Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

38 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

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.

They were probably happy to accept that an assurance was given that the runway would be in excess of 1800 metres within a short while of them starting ops here.

There was never a problem with them operating on the old runway length, the benefit of it being over 1800m is that they can almost always fully derate engine thrust for take off, a cost saving measure in terms of maintenance. They will never leave here with more than enough fuel to get to LGW with standard reserves anyway, the fuel is expensive here, so the plane will never be anywhere near its maximum take off weight even if every seat is full.

There is evidence that EZY ask for runways to be at least 1800 metres before they will commit to serve a destination contained in a PWC report commissioned by Guernsey’s government into their own airport.

[madmanxpilot]

And regarding the infamous RESAs, they only need to be 90 metres long, but we extended our runway by 245.

Without any impact on the aircraft that were operating here at the time, they could have reduced the declared length of existing runway 90 metres and declared that as the RESA.

 

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

They were probably happy to accept that an assurance was given that the runway would be in excess of 1800 metres within a short while of them starting ops here.

There was never a problem with them operating on the old runway length, the benefit of it being over 1800m is that they can almost always fully derate engine thrust for take off, a cost saving measure in terms of maintenance. They will never leave here with more than enough fuel to get to LGW with standard reserves anyway, the fuel is expensive here, so the plane will never be anywhere near its maximum take off weight even if every seat is full.

There is evidence that EZY ask for runways to be at least 1800 metres before they will commit to serve a destination contained in a PWC report commissioned by Guernsey’s government into their own airport.

It's true that they might ask for the reasons you state, but I don't see it being a deal-breaker and I think they have regularly served airports for many years with shorter ones.  It actually became more of an excuse after the event ("Oh we wouldn't have easyJet if we didn't have the longer runway") than a reason given at the time.

There's a rather cryptic remark in Wiki article: It has emerged that the actual runway take-off length was underestimated by 160 metres in the £1.5 million feasibility study  which suggests that it may have been unnecessary anyway.  It also says:

Whilst the study originally looked into the aviation marketing implication of runway length, airport management has now denied that the extension is for the use of heavier aircraft in the future, stating that the resurfacing and extension are to comply with the latest international safety standards.

Standards which Reynolds always seemed unable to produce when asked.  Which sort of supports what I said.  As usual over the last few decades it's decided that the project is needed before it's decided why it is needed.

[madmanxpilot]

5 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

And regarding the infamous RESAs, they only need to be 90 metres long, but we extended our runway by 245.

Without any impact on the aircraft that were operating here at the time, they could have reduced the declared length of existing runway 90 metres and declared that as the RESA.

 

We could also have installed arrester beds to negate the requirement for RESAs at all. Southampton one at the end of Runaway 20.

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

And regarding the infamous RESAs, they only need to be 90 metres long, but we extended our runway by 245.

Without any impact on the aircraft that were operating here at the time, they could have reduced the declared length of existing runway 90 metres and declared that as the RESA.

My post crossed with yours, but that might be what the Wiki remark refers to.

At the time I remember Reynolds showing some graphic as to the requirement of planes then using the Airport and it was clear that the only ones even remotely needing the length were some smaller jets.  Was the whole thing a fantasy regarding large private jets?  (The was the time of the Manx 'Film Industry').

[Non-Believer]

We had to accommodate the A380s who were going to bring us 1.25 million passengers a year, remember...

This was the era that saw IoMG awash with an embarrassment of cash. It enabled bullshitters to be given full licence in their craft because their dreams were all affordable. They could come out with as much crap as they wanted to propose and nobody would question it because the money was available to throw at them.

Politicians didn't have to worry either, there was enough money for them not to have to display any control or accountability, even when they didn't have much knowledge of the subject, as long as it was shiny and new they could take the plaudits.

Now it's payback time.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[asitis]

24 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

And regarding the infamous RESAs, they only need to be 90 metres long, but we extended our runway by 245.

Without any impact on the aircraft that were operating here at the time, they could have reduced the declared length of existing runway 90 metres and declared that as the RESA.

 

....... and when Reynolds realised her bullshit was not being swallowed by people who knew better, the whole raison d'être became safety !

 

[asitis]

46 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

And regarding the infamous RESAs, they only need to be 90 metres long, but we extended our runway by 245.

Without any impact on the aircraft that were operating here at the time, they could have reduced the declared length of existing runway 90 metres and declared that as the RESA.

 

As we joked at the time, the 44 million could have been saved by the purchase of a tin of white paint and a brush!

Oh and of course we would still have had the lighting gantry too !

Edited July 8, 2023 by asitis

[swoopy2110]

At least we've been upgraded to Cat III ILS in March though 

[madmanxpilot]

28 minutes ago, swoopy2110 said:

At least we've been upgraded to Cat III ILS in March though 

You have just got to marvel at someone who is so obviously at the top of their game.

😴

[asitis]

8 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

We could also have installed arrester beds to negate the requirement for RESAs at all. Southampton one at the end of Runaway 20.

Nah, if that were here the motorway would have had to be moved a long way to the South, an arrester bed just doesn't look as good on the CV as a major runway extension project.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Nah, if that were here the motorway would have had to be moved a long way to the South, an arrester bed just doesn't look as good on the CV as a major runway extension project.

I had exactly the same thought about the motorway, but not about the cv.  Because the one thing about these people is that they very rarely seem to go on to a glittering career afterwards.  Even if we ever manage to get rid of them, it's with an enormous hush payment into early but comfortable retirement.

[Roger Mexico]

It's interesting that there is talk of renegotiating the patient transfer contract, because I wonder if they can.  There was an FoI earlier this year (reference number 3048929😞

"How many flights were booked by the department or the patient to travel one way or return to Liverpool & Manchester between 01 Jan & 31 March 23 with Loganair & Easyjet. If you could provide the number of flights per airline per route and the cost."

Flights booked by individuals are captured in expenses claims. In order to retrieve this information we would be required to access each individual patient record, which we are not required to do. Equally, the invoices from Easyjet and Loganair can contain multiple routes (in excess of Liverpool and Manchester). In order to retrieve Liverpool and Manchester only information we would have to access every invoice, which we are not required to do.

Now the interesting thing here is that the data supplied are obviously complete nonsense. They don't have the figures for Loganair (or even Longanair) for January (have they lost the invoices?) and for Liverpool in March they paid both £30 a seat to easyJet and £1403 a seat (!) to Loganair.

This is clearly a system out of control run by people so clueless they don't even realise it is (and dumb enough not to conceal the fact).  There could be all sorts of external and/or internal financial shenanigans going on and there would be no way of them telling.  So how you would have the information as to what is needed to negotiate any sort of new deal escapes me.

[Harry Lamb]

11 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

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)

 

I don't think that's quite right because a KC name can't have that many words....

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's interesting that there is talk of renegotiating the patient transfer contract, because I wonder if they can.  There was an FoI earlier this year (reference number 3048929😞

"How many flights were booked by the department or the patient to travel one way or return to Liverpool & Manchester between 01 Jan & 31 March 23 with Loganair & Easyjet. If you could provide the number of flights per airline per route and the cost."

Flights booked by individuals are captured in expenses claims. In order to retrieve this information we would be required to access each individual patient record, which we are not required to do. Equally, the invoices from Easyjet and Loganair can contain multiple routes (in excess of Liverpool and Manchester). In order to retrieve Liverpool and Manchester only information we would have to access every invoice, which we are not required to do.

Now the interesting thing here is that the data supplied are obviously complete nonsense. They don't have the figures for Loganair (or even Longanair) for January (have they lost the invoices?) and for Liverpool in March they paid both £30 a seat to easyJet and £1403 a seat (!) to Loganair.

This is clearly a system out of control run by people so clueless they don't even realise it is (and dumb enough not to conceal the fact).  There could be all sorts of external and/or internal financial shenanigans going on and there would be no way of them telling.  So how you would have the information as to what is needed to negotiate any sort of new deal escapes me.

If memory serves me correctly, in pre covid Flybe days the PTS represented approximately £2.2m+ in revenue per year.

So PTS has either fallen off a cliff (I doubt) or there's something askew.

Are majority of flights booked by individuals and reclaimed or Gov?

This line also should concern.

--

In order to retrieve this information we would be required to access each individual patient record, which we are not required to do.

--

Surely Government knows how much PTS is costing it in total?

Edited July 9, 2023 by NoTailT