Airport.

[asitis]

1 hour ago, doc.fixit said:

I heard it was a practice programme on the scanner that had been left on or accidently corrupted a scan and there was no bomb, only in the programme...........maybe.

Whatever it was they are very keen for it not to become public knowledge ! Must be some embarrassment involved somewhere.

Edited June 26, 2022 by asitis

[WTF]

4 minutes ago, asitis said:

Whatever it was they are very keen for it not to become public knowledge ! Must be some embarrassment involved somewhere.

the whole airport is an embarrassment.

[Roger Mexico]

4 minutes ago, asitis said:

Whatever it was they are very keen for it not to become public knowledge ! Must be some embarrassment involved somewhere.

Well quite a lot of embarrassment - but possibly also liability which would be a worry both for the Airport and the security contractors.

[Steady Eddie]

On 6/25/2022 at 6:06 PM, 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.

Subsidizing peoples relocation shouldn’t apply for public sector roles that are 100% funded by taxpayers. If people are going to come here and financially add value fine. But to come here and be funded by the public purse having been funded already by the public purse to come here seems mad. 

[NoTailT]

Saw this on Twitter earlier.

How much are we paying our airport boss?

 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

How much are we paying our airport boss?

Keep up at the back.

You need a proper privatised airport to get those sort of salaries.

[NoTailT]

33 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Keep up at the back.

You need a proper privatised airport to get those sort of salaries.

I do recall reading your post and repost.

But maybe herein lies the problem? The goal should be attracting airlines, producing revenue and generating profits. That's why Manchester City Council privatised Manchester Airport in to MAG despite retaining ownership of the business.

What happened to Alfs SAVE program in the last administration? Wasn't that meant to result in semi-privatisation a bit like MAG/MAN, a board for the airport etc? Do we need to pay more to attract the right leadership?

Edited June 26, 2022 by NoTailT

[Numbnuts]

58 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I do recall reading your post and repost.

But maybe herein lies the problem? The goal should be attracting airlines, producing revenue and generating profits. That's why Manchester City Council privatised Manchester Airport in to MAG despite retaining ownership of the business.

What happened to Alfs SAVE program in the last administration? Wasn't that meant to result in semi-privatisation a bit like MAG/MAN, a board for the airport etc? Do we need to pay more to attract the right leadership?

Lots of things crashed and burned in the last administration sadly. The 5 year plan being one and dont mention Howies trees. I'm told the rabbits enjoyed them.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I do recall reading your post and repost.

But maybe herein lies the problem? The goal should be attracting airlines, producing revenue and generating profits. That's why Manchester City Council privatised Manchester Airport in to MAG despite retaining ownership of the business.

What happened to Alfs SAVE program in the last administration? Wasn't that meant to result in semi-privatisation a bit like MAG/MAN, a board for the airport etc? Do we need to pay more to attract the right leadership?

So you're saying the problem is that we didn't pay Jez and Annie enough money? 😆

The fantasy that we could be like Birmingham or Manchester is what got us into this mess in the first place.  I'm not sure the economic model they use will survive much longer even there, but it certainly would never have worked here.  We have a low population with an already high level of airport usage and have spent the last 50 years concentrating our tourism spending on people who like motorbikes (not very air-friendly).   So growth of internal and external passenger numbers will be restricted.  All our destinations are effectively domestic and domestic air travel has been stagnant in the UK for a long time.  Similarly business travel was in long term decline even before Covid.  The additional sources of revenue that have been the big earners for UK airports in recent years (parking, refreshments, shops) don't work in the same way here.

You can't attract airlines if there aren't the passengers for them to carry and make profits from.  The airport is an essential for the Island as well so it's not like they can junk it if it's not making money.  And if you privatise it, the company who runs it will have you over a barrel. 

None of this is an excuse for how badly it has been run, indeed failure to take these realities into account is the biggest reason for this mess.

[asitis]

6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

So you're saying the problem is that we didn't pay Jez and Annie enough money? 😆

The fantasy that we could be like Birmingham or Manchester is what got us into this mess in the first place.  I'm not sure the economic model they use will survive much longer even there, but it certainly would never have worked here.  We have a low population with an already high level of airport usage and have spent the last 50 years concentrating our tourism spending on people who like motorbikes (not very air-friendly).   So growth of internal and external passenger numbers will be restricted.  All our destinations are effectively domestic and domestic air travel has been stagnant in the UK for a long time.  Similarly business travel was in long term decline even before Covid.  The additional sources of revenue that have been the big earners for UK airports in recent years (parking, refreshments, shops) don't work in the same way here.

You can't attract airlines if there aren't the passengers for them to carry and make profits from.  The airport is an essential for the Island as well so it's not like they can junk it if it's not making money.  And if you privatise it, the company who runs it will have you over a barrel. 

None of this is an excuse for how badly it has been run, indeed failure to take these realities into account is the biggest reason for this mess.

Best post on here for ages !

[NoTailT]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

So you're saying the problem is that we didn't pay Jez and Annie enough money? 😆

The fantasy that we could be like Birmingham or Manchester is what got us into this mess in the first place.  I'm not sure the economic model they use will survive much longer even there, but it certainly would never have worked here.  We have a low population with an already high level of airport usage and have spent the last 50 years concentrating our tourism spending on people who like motorbikes (not very air-friendly).   So growth of internal and external passenger numbers will be restricted.  All our destinations are effectively domestic and domestic air travel has been stagnant in the UK for a long time.  Similarly business travel was in long term decline even before Covid.  The additional sources of revenue that have been the big earners for UK airports in recent years (parking, refreshments, shops) don't work in the same way here.

You can't attract airlines if there aren't the passengers for them to carry and make profits from.  The airport is an essential for the Island as well so it's not like they can junk it if it's not making money.  And if you privatise it, the company who runs it will have you over a barrel. 

None of this is an excuse for how badly it has been run, indeed failure to take these realities into account is the biggest reason for this mess.

I'm just trying to think outside the box.

We know there's basics that need getting right which we can't even get right.

I'm reluctant to make comparisons with other Islands because I don't particularly want to befriend Banker. But we lag behind at even a basic level when it comes to routes and reliability.

[asitis]

38 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I'm just trying to think outside the box.

We know there's basics that need getting right which we can't even get right.

I'm reluctant to make comparisons with other Islands because I don't particularly want to befriend Banker. But we lag behind at even a basic level when it comes to routes and reliability.

........ exactly what government were told in 2006 when the desire to be Heathrow on Sea took hold !

[Utah 01]

3 hours ago, asitis said:

........ exactly what government were told in 2006 when the desire to be Heathrow on Sea took hold !

............exactly what unqualified, amateur parish councilors were told by unqualified, amateur 'experts' and civil servants in 2006 - and accepted the garbage being fed to them hook, line and sinker.

[Happier diner]

17 hours ago, Steady Eddie said:

Subsidizing peoples relocation shouldn’t apply for public sector roles that are 100% funded by taxpayers. If people are going to come here and financially add value fine. But to come here and be funded by the public purse having been funded already by the public purse to come here seems mad. 

Yeah. Like that's going to attract good people isn't it?

A relocation package is standard for any role if you want to attract people. To be honest I am not sure why it is even news. The £10k limit on expenses is written into the CS terms so why on earth has this personal matter been spread all over the news. Do we have no dignity anymore. It's not even in the public interest. What a welcome to our island. No wonder we can only attract muppets these days. The place is rotten. 

[Steady Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

A relocation package is standard for any role if you want to attract people. 

No it isn’t.