Airport.

[Nellie]

9 minutes ago, homeoneday said:

Stansted was great, but didnt get enough footfall at the time

 

Stansted is a Ryanair dominated shit hole, but very handy if you’re heading to Bishops Stortford.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Nellie

[Ringy Rose]

9 hours ago, NoTailT said:

I don't get how they can throw £4mln at underwriting Loganair London flights when there's commercially viable situations and the missed opportunity to have Flybe mk2 on Heathrow.

If the London City flight was profitable it would already be being flown.

9 hours ago, NoTailT said:

Need I remind everyone of the strop when Stobart Air appealed the PTS tender (and won) when Loganair management threatened to pull all routes unless they were awarded PTS. They only care about underwritten risk-free flying. Once the £4mln London pot is used up, they'll pull the routes and blame the traffic. But it was always going to be ludicrous sending an ATR in to Heathtow and City.

Stobart Air were flying the majority of the Flybe stuff from the island when Flybe went bust; the day Flybe went bust I flew Flybe IOM-Manchester on a Stobart ATR72. Luckily I was already booked on the Ben on the way back.

Stobart Air didn't continue after Flybe went under because they couldn't. They didn't have a licence. They didn't have a way of selling tickets. Aer Lingus had already taken their Regional contract off them, so that option had gone too.

So Loganair stepped in at short notice and took the work on.

So I'm not sure when this alleged "strop" was supposed to have happened, given that Stobart had gone bust long before they were in a position to sell their own tickets. Maybe you can enlighten us?

9 hours ago, NoTailT said:

People are happily voting with their feet and one is heavily subsidised, one isn't. Ironically the commercially 'at risk' operator is the one doing well, because they are forced to be savvier with their fares and yield management given it is THEIR risk.

The "subsidy" consists of the PTS contract; a contract EasyJet can't and don't want to deal with. 

I've said before Loganair don't help themselves with their fares structure, as most people are stupid and only look at the headline fare. Take this Friday afternoon to Manchester: EasyJet are £50, Loganair are £60, though EasyJet have a later flight time which may be more attractive. Take a bag and EasyJet charge you an extra £25, Loganair charge an extra £0. 

As for the underwriting, if the City and Heathrow flights were profitable someone would already be flying them. They're not and they're not. It depends whether you think the City flights at consistent times are worthwhile to the island even if there's a cost attached. I do.

[Ringy Rose]

3 hours ago, NoTailT said:

Personally I think if you have someone prepared to fly commercially without underwriting (I.e Flybe mk2) then you should try that before you piss away millions to Loganair.

Except Flybe II aren't offering to fly commercially. There's nothing to stop them starting tomorrow if they want.

Competition law makes it really difficult to hand a tender out if a commercial alternative is available (PTS is different, that is payment for a service). So if the profits are there why aren't Flybe II steaming in? They're competing elsewhere. And if they start up subsidy-free then the underwriting cannot be justified legally.

So presumably Flybe II wanted grants to fly. In which case, who in their right mind would offer these grants to an airline that only launched *yesterday* ahead of an airline based on the island with a proven track record? Bearing in mind, of course, that Flybe I left the island and the airport hugely out of pocket when they went bust.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[asitis]

20 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Bearing in mind, of course, that Flybe I left the island and the airport hugely out of pocket when they went bust.

They weren't the first, and won't be the last, another huge shortcoming in planning and strategy !

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said:

Except Flybe II aren't offering to fly commercially. There's nothing to stop them starting tomorrow if they want.

Competition law makes it really difficult to hand a tender out if a commercial alternative is available (PTS is different, that is payment for a service). So if the profits are there why aren't Flybe II steaming in? They're competing elsewhere. And if they start up subsidy-free then the underwriting cannot be justified legally.

So presumably Flybe II wanted grants to fly. In which case, who in their right mind would offer these grants to an airline that only launched *yesterday* ahead of an airline based on the island with a proven track record? Bearing in mind, of course, that Flybe I left the island and the airport hugely out of pocket when they went bust.

You misunderstand.

Usually when an airline wants to launch a new unnerved route, they would have some expectations of the airport. Namely; tiered reduced landing and terminal fees so it builds up to a higher rate as the route establishes. Plus marketing budget support. It's normal stuff that Flybe asked for and they were told - by DOI officers - that 'Heathrow is taken care of and in hand'. That is standard flying commercially expectations. A bit like how easyjet weren't offered any incentives or reductions on flying Manchester, because its already served.

The outcome is actually a £4mln underwrite PLUS fee reductions PLUS marketing support to Loganair to also cover City.

Problem with DOI and its officers - and most of those in DFE or Treasury - is that they're snowboaters rather than savvy commercial people.

Edited March 23, 2022 by NoTailT

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said:

If the London City flight was profitable it would already be being flown.

Stobart Air were flying the majority of the Flybe stuff from the island when Flybe went bust; the day Flybe went bust I flew Flybe IOM-Manchester on a Stobart ATR72. Luckily I was already booked on the Ben on the way back.

Stobart Air didn't continue after Flybe went under because they couldn't. They didn't have a licence. They didn't have a way of selling tickets. Aer Lingus had already taken their Regional contract off them, so that option had gone too.

So Loganair stepped in at short notice and took the work on.

So I'm not sure when this alleged "strop" was supposed to have happened, given that Stobart had gone bust long before they were in a position to sell their own tickets. Maybe you can enlighten us?

The "subsidy" consists of the PTS contract; a contract EasyJet can't and don't want to deal with. 

I've said before Loganair don't help themselves with their fares structure, as most people are stupid and only look at the headline fare. Take this Friday afternoon to Manchester: EasyJet are £50, Loganair are £60, though EasyJet have a later flight time which may be more attractive. Take a bag and EasyJet charge you an extra £25, Loganair charge an extra £0. 

As for the underwriting, if the City and Heathrow flights were profitable someone would already be flying them. They're not and they're not. It depends whether you think the City flights at consistent times are worthwhile to the island even if there's a cost attached. I do.

So what happens when the £4mln runs out? Let me tell you: the routes disappear.

Unviable routes won't be sustained under this model.

[ellanvannin2010]

3 hours ago, Nellie said:

Stansted is a Ryanair dominated shit hole, but very handy if you’re heading to Bishops Stortford.

 

 

 

I think you are being very generous to STN, just a bigger and worse version on MAN from the same owners

[snowman]

Stansted is a very expensive train into London - compared with Gatwick. Can't use oyster/ contactless travelcard

Edited March 23, 2022 by snowman

[ellanvannin2010]

3 minutes ago, snowman said:

Stansted is a very expensive train into London - compared with Gatwick. Can't use oyster/ contactless travelcard

If you compare Gatwick express to Stansted express they are about the same cost, you have other options from LGW though unlike STN and you can save a few pounds by getting off at East Croydon and tapping back in

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

You misunderstand.

Usually when an airline wants to launch a new unnerved route, they would have some expectations of the airport. Namely; tiered reduced landing and terminal fees so it builds up to a higher rate as the route establishes. Plus marketing budget support. It's normal stuff that Flybe asked for and they were told - by DOI officers - that 'Heathrow is taken care of and in hand'.

I don't think I do fail to understand.

If the route is hugely profitable then there's nothing stopping Flybe II coming in and filling their boots. State support to Loganair would be impossible to justify if they did.  But if Flybe II simply wanted whatever state support was being offered instead of Loganair then tough titties, Loganair are an established airline with a base on the island and- crucially- got there first. Flybe II only launched ticket sales yesterday.

I'm not entirely sure what your beef with Loganair is, but you clearly seem to have one. You seem desperate to argue Loganair are crap and thieves and that everyone else- including an airline who went bust (Stobart), an airline who aren't interested in the IOM (Eastern) and an airline who've been going 24 hours (Flybe II) are better. I don't get it.

Speaking of Stobart, I notice you don't explain how Loganair managed to "throw a strop" about a bankrupt airline that had left Manx passengers stranded and didn't even have any way of selling its own tickets even if it wanted to.

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

So what happens when the £4mln runs out? Let me tell you: the routes disappear.

Unviable routes won't be sustained under this model.

The underwriting is a maximum cost, what we'd have to pay if no passengers fly the route.

Business has demanded the route and they've been told its "use it or lose it". 

So yes, if passenger numbers are low then in six months the underwriting will stop and the routes will stop. It'll be proven to be unviable. So what? Loganair will have flown what they were paid to fly. If it doesn't work then clearly not enough people need the routes to London.

And if afterwards other airlines think the route would have been viable with better marketing, etc, then we have open skies and they can try any time they want.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[snowman]

1 hour ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

If you compare Gatwick express to Stansted express they are about the same cost, you have other options from LGW though unlike STN and you can save a few pounds by getting off at East Croydon and tapping back in

Correct. Thameslink combined with Travelcard is a great saving. At least there's rail options at Gatwick unlike Stansted 

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said:

I don't think I do fail to understand.

If the route is hugely profitable then there's nothing stopping Flybe II coming in and filling their boots. State support to Loganair would be impossible to justify if they did.  But if Flybe II simply wanted whatever state support was being offered instead of Loganair then tough titties, Loganair are an established airline with a base on the island and- crucially- got there first. Flybe II only launched ticket sales yesterday.

I'm not entirely sure what your beef with Loganair is, but you clearly seem to have one. You seem desperate to argue Loganair are crap and thieves and that everyone else- including an airline who went bust (Stobart), an airline who aren't interested in the IOM (Eastern) and an airline who've been going 24 hours (Flybe II) are better. I don't get it.

Speaking of Stobart, I notice you don't explain how Loganair managed to "throw a strop" about a bankrupt airline that had left Manx passengers stranded and didn't even have any way of selling its own tickets even if it wanted to.

The underwriting is a maximum cost, what we'd have to pay if no passengers fly the route.

Business has demanded the route and they've been told its "use it or lose it". 

So yes, if passenger numbers are low then in six months the underwriting will stop and the routes will stop. It'll be proven to be unviable. So what? Loganair will have flown what they were paid to fly. If it doesn't work then clearly not enough people need the routes to London.

And if afterwards other airlines think the route would have been viable with better marketing, etc, then we have open skies and they can try any time they want.

How can Flybe come along and compete against something that's underwritten? It's a state-sponsored advantage. Flybe were not after underwriting.

I'm far from anti-Loganair. I've flown them regularly since they started ops on Manchester and Liverpool and I've known Jonathan Hinkles for many years. But what I am against is the contempt shown by DOI officers to the airline industry and the willingness to throw bucketloads of cash at one operator.

Stobart was a basket-case. We all know that. But when it came to PTS, Jez Spake personally saw to Loganair winning the tender. Stobart appealed and the AGs office were gobsmacked. So they overturned it. Stobart had actually scored better on everything in the tender, but Jez still manipulated the panel and the outcome for Loganair to win. But we can be glad Stobart didn't actually win it, I guess. But when the AGs office did overturn it, Loganair pulled all routes off-sale for a few days and threatened to leave the Island completely if they didn't get awarded the PTS because they'd been promised it by Annie and Jez.

I'm sorry but I've seen what happened in Newquay, Teesside and Carlisle to know that Loganair will take every single pound from that underwrite and then the routes will disappear. The data historically shows what those routes are capable of PRE-COVID. Let alone now.

I hold a huge problem with the actions of DOI officers, not Loganair or City and Heathrow being served.

I miss old Manx days.

Edited March 23, 2022 by NoTailT

[Ringy Rose]

12 hours ago, NoTailT said:

But when it came to PTS, Jez Spake personally saw to Loganair winning the tender. Stobart appealed and the AGs office were gobsmacked. So they overturned it. Stobart had actually scored better on everything in the tender, but Jez still manipulated the panel and the outcome for Loganair to win

Stobart were already operating the Flybe stuff and stopped the day Flybe went bust. I know, t'missus was booked on a Stobart-operated Flybe the day after Flybe went bust. Nope, no intention of flying.

They didn't carry on- unlike Eastern and Blue Islands who did carry on homouring Flybe bookings- which indicates they were incapable of carrying on. They couldn't sell their own tickets.

It's almost as though Stobart and Flybe were the same company. Oh, wait...

So how on earth could Stobart score highly and win a tender for something they had no ability to actually deliver on?

Something really doesn't add up with this whole story.

12 hours ago, NoTailT said:

How can Flybe come along and compete against something that's underwritten?

Competition law means the underwriting should stop if someone is offering it commercially. Flybe II are happy to compete elsewhere.

12 hours ago, NoTailT said:

I'm sorry but I've seen what happened in Newquay, Teesside and Carlisle to know that Loganair will take every single pound from that underwrite and then the routes will disappear.

Is that the Carlisle Airport that shut the day its owner Stobart went bust? Newquay (in the winter, anyway) and Teesside airports have both been basket cases for years, and most of the underwriting at Teesside has gone to Eastern anyway. I'll bet Eastern will also stop flying unprofitable routes when funding dries up.  It's almost like they're a business.

If the flights are profitable they'll carry on, if they're not profitable they won't. That's the whole point of "use it or lose it". I don't see the funding getting extended.

If other airlines think Loganair deliberately make routes unprofitable then they're free to try their luck instead.

It's not like anyone can honestly say Flybe II (now three whole days old) or Stobart (RIP) were or are in a position to offer anything to the island. Seems that "interference"- if it exists- is mostly just stating the obvious.

[NoTailT]

37 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Stobart were already operating the Flybe stuff and stopped the day Flybe went bust. I know, t'missus was booked on a Stobart-operated Flybe the day after Flybe went bust. Nope, no intention of flying.

They didn't carry on- unlike Eastern and Blue Islands who did carry on homouring Flybe bookings- which indicates they were incapable of carrying on. They couldn't sell their own tickets.

It's almost as though Stobart and Flybe were the same company. Oh, wait...

So how on earth could Stobart score highly and win a tender for something they had no ability to actually deliver on?

Something really doesn't add up with this whole story.

Competition law means the underwriting should stop if someone is offering it commercially. Flybe II are happy to compete elsewhere.

Is that the Carlisle Airport that shut the day its owner Stobart went bust? Newquay (in the winter, anyway) and Teesside airports have both been basket cases for years, and most of the underwriting at Teesside has gone to Eastern anyway. I'll bet Eastern will also stop flying unprofitable routes when funding dries up.  It's almost like they're a business.

If the flights are profitable they'll carry on, if they're not profitable they won't. That's the whole point of "use it or lose it". I don't see the funding getting extended.

If other airlines think Loganair deliberately make routes unprofitable then they're free to try their luck instead.

It's not like anyone can honestly say Flybe II (now three whole days old) or Stobart (RIP) were or are in a position to offer anything to the island. Seems that "interference"- if it exists- is mostly just stating the obvious.

You continue to misunderstand.

Eastern and Blue Islands were Flybe franchises, passed ticket revenue collected by Flybe. Stobart was an ACMI provider subcontracted in by Flybe. Very different relationships and contracts with the end customer.

Stobart had their UK AOC and OL approved and ready to go live. Maybe you should FOI the tender details and reason for overturning by the AGs office if you don't believe the facts. The AGs office don't overturn tender decisions lightly. It was a shambles, caused by Jez and he wasn't allowed to sit on the panel when it was retendered. Plus you had that idiot Brian Kelly lobbying via Skelly for Aurigny to be awarded PTS so his business could take back PTS booking revenue. Thankfully that never happened.

The fact is we know from historical data what these routes are capable of achieving pre-COVID in terms of passenger numbers and with operating limits on the ATR out of City and penalties at Heathrow, we all know the writing is destined. As I've said previously, I disagree with this forced 'use it or lose it' because what the good Dr Allinson is actually telling us is 'spend your money flying Loganair or we'll spend it for you by underwriting it'. Either way, we are paying for it.

I've seen Loganair pitch documents for underwriting somewhere. They present what they believe is achievable in terms of load factor over what period and how much the cash shortfall is. But the load factors are unrealistic in the proposal, meaning the cash underwrites get burnt through. Eastern have played the same game in areas before, its not unique to Loganair. But with the lack of anyone actually knowledgeable in DOI or DFE, nobody is capable of challenging the data.

It's not 'stating the obvious'. Interference has existed for some time and now Jez and Annie are gone, I hope DOI can develop some integrity.

Edited March 24, 2022 by NoTailT

[ellanvannin2010]

16 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

You continue to misunderstand.

Eastern and Blue Islands were Flybe franchises, passed ticket revenue collected by Flybe. Stobart was an ACMI provider subcontracted in by Flybe. Very different relationships and contracts with the end customer.

Didn't Stobart operate some routes out of SEN as a franchise even to the end?.