Airport.

[Holte End]

2 hours ago, NoTailT said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/airlines-need-to-do-more-to-keep-island-connected

I'm sorry, but it's not the airlines jobs to ensure the Island remains connected. It's the Airports job to attract the airlines to keep the Island connected.

Surely you wouldn't question the  member in charge of the Airport in the last administration, It like your saying he doesn't know what he talking about. The problem with cruise ships companies are, they should be doing more to make sure the Isle of Man is one of the ports of call, don't blame DfE and the politician with responsibility for tourism, surely it isn't their job to attract these people.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Holte End

[Non-Believer]

3 hours ago, Nellie said:

The fact that the next level of CS just keep telling them same old lies shows that Alf is right. The whole CS culture is broken. 

It happens at all levels including the LAs, "Tell 'em what you think they'd like to hear". Doesn't matter if it's little fibs or bloody big lies about things you don't know about or couldn't be arsed looking into. Just tell them good news and stroke the egos, don't rock any boats or create any work.

That's why so many aspects are in shit creek.

[Happier diner]

Now Manx radio are asking Crookall why the new director got a relocation package.

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Now Manx radio are asking Crookall why the new director got a relocation package.

This is Manx Radio really being on the ball here.  It's a Keys question from last week, so a mere 11 days old.

And it was a fairly stupid question from Wannenburgh anyway: How much is being paid to the incoming Airport Director by way of a resettlement allowance.  Which given that resettlement allowances are based on what it costs someone to move here and the new guy hasn't done so yet, all Crookall could do was say that it's the standard package and we have to wait for the receipts.

Wannenburgh did ask the more interesting supplementary as to whether there's a clawback if someone leaves after a short time, but Crookall didn't know.  But again that's presumably part of a standard package.

[Amadeus]

Having declared Reynoldsway a permanent emergency, the coast guard can now help people get to where they want to go. Probably. 

[Steady Eddie]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

And it was a fairly stupid question from Wannenburgh anyway: How much is being paid to the incoming Airport Director by way of a resettlement allowance.  Which given that resettlement allowances are based on what it costs someone to move here and the new guy hasn't done so yet, all Crookall could do was say that it's the standard package and we have to wait for the receipts.

It is amazing that the taxpayer is even subsidizing more roles that directly suck more money from the Manx taxpayer to relocate here. 

[swoopy2110]

5 hours ago, gerremonside said:

Easy to blame ATC, unfortunately not true. And so often ATC are blamed for restrictions, which have occurred when slot times are issued because the aircraft is running late. This is far more often due to the aircraft having been tech, uncrewed or due to handling delays. 

It's desperately unfair blaming the people in ATC who are trying their best to keep everything on track.

It's also worth knowing that a great majority of the delays into Gatwick lately are due to runway resurfacing work on the Main runway there, resulting in the standby strip being brought into use. This requires greater safety margins, and therefore results in delays.

Both yesterday and today the aircraft due to operate the evening flight have been pretty much on time back into LGW in the early evening so very little other reasons why it would be cancelled when the crew were on the plane.

[Banker]

1 hour ago, Steady Eddie said:

It is amazing that the taxpayer is even subsidizing more roles that directly suck more money from the Manx taxpayer to relocate here. 

WTF are you on about, how is the essential role of airport director sucking money from tax payers. It’s absolutely normal for relocation packages to be paid & they are also offered to health & education workers.

[Numbnuts]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

WTF are you on about, how is the essential role of airport director sucking money from tax payers. It’s absolutely normal for relocation packages to be paid & they are also offered to health & education workers.

Agreed , nonsense to think theres a raft of 'airport directors' just sitting around for a job to come to light. Relocating is a major step especially to a Island . I'm more worried about the recruitment process tbh as recent appointments have been massively lacking in capability for the job entailed.

[ellanvannin2010]

1 hour ago, swoopy2110 said:

Both yesterday and today the aircraft due to operate the evening flight have been pretty much on time back into LGW in the early evening so very little other reasons why it would be cancelled when the crew were on the plane.

And again it seems their flights  LGW to Jersey are operating almost to time  so it does make you wonder where and what  the ATC restriction is?.

Edited June 25, 2022 by ellanvannin2010

[Roger Mexico]

35 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Agreed , nonsense to think theres a raft of 'airport directors' just sitting around for a job to come to light. Relocating is a major step especially to a Island . I'm more worried about the recruitment process tbh as recent appointments have been massively lacking in capability for the job entailed.

Yes.  As I pointed out when Gary Cobb was appointed, he doesn't actually have as much experience as you would expect for an Airport Director:

Surprising little looking at his Linkedin.   He's only been in aviation for seven years - his last job before that was managing a pet food factory.  Still an impressive enough cv, though a little bizbollocks-heavy, but then aren't they all.

He's only been at H&I for two years and a ATC project he's managing hasn't been getting good reviews, but I suspect he didn't originate it.  He's only about 40, so of course the danger is that if he's any good he'll be off in two years and if not we'll be stuck with him for 25. 

[...] He may be in luck if there is reform in the Cabinet Office/DoI/Treasury that means effectiveness isn't frowned on.  In which case he's arriving at the right time.  He just needs to make sure that what is already there is made to work better rather than insisting on having whichever magic beans some con artist has insisted will solve all the woes.  I assume most of the staff will just be relieved to have someone there who knows something about the job after their recent leadership vacuum.

But the thing to remember is that it's a year since Reynolds announced she was going and seven since she went.  So even if they were incompetent at recruiting (they are), it rather looks as if candidates aren't lining up.   The original closing date was 5 December 2021 with  salary of £82,797 to £103,492 per annum, of which the midpoint is above the median salary you'd expect for the same job in the UK, probably for a bigger airport.  So we have to take what we can get.

His job before the Highlands one was at Gatwick, trying to sort out the runway scheduling problems there, so at least he'll know the other side of the messes we have at the moment. Frankly we're lucky to get anyone - there's a general shortage and we must have become a bit of an industry laughing stock with the appointment of Spake.

[gerremonside]

2 hours ago, swoopy2110 said:

Both yesterday and today the aircraft due to operate the evening flight have been pretty much on time back into LGW in the early evening so very little other reasons why it would be cancelled when the crew were on the plane.

Nope. Yesterdays was due to terminal disruption at lgw, today, the aircraft still isn't anywhere close to arriving back from Nice over half an hour after it was due to depart to IOM.

That said, EZY COULD operate the service LGW to IOM well before ATC run out of hours but choose not to for their convenience. 

Please check your facts swoopy....

[Roger Mexico]

I thought I'd have a look at what passenger levels were actually like at the Airport and whether they had got anywhere near to pre-Covid levels[1].  It's quite instructive:

IOM Airport Pax May 2019 v May 2022
Dest	Pax 2019	Pax 2022	Change
BFS	2333	1972	-15%
BHX	3899	1907	-51%
BRS	2660	2530	-5%
DUB	4602	2696	-41%
EDI	732	897	23%
LGW	16592	14704	-11%
GLA	48		-100%
LHR	2222	1901	-14%
LPL	21551	11851	-45%
LCY	4589	1585	-65%
LTN	4516		-100%
MAN	16096	8098	-50%
Non-S	669	1373	105%
Total	80509	49514	-38%

Overall passengers are down by nearly 40%, but it's clear that the destinations which have been worse hit are those which might be seen as business destinations (such as LCY and BHX).  As it happens there was a similar attempt at providing an LHR route three years ago and the figures show that it's no more successful this time - it would be interesting to know just how much has been spent helping other people slot-sit.

It's also notable that the figures show the previous network is now more or less restored - only the part-seasonal LTN flight isn't back.  Routes to the North seem worse affected than elsewhere, despite the extra easyJet to Manchester - which may explain why they are stopping for the Summer.  Are people preferring the boat for reliability or cost, or still just travelling less?

 

[1]  May 2022 are taken from IOM Airports own website, but because the monthly passenger figures pre-2020 have vanished from the Government website (perhaps to hide how things had fallen) I've reconstructed May 2019 from the CAA's statistics for the month.  I'm not sure the non-scheduled figures are comparable, but it's fairly minor.

[NoTailT]

24 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I thought I'd have a look at what passenger levels were actually like at the Airport and whether they had got anywhere near to pre-Covid levels[1].  It's quite instructive:

IOM Airport Pax May 2019 v May 2022
Dest	Pax 2019	Pax 2022	Change
BFS	2333	1972	-15%
BHX	3899	1907	-51%
BRS	2660	2530	-5%
DUB	4602	2696	-41%
EDI	732	897	23%
LGW	16592	14704	-11%
GLA	48		-100%
LHR	2222	1901	-14%
LPL	21551	11851	-45%
LCY	4589	1585	-65%
LTN	4516		-100%
MAN	16096	8098	-50%
Non-S	669	1373	105%
Total	80509	49514	-38%

Overall passengers are down by nearly 40%, but it's clear that the destinations which have been worse hit are those which might be seen as business destinations (such as LCY and BHX).  As it happens there was a similar attempt at providing an LHR route three years ago and the figures show that it's no more successful this time - it would be interesting to know just how much has been spent helping other people slot-sit.

It's also notable that the figures show the previous network is now more or less restored - only the part-seasonal LTN flight isn't back.  Routes to the North seem worse affected than elsewhere, despite the extra easyJet to Manchester - which may explain why they are stopping for the Summer.  Are people preferring the boat for reliability or cost, or still just travelling less?

 

[1]  May 2022 are taken from IOM Airports own website, but because the monthly passenger figures pre-2020 have vanished from the Government website (perhaps to hide how things had fallen) I've reconstructed May 2019 from the CAA's statistics for the month.  I'm not sure the non-scheduled figures are comparable, but it's fairly minor.

I'm not going to get in to an easy vs Logan spat on this but I've flown to Manchester 15 return trips in the past 4 months. 6 of them were easyJet, 9 were Loganair. All bar one Loganair flight I was on was less than half full. One of them was even subbed for an E145 and there was only 8 of us on the flight in total.

Every easy flight I've taken to Manchester has been packed. Very busy.

I think this is ultimately all down to cost for most people rather than convenience. Let's not forget that Flybe used to operate min 4x daily on both Liverpool and Manchester. We have therefore lost a considerable number of seats on the routes and base fares are considerably higher than they used to be. I often recall booking Flybe flights to Liverpool for £35 each way and Manchester for £40+ each way, obviously they are no longer in existence in that guise and for many reasons. But their flights were often very busy or full, as tells in the historical passenger data.

I don't know if Loganair can reduce fares by operating more capacity - if they could even get the planes and staff to do so - but I do think it's a big reason. Flybe also had the benefit of having such a substantial base at Manchester that they could swap non-local crews in very easily when required.

If you look at Gatwick, Bristol and Belfast and how little the gap is versus pre-pandemic, it shows that if schedules and traditional cost bases are restored, then the demand remains.

Other standouts being LCY. BA on Eastern/Loganair were operating 3 - sometimes 4 - return daily trips on a 50 seater aircraft. That compares to what has been only 1 daily for some time on a an ATR at 70 seats - the recent LCY flight I took with loganair was very busy - I think there's scope for recovery here in the numbers, but would be better serviced on the ATR 42-600 rather than a 72. But then, I seem to recall when loganair were operating it for BA on the ATR42, it had major performance issues on busy flights getting out of City.

Edinburgh has been upgauged from a Saab 340 to ATR42 or E145, which gives it more seats and that seems to be benefiting.

The Non-Scheduled seems a crazy increase. But it also makes a lot of sense. I noticed a considerable number of charter aircraft during this TT for example which was much more than normal and the jet centre seems busier than ever.

easyjet culling MAN also makes a lot of sense. It's likely one of if not the shortest sector they operate out of Manchester and if you're looking to buy yourself more buffer room for ATC and ground handling delays, it's an easy place to make a cut. My recent Gatwick flight back to the Island was on an A319 that had the extra rows removed enabling them to operate with only 3 cabin crew, for example.

Given the historical data available, you have to question Governments decision to underwrite Heathrow. I can say I've flown on it with Loganair and it benefited me, but the flights weren't particularly busy on the two returns I've taken. Whilst I'd love to see Heathrow retained over any other London route for selfish reasons, I think a split City / Gatwick focus is all we really need for now, why spread the figures too thinly?

There's a fair way to go still, the best recovery will be increased frequencies on main routes and keeping base fares low. I still think Loganair would benefit from stripping out the free tunnocks and suitcase, if it meant their base fares came down.

Edited June 25, 2022 by NoTailT

[ellanvannin2010]

21 minutes ago, gerremonside said:

Nope. Yesterdays was due to terminal disruption at lgw, 

You may be right but the excuse given by EZY is ATC restrictions