Airport.

[NoTailT]

49 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

You *do* realise EasyJet have done exactly the same thing with Manchester, don't you? It's almost as though both airlines have realised the proposed frequency was insane.

Source please for the pax numbers. Or are you just making it up?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, other than- yet again- professing your blind hatred for Loganair. Did they turn you down for a job or something?

If LHR and LCY were already commercially sustainable someone would already be flying them commercially. As they're not, then clearly they're not.

The initial start-up subsidy might give headroom to grow into a commercially sustainable operation, or it might not. If it does, hooray, we have an important link. And if it doesnt then the funding stops and clearly the LCY and LHR links aren't as important as the Chamber of Commerce say they are.

And if another airline thinks Loganair are shit and *that* is why the route failed, then hey, we have OpenSkies, they can fill their boots any time they please.

So we can agree they're commercially not sustainable. So what happens when the funding runs out? Like at Teeside, Carlisle and Newquay? Oh yes, the routes stop.

They're commercially not viable in Loganairs model. It's a waste of taxpayers money. It is already clear that passengers are voting with their wallets, Loganairs model will see the money wasted and the routes disappear.

My source of the pax numbers is myself. I was on the flight, back row and heard the Menzies handler tell the crew there were 48 on board.

Manchester easyjet the friend I was travelling with was on and Liverpool was deplaning at a similar and that's why I can only say 'practically full'.

Edited May 10, 2022 by NoTailT

[Bandits]

13 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The number of comments on Gef the Mongoose's FB article about Reynolds and Spake striking out together, wishing them luck in their business venture is unbelievable. It's like the big, bad Island has wronged them or something.

I have to say watching this desperate duo whore themselves around for work on social media on the back of the documentary airing is pretty funny. Who who has been through Ronaldsway would be mad enough to give either of them a contract. Never mind both of them! 

[IOM]

13 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

So we can agree they're commercially not sustainable. So what happens when the funding runs out? Like at Teeside, Carlisle and Newquay? Oh yes, the routes stop.

They're commercially not viable in Loganairs model. It's a waste of taxpayers money. It is already clear that passengers are voting with their wallets, Loganairs model will see the money wasted and the routes disappear.

My source of the pax numbers is myself. I was on the flight, back row and heard the Menzies handler tell the crew there were 48 on board.

Manchester easyjet the friend I was travelling with was on and Liverpool was deplaning at a similar and that's why I can only say 'practically full'.

I just don’t understand your logic or thinking sometimes. I think if I am right you are referring to Manchester and Liverpool flights which if the case are not underwritten . The only tax payer costs which you kept going on about on those routes are for patient transfers and I assume you are not quibbling about them ! 
 

Regarding London the IOM government are underwriting a certain number of seats to ensure the island has proper connectivity. With that there is the chance of more business investment travellers and tourists and that over the medium to short term is worth multiple times the underwriting costs !

[0bserver]

6 minutes ago, IOM said:

 

Regarding London the IOM government are underwriting a certain number of seats to ensure the island has proper connectivity. With that there is the chance of more business investment travellers and tourists and that over the medium to short term is worth multiple times the underwriting costs !

Perhaps on the Skellynomics Economic Calculator. 

We're burning taxpayers cash to attract tourists to our loss making attractions.. how does that work? 

It would be cheaper to pay the hospitality workers UBI, cut out the hoteliers making a mint. 

[NoTailT]

4 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Perhaps on the Skellynomics Economic Calculator. 

We're burning taxpayers cash to attract tourists to our loss making attractions.. how does that work? 

It would be cheaper to pay the hospitality workers UBI, cut out the hoteliers making a mint. 

Irony is that Boxer was flying back on easyjet the other day and got diverted back to London because of fog.

Because most companies and Government themselves have approved spends for travel and accommodation. Loganairs London pricing probably prohibits most official travel.

The economics of underwriting these two routes don't stack up and this whimsical last minute merging of flights will put people off the Island and the airline if it continues.

[IOM]

7 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Perhaps on the Skellynomics Economic Calculator. 

We're burning taxpayers cash to attract tourists to our loss making attractions.. how does that work? 

It would be cheaper to pay the hospitality workers UBI, cut out the hoteliers making a mint. 

Well take a look at the Jersey model . Some of you are just so negative I just don’t understand why you can’t get behind initiatives designed to improve things. Or is it just want everything to go into material decline and end up paying higher taxes as no island investment or tourists ? 
 

And it’s not all about attractions don’t you realise that spending in local shops and restaurants helps the economy? 

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, IOM said:

Well take a look at the Jersey model . Some of you are just so negative I just don’t understand why you can’t get behind initiatives designed to improve things. Or is it just want everything to go into material decline and end up paying higher taxes as no island investment or tourists ? 
 

And it’s not all about attractions don’t you realise that spending in local shops and restaurants helps the economy? 

I've highlighted Jersey attracting BA multiple daily on this thread I'm sure and you shot at me because Jersey is different, warmer climate, nearer to London blah blah blah.

How about how Jersey also managed to attract Jet2 from all round the UK during COVID when we didn't? Same shit.

The world does not rotate around London.

[emesde]

What is really depressing about this whole saga is that for over a year there has been nothing done to put right the broken barriers at a loss to revenuse in excess of half a mllion pounds Suddenly they decide to introduce a system that is despised by huge numbersof users in the UK , is complicated for many and unproven as a long term fix.

There are proven effficent systems that involve taking a ticket on entry and paying on exit with card or cash.For some reason our chosen representatives decide to go with a high tec system that involves every user having to download an app and give their card details to a third party. They have not said how checks will be carried out to ensure that people are paying However they do this if they are not installing ANPR cameras to log entry and exit will involve a lot of extra man hours and physical checks on every car in the car park'

It seems as long as they can wash their hands of the problem they will do anything without a care for what is good ,what works and what is in the interest of the Island and its people. I have lived her for 30 + years and find the whole attitude of many in positions of power exceedingly depressing. It is no wonder that so many are deciding to look elsewhere for better.

[Ringy Rose]

2 hours ago, NoTailT said:

So we can agree they're commercially not sustainable. So what happens when the funding runs out? Like at Teeside, Carlisle and Newquay? Oh yes, the routes stop.

The funding is time-limited. If it is not commercially sustainable by then, the route will end. Like it did before- it is only back on a trial basis as the Chamber of Commerce lobbied for it.

I'm genuinely at a loss to work out where the controversy is with this?

2 hours ago, NoTailT said:

My source of the pax numbers is myself. I was on the flight, back row and heard the Menzies handler tell the crew there were 48 on board.

So in your sample size of 1 we have a load of 48. Which as the Embraer jets seat 50, and the ATRs seat either 42 or 72, is clearly a commercial disaster.

Or perhaps not, seeing as the Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester routes all operate commercially.

 

2 hours ago, NoTailT said:

They're commercially not viable in Loganairs model. It's a waste of taxpayers money. It is already clear that passengers are voting with their wallets, Loganairs model will see the money wasted and the routes disappear.

I would ask what you'd do differently, but I'm guessing the answer is "olololol don't be Loganair I hate them!" so I don't really see the point.

It's "clear" that EasyJet's business model is pile-it-high, which is why they provide erratic frequencies and erratic flight schedules, and also why they have cheap headline fares but staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. They simply don't fly if they can't sell 150 seats. Which is why they just halved their proposed Manchester frequency.

As LCY is constrained to 100-seat A318 aircraft at a maximum, due to the steep approach, the pile-it-high model won't work there.

Perhaps Loganair should go down the route of cheap headline fares and staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. Travelling won't be any cheaper, of course, but it might help the simpler traveller actually make a fair comparison between the two airlines.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

How about how Jersey also managed to attract Jet2 from all round the UK during COVID when we didn't? Same shit.

It's almost as though Jersey had the same restrictions as the UK, whereas US and Guernsey had quarantine.

Plus, y'know, better weather and duty free.

[Ringy Rose]

3 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Perhaps on the Skellynomics Economic Calculator. 

We're burning taxpayers cash to attract tourists to our loss making attractions.. how does that work? 

The LCY flights were lobbied for by the Chamber of Commerce. It wasn't a tourism thing, it was the island's existing CSPs and financial services companies wanting easy access to London.

Maybe the flights aren't worth the cost, but clearly business leaders think otherwise.

FWIW I don't see the point of the LHR flight and don't see it lasting.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, NoTailT said:

How about how Jersey also managed to attract Jet2 from all round the UK during COVID when we didn't? Same shit.

When looking at the figures from Jersey, you have to take into account that their UK arrivals figures are much more biased to air than the Isle of Man's are.  In 2019 there were 857,000 arriving from the UK by air and only 123,000 by sea.  For the Island (2018 as 2019 weren't published) there were 418,371 passengers who departed the Island by air, and 272,885 passengers who departed by sea and this includes Ireland and a few flights from further afield.  So their air market is over twice the size of ours, partly because of their bigger population, but also because it is more difficult and longer to get there by sea (there are a lot more sea voyages to France).

[NoTailT]

54 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

The funding is time-limited. If it is not commercially sustainable by then, the route will end. Like it did before- it is only back on a trial basis as the Chamber of Commerce lobbied for it.

I'm genuinely at a loss to work out where the controversy is with this?

So in your sample size of 1 we have a load of 48. Which as the Embraer jets seat 50, and the ATRs seat either 42 or 72, is clearly a commercial disaster.

Or perhaps not, seeing as the Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester routes all operate commercially.

 

I would ask what you'd do differently, but I'm guessing the answer is "olololol don't be Loganair I hate them!" so I don't really see the point.

It's "clear" that EasyJet's business model is pile-it-high, which is why they provide erratic frequencies and erratic flight schedules, and also why they have cheap headline fares but staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. They simply don't fly if they can't sell 150 seats. Which is why they just halved their proposed Manchester frequency.

As LCY is constrained to 100-seat A318 aircraft at a maximum, due to the steep approach, the pile-it-high model won't work there.

Perhaps Loganair should go down the route of cheap headline fares and staggeringly expensive auxiliaries. Travelling won't be any cheaper, of course, but it might help the simpler traveller actually make a fair comparison between the two airlines.

I'd encourage you to read.

48 pax was a combined total merged from 1x Liverpool and 2x Manchester flights. 48 pax over 3 flights.

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

48 pax was a combined total merged from 1x Liverpool and 2x Manchester flights. 48 pax over 3 flights.

You said (ignore the quote, I'm quoting you not me):

2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

My source of the pax numbers is myself. I was on the flight, back row and heard the Menzies handler tell the crew there were 48 on board.

It's *almost* like you're chatting complete bollocks.

Still, if you're right we'll know soon enough- Manchester and Liverpool operate commercially.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[NoTailT]

10 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

You said (ignore the quote, I'm quoting you not me):

It's *almost* like you're chatting complete bollocks.

Still, if you're right we'll know soon enough- Manchester and Liverpool operate commercially.

Hi petal, are you ok? Link to you quoting me where I clearly said 48 is the combined total from the 3 flights coming to the Island.

I was on the evening Manchester, which also had the pax from the cancelled Liverpool and Manchester's that same morning.

48 passengers that were meant to be spread over 3 flights. That means an average of 16 per flight. Do you think that's commercially viable? Let me tell you: it isn't.

You can accuse me of chatting bollocks. But I was on the flight, I heard the conversation between the ground handlers and the crew, did you? I think not.