Loganair.

[IOM]

12 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Bad comparison.

Why not phone Emerald or Eastern and give them a shot at being underwritten?

What we are seeing here is the remnants of Jez being in post. Encouraging Gov to plow money in to an ailing Loganair.

Neither currently have an on island base . Emerald only just getting set up and have no plans to run into London as far as I know . Eastern used to fly into City with a wet lease for BA and it was switched to Loganair presumably at the time more reliable and competitive. Frankly I dont understand all the negativity we are not going to have to put in anything like Guernsey have done and we have connections to Gatwick , City and Heathrow. We have early morning and evening flights and all passengers are catered for . Better to spend our energy now on encouraging people to use the services get more people and business onto the island and start moving forward. 

[IOM]

18 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Bad comparison.

Why not phone Emerald or Eastern and give them a shot at being underwritten?

What we are seeing here is the remnants of Jez being in post. Encouraging Gov to plow money in to an ailing Loganair.

And I used the EasyJet comparison because Snowman is such an advocate of theirs and is always talking them up . 

[John Wright]

58 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Bad comparison.

Why not phone Emerald or Eastern and give them a shot at being underwritten?

What we are seeing here is the remnants of Jez being in post. Encouraging Gov to plow money in to an ailing Loganair.

Emerald have only been operating one route, Dublin to Donegal, for two weeks. They open up other routes, from Dublin, including IoM on 17 March. That roll out is fairly slow, another route every few week until late May. They have an Irish AOL but not a UK AOL, so they can’t operate IoM to UK at present. No point phoning them as they couldn’t fulfil the brief.

Both Logan and Eastern were on Island, meetings with DoI and at airport, in February. No doubt both discussed their price for reintroduction of London routes.

Its not just the subsidy/guarantee/underwriting that’s relevant, however. It’s other economic benefits, such as another plane, and set of crews based here, consolidating the Logan base and providing long term, hopefully, employment. Logan always had the edge with that, they’ve also got the resources to move on island based planes and crew in case of tech problems..