Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

43 minutes ago, John Wright said:

‘Twas ever thus, even before Open Skies. In fact I’d venture we’ve had more stability of airlines since Open Skies, than before.

I disagree. Engage with an airline, in return for them getting exclusivity on a route, they commit to a service level agreement - a bit like a Public Service Obligation agreement in the UK. I know, having been involved in operating these routes, that the airline prioritised such services over others to avoid the financial penalties enshrined in the contract.

Has the IOM ever licensed routes and services? A genuine question because I'm not so sure it has.

[Roger Mexico]

57 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

I disagree. Engage with an airline, in return for them getting exclusivity on a route, they commit to a service level agreement - a bit like a Public Service Obligation agreement in the UK. I know, having been involved in operating these routes, that the airline prioritised such services over others to avoid the financial penalties enshrined in the contract.

Has the IOM ever licensed routes and services? A genuine question because I'm not so sure it has.

Isn't that what happens with the patient transfers in effect?  Certainly operators will tend to prioritise those particular services over others.  But more widely Public Service Obligations aren't going to work because those mainly act to connect places that wouldn't otherwise have any service to air networks and that's not the case with the Isle of Man where there's enough demand to support services of some sort - even if it isn't exactly what some people would like.

Put a PSO on a particular London Airport and there's no guarantee that most people won't prefer to fly to other ones on cost grounds, leaving the taxpayer forking out for subsidies on a route they have chosen not use or a withdrawal of the service.

[ellanvannin2010]

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Isn't that what happens with the patient transfers in effect?  Certainly operators will tend to prioritise those particular services over others.  But more widely Public Service Obligations aren't going to work because those mainly act to connect places that wouldn't otherwise have any service to air networks and that's not the case with the Isle of Man where there's enough demand to support services of some sort - even if it isn't exactly what some people would like.

Put a PSO on a particular London Airport and there's no guarantee that most people won't prefer to fly to other ones on cost grounds, leaving the taxpayer forking out for subsidies on a route they have chosen not use or a withdrawal of the service.

Not sure you are entirely correct there, Newquay has a PSO to ensure a frequent regular service to London but without that they would likely just get a somewhat irregular low cost service like Easyjet currently give us.

Edited June 22, 2022 by ellanvannin2010

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

1. I disagree. Engage with an airline, in return for them getting exclusivity on a route, they commit to a service level agreement - a bit like a Public Service Obligation agreement in the UK. I know, having been involved in operating these routes, that the airline prioritised such services over others to avoid the financial penalties enshrined in the contract.

2. Has the IOM ever licensed routes and services? A genuine question because I'm not so sure it has.

1. I’m not sure how you can disagree with the statement of fact I made. There has never been stability/continuity of operator, before or after open skies.

What you propose may work to provide future stability by creating a user agreement style obligation on one or more essential routes. But, as Roger has pointed out, that doesn’t stop another airline flooding an alternative nearby route with multiple flights/seats. So Liverpool v Manchester or Heathrow v Gatwick v City v Luton v Southend.

2. No, in effect it was dictated by the origin airports in UK/IRL.

In any event we are still in covid exit/recovery mode. It’ll improve as airport and airline recruitment improves and endemic covid levels reduce. Airports/Airlines and regulators were over optimistic about recruitment, training, and covid continuing to hit the workforce, and so capacity. The cancellation of routes like EZY IoM Manchester for 3 months gives breathing space for recovery, and a degree certainty for the travelling public.

Im not averse to a PSO requirement, a route user agreement, or a direct, or indirect ( patient transfer type ) subsidy. I am averse to a Guernsey/Aurigny state owned money pit black hole solution.

[WTF]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

. I am averse to a Guernsey/Aurigny state owned money pit black hole solution.

now apply that to the steam packet , MUA and CS 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, WTF said:

now apply that to the steam packet , MUA and CS 

As far as I’m aware neither SPCo or MUA are money pits, or loss making. CS/PS, I wouldn’t expect providing health care, education, social care, social services etc, to make a profit. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

Not sure you are entirely correct there, Newquay has a PSO to ensure a frequent regular service to London but without that they would likely just get a somewhat irregular low cost service like Easyjet currently give us.

But it only seems to operate with UK Government subsidy, I'm not sure how long it will last.  And like most of these things, it's basically paying to subsidise the wealthy.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But it only seems to operate with UK Government subsidy, I'm not sure how long it will last.  And like most of these things, it's basically paying to subsidise the wealthy.

But that’s what PSO is all about. It’s what allows the government to subsidise and choose one airline, rather than operate open skies on that route.

And in exchange for the PSO and subsidy the number/days of flights, and timings and number of seats, and fare structure can all be specified.

[NoTailT]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But that’s what PSO is all about. It’s what allows the government to subsidise and choose one airline, rather than operate open skies on that route.

And in exchange for the PSO and subsidy the number/days of flights, and timings and number of seats, and fare structure can all be specified.

That's not quite true.

There's nothing to stop e.g. BA opening up NQY-LHR/LCY or easyJet opening up NQY-LGW at their own commercial risk.

If we take Manchester as a prime example, Loganair have a very good agreement with airport on fees and Manchester is also part of the PTS contract so they need to be operating the route. Manchester as a route - under Annie and Jez at least - makes sense for no other operator than easyJet aside from loganair. easyJet have a wider capacity agreement with rolls in landing/terminal fees to X per passenger on any routes they fly. However if an operator like Jet2 came along wanting to operate Manchester in the Summer as a new operator, they'd get zero route support and basically need to pay published fees or near as damn it. This is somewhat anti-competitive, but it's how the industry works.

But if we look to 'peak-COVID' as I'll call it, Jet2 were operating many flights to Jersey on routes already operated by other operators, but they were supported an incentivised as it brought a whole new kind of offering. Package holidays and a market accessible to thousands of travel agents throughout the UK.

I agree however that the 'subsidies' of the London routes should have been pitched as a proper PSO tender with appropriate penalties attached. If that means easyJet dedicated 2x LGW per day, every day, with penalties for not operating them properly... you can bet they'd be improving their service levels. Easterns best on-time performing route is the Newquay-Gatwick one.

The current London underwrite agreement is poor and leaves us open to pissing a lot of money away.

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

That's not quite true.

There's nothing to stop e.g. BA opening up NQY-LHR/LCY or easyJet opening up NQY-LGW at their own commercial risk.

If we take Manchester as a prime example, Loganair have a very good agreement with airport on fees and Manchester is also part of the PTS contract so they need to be operating the route. Manchester as a route - under Annie and Jez at least - makes sense for no other operator than easyJet aside from loganair. easyJet have a wider capacity agreement with rolls in landing/terminal fees to X per passenger on any routes they fly. However if an operator like Jet2 came along wanting to operate Manchester in the Summer as a new operator, they'd get zero route support and basically need to pay published fees or near as damn it. This is somewhat anti-competitive, but it's how the industry works.

But if we look to 'peak-COVID' as I'll call it, Jet2 were operating many flights to Jersey on routes already operated by other operators, but they were supported an incentivised as it brought a whole new kind of offering. Package holidays and a market accessible to thousands of travel agents throughout the UK.

I agree however that the 'subsidies' of the London routes should have been pitched as a proper PSO tender with appropriate penalties attached. If that means easyJet dedicated 2x LGW per day, every day, with penalties for not operating them properly... you can bet they'd be improving their service levels. Easterns best on-time performing route is the Newquay-Gatwick one.

The current London underwrite agreement is poor and leaves us open to pissing a lot of money away.

Actually, it is true. I never mentioned restricting other airlines. It allows subsidy of one, selectively, if the route is PSO. Of course other airlines could come along, but it’s unlikely. Without the PSO designation the subsidy would have to be offered to both under CMA rules.

As for Manchester, yes, a few, very few, PTS seats are bought, it’s back up, capacity, and cancellation. Some specialities get sent to Manchester hospitals when Liverpool can’t cope. Just like, even fewer, some go to GOSH or Royal Marsden or GIDC at the Maudsley. Not sure what the PTS flight arrangements are ( or where ) for London.

Do/have EZY ever operate(d) PSO routes. They wouldn’t be interested in PTS, extends turn round time too much. At least that’s what I assume.

[IOM]

45 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Actually, it is true. I never mentioned restricting other airlines. It allows subsidy of one, selectively, if the route is PSO. Of course other airlines could come along, but it’s unlikely. Without the PSO designation the subsidy would have to be offered to both under CMA rules.

As for Manchester, yes, a few, very few, PTS seats are bought, it’s back up, capacity, and cancellation. Some specialities get sent to Manchester hospitals when Liverpool can’t cope. Just like, even fewer, some go to GOSH or Royal Marsden or GIDC at the Maudsley. Not sure what the PTS flight arrangements are ( or where ) for London.

Do/have EZY ever operate(d) PSO routes. They wouldn’t be interested in PTS, extends turn round time too much. At least that’s what I assume.

Quite right it’s a very few patient transfer tickets for Manchester some on here seem to think they are heavily subsidised when they are not . And there is very little chance EasyJet would ever be considered or even want the patient transfer contract . 

[Numbnuts]

Interestingly in travel agents this morning and they still haven't heard a thing officially about the cancellation on Easyjet manchester service for throught the summer . 

[madmanxpilot]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

1. I’m not sure how you can disagree with the statement of fact I made. There has never been stability/continuity of operator, before or after open skies.

What you propose may work to provide future stability by creating a user agreement style obligation on one or more essential routes. But, as Roger has pointed out, that doesn’t stop another airline flooding an alternative nearby route with multiple flights/seats. So Liverpool v Manchester or Heathrow v Gatwick v City v Luton v Southend.

You have probably answered your own question. As far as I know, and as always I stand to be corrected, we have always had Open Skies, it just became an official policy under Tony Brown's 'leadership'. Thats why we've never had stability/continuity for any length of time. 

If a single PSO type route was in operation on a lifeline route, and another airline wanted to start a service to here from another proximate UK airport, then under Open Skies, that of course could happen, even if it would put the viability of the PSO at risk. If all routes were licensed, then if required, that could be prevented from happening.

 

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

2. No, in effect it was dictated by the origin airports in UK/IRL.

 

The only airports that have capacity limitations that could have made such a thing a reality are LHR and LGW. DUB tends to be busy at peak times, but during the middle part of the day is relatively quiet.

[madmanxpilot]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

But that’s what PSO is all about. It’s what allows the government to subsidise and choose one airline, rather than operate open skies on that route.

And in exchange for the PSO and subsidy the number/days of flights, and timings and number of seats, and fare structure can all be specified.

Indeed. 

 

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-news/transport-streets-and-waste/air-link-between-cornwall-and-london-secured-in-new-deal/

[Mikimoto]

LGW evening flight cancelled.