Airport.

[WTF]

1 hour ago, IOM said:

I have never heard of an airline planning on launching a new route and cancelling the entire schedule with a matter of days to go . Must be a serious setback for the route to not operate for at least 5 months !!!! 

maybe with a runway shut and the windy weather due they realised that they won't be able to land half the time and their compensation  costs would outweigh any profit ??

[NoTailT]

2 minutes ago, asitis said:

I don't get how subsidising Loganair to get us to Heathrow then Flybe muscling in as well does the travelling public any favours.

Seems as soon as someone makes a success of a route a competitor jumps onboard ! Open skies is a bloody nonsense with our market size.

We are unique in the sense that we underwrite routes and I'm not sure how that fits with state subsidy/support for example, maybe @John Wrighthas opinion on this? Is there a potential legality issue of the support?

In the UK for example, an airport authority will incentivise an airline to start a new route by offering support with reduced landing fees etc along with maybe a marketing budget provided by them. If another operator comes along and launches the same route, they don't get the same benefit.

Some airlines - like easyJet - have what's called capacity agreements with airports. The route itself doesn't matter, they fly what they want. But they commit to flying X number of seats per year and by doing so, get a fixed rate of Z per passenger that passes through the terminal.

Edited October 28, 2022 by NoTailT

[asitis]

It is true to say the Q400 was a regular user of 21 !

[asitis]

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

But they commit to flying X number of seats per year and by doing so, get a fixed rate of Z per passenger that passes through the terminal.

.... and I was told this was the only reason that they came here in the first place to achieve lower uk rates for more passengers at the closest distance. Tony Browns salivating had little to do with it !

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, asitis said:

.... and I was told this was the only reason that they came here in the first place to achieve lower uk rates for more passengers at the closest distance. Tony Browns salivating had little to do with it !

I think this is the only reason they ever launched Manchester too. It helped them to keep capacity at airports at the lowest possible cost and keep the reduced rates for processing all their other passengers.

[asitis]

19 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I think this is the only reason they ever launched Manchester too. It helped them to keep capacity at airports at the lowest possible cost and keep the reduced rates for processing all their other passengers.

Since the demise of Manx Airlines the various administrations and airport managements have been composed of Dreamers, Schemers, Bullshitters and rose tinted glasses wearing morons. After Terry I haven't seen a serious businessman / woman /  capable of sensible commercial development !

[John Wright]

23 minutes ago, asitis said:

I don't get how subsidising Loganair to get us to Heathrow then Flybe muscling in as well does the travelling public any favours.

Seems as soon as someone makes a success of a route a competitor jumps onboard ! Open skies is a bloody nonsense with our market size.

Remember, when LoganAir re-launched the route, in May 2022 ( having stepped in and run the route post Flybe collapse and during covid with huge subsidy and then pulled out in 2021 ) we didn’t have a Heathrow connection. The underwriting was for a limited period to test viability as a political vanity act, because someone wanted a Heathrow connection we hadn’t had for years.

20 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

We are unique in the sense that we underwrite routes and I'm not sure how that fits with state subsidy/support for example, maybe @John Wrighthas opinion on this? Is there a potential legality issue of the support?

In the UK for example, an airport authority will incentivise an airline to start a new route by offering support with reduced landing fees etc along with maybe a marketing budget provided by them. If another operator comes along and launches the same route, they don't get the same benefit.

Some airlines - like easyJet - have what's called capacity agreements with airports. The route itself doesn't matter, they fly what they want. But they commit to flying X number of seats per year and by doing so, get a fixed rate of Z per passenger that passes through the terminal.

It’s not illegal to give state subsidy for essential routes, public service obligation.

They do it in UK, Scottish islands, Newquay, Guernsey does it with Aurigny, it’s cost nearly £100 million over 10 years. Jersey subsidised some BA routes this summer.

The Balearics, Canaries, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily all have state subsidised routes with their respective metropolitan mainlands. Fully permitted under EU, and UK, competition law.

The capacity agreements are, of course, with airports/local authorities, not national governments.

 

 

[NoTailT]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Remember, when LoganAir re-launched the route, in May 2022 ( having stepped in and run the route post Flybe collapse and during covid with huge subsidy and then pulled out in 2021 ) we didn’t have a Heathrow connection. The underwriting was for a limited period to test viability as a political vanity act, because someone wanted a Heathrow connection we hadn’t had for years.

It’s not illegal to give state subsidy for essential routes, public service obligation.

They do it in UK, Scottish islands, Newquay, Guernsey does it with Aurigny, it’s cost nearly £100 million over 10 years. Jersey subsidised some BA routes this summer.

The Balearics, Canaries, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily all have state subsidised routes with their respective metropolitan mainlands. Fully permitted under EU, and UK, competition law.

The capacity agreements are, of course, with airports/local authorities, not national governments.

 

 

Is the Loganair underwrite really the same as a PSO though?

A PSO is a transparent tender process.

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

as a political vanity act,

This is nail on the head time for many of the airports problems, we have limited market size, we have little tourist market and we are a small island airport. Trying to run routes and indeed the facility itself outside of those constraints does not work. We are something of a niche market, many businesses run successfully, content to be a niche market, we have tried and failed to be something we are not and financially it has cost us dearly. All the money spent on "aviation management experts " , " development" , "new shiny things and longer runways" has achieved the square root of eff all ! Like many things here we need to do things differently not jump on the same merry go round time after time !

[NoTailT]

Fair play.

 

[IOM]

6 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Fair play.

 

Clever marketing! 

[NoTailT]

Just now, IOM said:

Clever marketing! 

I agree entirely. Made me laugh, very much fair play.

[Mikimoto]

Not sure of the no more maybes (though quite funny!): BHX was 2 hours late arriving on Monday, and 

every other late scheduled arrival for that day was a Loganair.

[0bserver]

They've also slashed the London City right back in January and February. Makes a business meeting very difficult.

[Utah 01]

7 hours ago, Amadeus said:

All good and well making jokes but how are we supposed to sell the island as a great place to live and do business if this keeps happening?

By having an island based and owned airline. That is the only solution and if it can be done for a steam boat, it can be done for an aircraft or two.