Airport.

[John Wright]

2 hours 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.

I’m pretty sure that it’s a short, fixed term, contract. 2 years was my recollection, and that it had been extended temporarily. So 2024 as date for new contract, and negotiating it now, is about correct.

the figures are clearly a mess, I wonder if, for easyJet billing is monthly in arrears so the bookings and payments are a month out of synch?

On Feb and March Logan figures it’s running at between £1.2 and £1.8 million a year.

There’s much more use of remote consultations. I’ve gone from 4 follow up attendances a year to 3 remote and one attendance.

When I was going over twice per week for 6 months I quickly stopped using PT and booked EZY direct and submitted expense claims. It saved me having to deal with PT, who I found very frustrating, for bookings.

Roger, I think you’ve made a wrong assumption about flights/seats to work out pricing. Given it’s both ways I can’t see only 50 or so return trips per month, less than 2 patients each way per weekday.

53 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

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?

There are many follow up appointments held remotely now.

Majority, vast majority, are booked by PT, not by patients direct.

Of course they know how much it costs. It’s just that data is stored in a haphazard fashion making route and monthly breakdown problematic.

 

What I find most concerning is that apparently City and Heathrow are still being underwritten.

[NoTailT]

10 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m pretty sure that it’s a short, fixed term, contract. 2 years was my recollection, and that it had been extended temporarily. So 2024 as date for new contract, and negotiating it now, is about correct.

the figures are clearly a mess, I wonder if, for easyJet billing is monthly in arrears so the bookings and payments are a month out of synch?

On Feb and March Logan figures it’s running at between £1.2 and £1.8 million a year.

There’s much more use of remote consultations. I’ve gone from 4 follow up attendances a year to 3 remote and one attendance.

When I was going over twice per week for 6 months I quickly stopped using PT and booked EZY direct and submitted expense claims. It saved me having to deal with PT, who I found very frustrating, for bookings.

There are many follow up appointments held remotely now.

Majority, vast majority, are booked by PT, not by patients direct.

Of course they know how much it costs. It’s just that data is stored in a haphazard fashion making route and monthly breakdown problematic.

 

What I find most concerning is that apparently City and Heathrow are still being underwritten.

With ref to the latter, I think I saw the underwrite lasts until March 24 now?

Some joked about a £10mln figure but I'm pretty sure since the start of COVID that's roughly how much has been provided in subsidys and underwrite to Loganair. With any PTS revenues being in addition.

If memory serves me right, PT bookings used to be handled by ORTG for Flybe, but Loganair handle it directly now I think?

[asitis]

The lack of financial prudence across Government is having to be paid for by increases in every way possible, wherever possible. Someone has to get a grip or this won't end well.

[IOM]

9 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

With ref to the latter, I think I saw the underwrite lasts until March 24 now?

Some joked about a £10mln figure but I'm pretty sure since the start of COVID that's roughly how much has been provided in subsidys and underwrite to Loganair. With any PTS revenues being in addition.

If memory serves me right, PT bookings used to be handled by ORTG for Flybe, but Loganair handle it directly now I think?

You are like a broken record . We already established that the £5.4m was an extreme circumstance during a unique period where we had no choice - literally no choice to ensure lifeline critical services If you are ‘ pretty sure’ please advise your source for the other £4.6m because you clearly have a lot of knowledge of the subject ! 

[cheesypeas]

Stu Peters reckons cat 2 wouldn’t make a significant difference to planes getting in @madmanxpilot ? Do we know how many flights would or wouldn’t have got in? 

[WTF]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

 

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

government knowing and government telling aren't the same thing.

[Non-Believer]

46 minutes ago, asitis said:

The lack of financial prudence across Government is having to be paid for by increases in every way possible, wherever possible. Someone has to get a grip or this won't end well.

It's the easier option to endlessly hit the taxpayers in all facets than inflict any pain on Govt itself in response to its own failings. Glover's statement a couple of days ago was a rare admission of failure in that respect.

Everything we are addressing now by this increasing means, across the board, arises from legacies and failings that weren't directly addressed then or now because it wasn't a politically palatable option.

Things are now crawling out of the long grass and from under the rug because kicking them there in the first instance was the easy option. They stayed there long enough to allow the knowing kickers to depart with handsome pensions though, we're paying for them as well.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

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

It's possible that they just mean they can't give the breakdown between MAN/LPL that was requested, but the general response is so bizarre that you do wonder.  

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

the figures are clearly a mess, I wonder if, for easyJet billing is monthly in arrears so the bookings and payments are a month out of synch?

[...] Roger, I think you’ve made a wrong assumption about flights/seats to work out pricing. Given it’s both ways I can’t see only 50 or so return trips per month, less than 2 patients each way per weekday.

There clearly is regular billing, but you get the impression that there can't be any form of cross-checking or data-collection, either from directly booked or expensed flights.

I'm not sure either if the flight count is single, return or a mixture.  But no matter which, the numbers are so over the place that they are clearly wrong.  There's clearly not just a complete lack of functioning systems, but an unawareness that they are even needed.

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's possible that they just mean they can't give the breakdown between MAN/LPL that was requested, but the general response is so bizarre that you do wonder.  

There clearly is regular billing, but you get the impression that there can't be any form of cross-checking or data-collection, either from directly booked or expensed flights.

I'm not sure either if the flight count is single, return or a mixture.  But no matter which, the numbers are so over the place that they are clearly wrong.  There's clearly not just a complete lack of functioning systems, but an unawareness that they are even needed.

One thing with FOIs is to always cover every angle in how you structure the question. If you give them avenue to cop out of response, they will take it. Happens across all depts.

[madmanxpilot]

1 hour ago, cheesypeas said:

Stu Peters reckons cat 2 wouldn’t make a significant difference to planes getting in @madmanxpilot ? Do we know how many flights would or wouldn’t have got in? 

I have no idea - all I can say is that it would be an awful lot more than is currently the case and that it would be the most significant improvement in terms of all weather operations the airport has ever had. It would be a complete game-changer.

Cat2 will allow for landings in 300 metres visibility with a decision height of 100 feet.

From my experience, if you have the required visibility of 300m, you are almost assured of getting the required visual references to allow for a landing irrespective of the cloud base.

IF they are seriously considering this, as we are led to believe they are,  then I hope and pray the technical survey is being done by an appropriate organisation - NATS or Osprey - and that the Airport management don’t put their dodgy oars into the mix. 

It is far to an important project to f**k up.

 

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, cheesypeas said:

Stu Peters reckons cat 2 wouldn’t make a significant difference to planes getting in @madmanxpilot ? Do we know how many flights would or wouldn’t have got in? 

We don't need Cat 2 when Chris Thomas reckons we've had Cat 3 operational since March, do we.....?

[Ringy Rose]

3 hours ago, NoTailT said:

Some joked about a £10mln figure but I'm pretty sure since the start of COVID that's roughly how much has been provided in subsidys and underwrite to Loganair. With any PTS revenues being in addition.

£4.6m in underwriting since 2021? You’re going to have to show a source for that.

The £5m was for the Covid flights that were mostly empty. I’d agree if you were arguing that choosing to pay for the daily Heathrow flight during Covid was a waste of money, but I’m not sure how you pin that on Loganair.

I’d not be surprised to see City go, my flight back last Monday evening was barely a third full. Clearly despite EasyJet’s incompetence, Gatwick being a shithole, and City being lovely to travel through with the new scanners, people aren’t flying Loganair to City. Hand on heart I don’t get it, why would anyone choose to fly through Gatwick.

FWIW I still think the issue is that Loganair’s marketing is terrible and people just assume EasyJet are cheaper because EasyJet micro-slice their pricing.

[The Voice of Reason]

38 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

FWIW I still think the issue is that Loganair’s marketing is terrible and people just assume EasyJet are cheaper because EasyJet micro-slice their pricing.

Well yes you do keep banging that drum and it may be true sometimes.

But by way of example I was booked on a Tuesday lunchtime flight to Gatwick.Which which has now been cancelled.The cost for two people with luggage was about £120 ( It was booked maybe a couple of weeks ago if that) 

I was later offered flights on the notoriously unreliable evening flight on the same day but the timing didn’t suit and I had by then booked lunchtime flights to LHR with Loganair (£388, including luggage if you please). At that time I had no confirmation of the Easyjet cancellation but read it on here, looked at my booking on the app and lo and behold my flight had changed to the evening one.

I appreciate that had the EasyJet flight not been cancelled the cost would have risen in the two weeks since I booked it, but even so.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Amendment to third paragraph to prevent confusion of timelines

[Banker]

See Announcement made that due to issues in Europe, tonight’s easyJet Manchester & Gatwick delayed with latter now due out at 22.20 , looking a bit dodgy as to whether it will go or not with any more delays looking like cancellation 

[Numbnuts]

2 minutes ago, Banker said:

See Announcement made that due to issues in Europe, tonight’s easyJet Manchester & Gatwick delayed with latter now due out at 22.20 , looking a bit dodgy as to whether it will go or not with any more delays looking like cancellation 

Wot , cancel the late Gatwick flight , surely not !