Airport.

[newaccount]

11 minutes ago, IOM said:

Correct . That was how much the tax payer paid for the runway extension and resurface back in 2008 because without that Easyjet would not come . It’s not a narrative that suits a lot of people but it’s a fact . Any cost of underwriting for Loganair will be a fraction of that. 

Averages about £3m per year so far and that amount will go down each year.

 

Now, how much do the taxpayers pay directly to Loganair?  Millions.

 

One thing is clear ... Loganair have reduced frequency even though they're in receipt of subsidies

 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/islands-air-links-to-london-improved-after-government-underwrites-service-546261

Edited July 8, 2023 by newaccount

[Non-Believer]

And from the heady days of 2013...

 

[newaccount]

easyJet currently have 3 flights scheduled between IOM and LGW on Fridays and Sundays this coming winter.

Edited July 8, 2023 by newaccount
Clarify

[IOM]

1 minute ago, newaccount said:

easyJet currently have up to 3 flights per day scheduled between IOM and LGW 

Yes 3 on a very few days but mostly two rotations  . And for quite a lot of the summer months it’s down to one a day 4 days a week . You forgot to put that in your post ! 

[NoTailT]

14 minutes ago, newaccount said:

Averages about £3m per year so far and that amount will go down each year.

 

Now, how much do the taxpayers pay directly to Loganair?  Millions.

 

One thing is clear ... Loganair have reduced frequency even though they're in receipt of subsidies

 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/islands-air-links-to-london-improved-after-government-underwrites-service-546261

£5.4m to Loganair for London and more for PTS, no?

[IOM]

18 minutes ago, newaccount said:

 

 

 

One thing is clear ... Loganair have reduced frequency even though they're in receipt of subsidies

 

 

I was not aware they had reduced frequencies on London where there is an underwriting in place . Yes they have cut back on Manchester but that route is not underwritten to my knowledge. 

[ellanvannin2010]

4 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

£5.4m to Loganair for London and more for PTS, no?

I thought that figure was for maintaining the flights during covid restrictions.

Trouble with underwriting as opposed to subsidy is unless you know the details you do not know the costs.

Eg 50 pax but at what fare?

Is it an average load of 50 over 5,10,20,100 flights or per flight?.

Devil is in the detail. 

 

 

[NoTailT]

2 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

I thought that figure was for maintaining the flights during covid restrictions.

Trouble with underwriting as opposed to subsidy is unless you know the details you do not know the costs.

Eg 50 pax but at what fare?

Is it an average load of 50 over 5,10,20,100 flights or per flight?.

Devil is in the detail. 

 

 

I saw the figure published recently on front page of newspaper and underwriting ends March next year?

Edited July 8, 2023 by NoTailT

[ellanvannin2010]

5 minutes ago, IOM said:

I was not aware they had reduced frequencies on London where there is an underwriting in place . Yes they have cut back on Manchester but that route is not underwritten to my knowledge. 

Morning lcy is only Mon and Wed this summer, was Mon to Thurs last summer I think. 

I had to alter a trip in August as they canx the early LCY on the Tuesday 

[IOM]

1 minute ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

I thought that figure was for maintaining the flights during covid restrictions.

Trouble with underwriting as opposed to subsidy is unless you know the details you do not know the costs.

Eg 50 pax but at what fare?

Is it an average load of 50 over 5,10,20,100 flights or per flight?.

Devil is in the detail. 

 

 

Exactly that £5.4m figure was during covid to maintain air routes when basically nobody was flying other than critical health workers and hospital appointments. I am sure if EasyJet had been asked they would have done it for a lot more ! But let’s not get the facts in the way of peoples narratives . 

[Roger Mexico]

16 minutes ago, IOM said:

Correct . That was how much the tax payer paid for the runway extension and resurface back in 2008 because without that Easyjet would not come . It’s not a narrative that suits a lot of people but it’s a fact . Any cost of underwriting for Loganair will be a fraction of that. 

But work on the runway extension wasn't completed till 2011 and easyJet started flying in in May 2010[1].  So they could quite happily land on the old runway.  In fact the 'reason' for the extension changed all the time with Reynolds (who was specifically recruited to sell the project) inventing things off the top of her head.  As happened later with the control tower, the fence, the radar and so on.  And the politicians merrily swallowed the explanations and imaginary regulations because they don't like to stand up to bullies and feel they have done their job by asking, no matter how ridiculous the answer.

 

[1]  The first flight went tech and had to return to Liverpool.  Nothing changes.

[ellanvannin2010]

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

I saw the figure published recently on front page of newspaper and underwriting ends March next year?

That is not how I  read the article on iomtoday about it.

[NoTailT]

13 minutes ago, IOM said:

Exactly that £5.4m figure was during covid to maintain air routes when basically nobody was flying other than critical health workers and hospital appointments. I am sure if EasyJet had been asked they would have done it for a lot more ! But let’s not get the facts in the way of peoples narratives . 

You are funny. It’s not about narratives. EasyJet planes are over twice the size and naturally more costly and inappropriate during covid.

The flying during COVID was essentially like a gov sponsored charter programme.

I think the reality is that we’ve palmed off circa £10mln to Loganair in subsidy and underwriting, plus PTS. Not bad business, eh.

[IOM]

3 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

You are funny. It’s not about narratives. EasyJet planes are over twice the size and naturally more costly and inappropriate during covid.

The flying during COVID was essentially like a gov sponsored charter programme.

I think the reality is that we’ve palmed off circa £10mln to Loganair in subsidy and underwriting, plus PTS. Not bad business, eh.

Of course EasyJet planes are twice the size I know that . My point is we paid £5.4m to Loganair to ensure critical air links during the pandemic - we had no choice . What did you expect them to do fly planes with virtually no paying customers for free ? Thank goodness they were there to do it with relatively small planes is all I say . My point is that period was a complete anomaly and EasyJet could have done it but they too would have to be funded and it would have been a lot more than £5.4m  exactly because they are bigger planes . And I have no idea where you get the £10m from that is totally and utterly unsubstantiated. So I think it’s you that is funny because you can’t see or think beyond the obvious! 

[The Voice of Reason]

11 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

'Nigger' - a historical fact.

Well yes it is. The dog indeed was named thus.

But why it is being brought up in a discussion about the performance of the airlines operating in and out of Ronaldsway goodness knows.

Not many people may also know that said dog had the Kennel Club name of “Motherfucker of anal fisting in Galapagos”

(I may have just made that up though)