Airport.

[asitis]

13 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

Why would you night stop an aircraft in IOM. 
1. you would need engineering for checks and defects and spares.

2. You would need another crew flight and cabin crew for the morning departure.

3. The off going crew would need hotel and transport.

4. The off going crew would need to be rostered on the next day and not days off.

5. The aircraft would need cleaning toilet servicing with equipment.

6 . The aircraft would need catering for the morning departure.

7. Risk of aircraft not getting out in the morning dues to WX / Tech etc. would disrupt the next 8 sectors.

See how much easier and economical it is to take it back to a main base.

All of the above we had of course, until Government decided to throw their hat in with easyJet.

[WTF]

9 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

Why would we need to pay for the solution ?

 

 

sorry , crossed purposes, i was referring to things costing in regards to installing systems to allow landing in bad visibility which seems to have been an issue in recent months.

[Nellie]

1 hour ago, Major Rushen said:

Why would you night stop an aircraft in IOM. 
1. you would need engineering for checks and defects and spares.

2. You would need another crew flight and cabin crew for the morning departure.

3. The off going crew would need hotel and transport.

4. The off going crew would need to be rostered on the next day and not days off.

5. The aircraft would need cleaning toilet servicing with equipment.

6 . The aircraft would need catering for the morning departure.

7. Risk of aircraft not getting out in the morning dues to WX / Tech etc. would disrupt the next 8 sectors.

See how much easier and economical it is to take it back to a main base.

Yes, we know all that. 

My point was that they didn't even ask the question, so whatever responses they get will give an incomplete picture.

[madmanxpilot]

36 minutes ago, WTF said:

sorry , crossed purposes, i was referring to things costing in regards to installing systems to allow landing in bad visibility which seems to have been an issue in recent months.

The decision to improve the all weather capability of the airport should of course be done on a cost benefit basis.

The problem is, I don’t think this is being done properly, if at all.

Figures are being given for the cost of putting in CAT2, £3m at ‘each end’ I’ve been reliably informed. But, you cannot have CAT2 on both ends, only for runway 26, so why say ‘each end’. If someone had checked properly, or had the knowledge to begin with, they would have realised that because the maximum glideslope allowed for a CAT2 approach is 3 degrees, it would not be possible on 08 because of terrain. The glideslope on runway 08 needs to be more than 3 degrees and is currently 3.5.

Another example is the oft repeated statement that the water is too deep to allow for a lighting gantry for runway 26. A quick look at a chart will show that at its deepest it is 50 feet, and on average just 30. Hardly the Marianas Trench and surely not even a challenge for a nautical engineers to resolve.

This is the sort of thing we need.

Has an investigation been done into the economic cost of delays and cancellations resulting from low cloud and visibility at the airport? Well I for sure have never seen nor heard of one being.
 

It’s not just economic costs either, what price do we put on individuals having their plans ruined?

So, we don’t actually know what the costs to improve things will be, nor do we know the actual economic and social costs of not doing so.

We do know that the infrastructure improvement will be a one off expense, but the benefits will be felt for decades.

The airport master plan, or future form and function agenda, focuses purely on revenue generation to reduce subvention. There is nothing in there to address how we can facilitate frequent and reliable air services. In my humble opinion, that really needs to change, as that has to be the priority for a remote community who rely on frequent and reliable air services so much.

[madmanxpilot]

1 hour ago, Major Rushen said:

Why would you night stop an aircraft in IOM. 
1. you would need engineering for checks and defects and spares.

2. You would need another crew flight and cabin crew for the morning departure.

3. The off going crew would need hotel and transport.

4. The off going crew would need to be rostered on the next day and not days off.

5. The aircraft would need cleaning toilet servicing with equipment.

6 . The aircraft would need catering for the morning departure.

7. Risk of aircraft not getting out in the morning dues to WX / Tech etc. would disrupt the next 8 sectors.

See how much easier and economical it is to take it back to a main base.

You have a proper base here with aircraft, crews and maintenance. They have exclusive rights to serve the lifeline routes so are almost guaranteed to be able to make it financially viable.

 

[WTF]

22 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

The decision to improve the all weather capability of the airport should of course be done on a cost benefit basis.

The problem is, I don’t think this is being done properly, if at all.

Figures are being given for the cost of putting in CAT2, £3m at ‘each end’ I’ve been reliably informed. But, you cannot have CAT2 on both ends, only for runway 26, so why say ‘each end’. If someone had checked properly, or had the knowledge to begin with, they would have realised that because the maximum glideslope allowed for a CAT2 approach is 3 degrees, it would not be possible on 08 because of terrain. The glideslope on runway 08 needs to be more than 3 degrees and is currently 3.5.

Another example is the oft repeated statement that the water is too deep to allow for a lighting gantry for runway 26. A quick look at a chart will show that at its deepest it is 50 feet, and on average just 30. Hardly the Marianas Trench and surely not even a challenge for a nautical engineers to resolve.

This is the sort of thing we need.

Has an investigation been done into the economic cost of delays and cancellations resulting from low cloud and visibility at the airport? Well I for sure have never seen nor heard of one being.
 

It’s not just economic costs either, what price do we put on individuals having their plans ruined?

So, we don’t actually know what the costs to improve things will be, nor do we know the actual economic and social costs of not doing so.

We do know that the infrastructure improvement will be a one off expense, but the benefits will be felt for decades.

The airport master plan, or future form and function agenda, focuses purely on revenue generation to reduce subvention. There is nothing in there to address how we can facilitate frequent and reliable air services. In my humble opinion, that really needs to change, as that has to be the priority for a remote community who rely on frequent and reliable air services so much.

all good points, when cobb gets his marching orders under the guise of a big pay off to piss off i vote for you as the next airport director.

it must be this global warming malarkey and the rising sea levels that has made the water too deep for lights where lights used to be in  the water when it wasn't too deep.

[Major Rushen]

50 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

You have a proper base here with aircraft, crews and maintenance. They have exclusive rights to serve the lifeline routes so are almost guaranteed to be able to make it financially viable.

 

A bit long but ……….
 

It is all down to economies of scale, market and competition.

Yes, the Manx operation 1982-93 was a good model. All routes served from IOM, lots of Business passengers as there was no internet, e-mail in its infancy and IOM building is finance sector with lots of workers commuting. Business passengers did not care about the fare £500 return. The Manx Airlines, and early Manx Airlines Europe was a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Midland Group. So had Financial backing for investment/ development.

Come 1994 Manx Airlines was still serving IOM but now the Manx Airlines Europe expanded as a BA Franchise becoming the Biggest Regional Airline in Europe, Third biggest in the world.Lots of Business Passengers 2-3000 flights a week.

Then it becomes British Regional Airlines and expands to operate most of the U.K. non London Routes that BA operated. Aircraft night stopping all over Europe.

Isle of Man now has a based Airline with a big brother providing as much back up as it needs. BRAL is now a PLC

Come 2001 BA decided that this outfit is perfect to look after all of its U.K Regional Operation and buys it 100% and of course gets the LHR slots. Eventually the IOM no longer the Headquarters of the BRAL group and many of the creators of Manx Airlines who supplied the passion and skills now gone or their focus elsewhere. IOM is now a 3 Aircraft operation in Fleet of 60 plus aircraft.

At the same time the Business travellers who never new of cared what the fare was starting to drop off. Those commuting to IOM moved over, Meetings can be on conference calls and with 3 data lines video conferencing. This is a Europe wide Market change and this loss of income meant that more pax paying less is required. 
On IOM Emerald arrived and started eating into IOM-LPL yields. IOM-LGW is now less business.

Motor on to 2004 Euromanx tries to emulate The Man airlines Model but despite a great effort it does not have the financial backup, in fact it is owned by a Group that drains money.

2006 BA sells the ex BRAL pack ex LCY ops to Flybe.

Flybe have bigger aircraft Dash-Q 400 so the model works ….  For a while until easyJet starts which reduces the IOM income to FlyBe. Flybe fails their operating model is not right for the market. The easyJet / Ryanair model is for today.

So to start a profitable sustainable operation based on IOM you would need  to have sole operation of all the key routes. Aircraft large enough but economically viable for the number of passengers and the fares they are prepared to pay or have a government owned airline run at arms length like Aurigny can we afford this?

If an IOM based operation was profitable it would running. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[madmanxpilot]

19 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

So to start a profitable sustainable operation based on IOM you would need  to have sole operation of all the key routes. Aircraft large enough but economically viable for the number of passengers and the fares they are prepared to pay or have a government owned airline run at arms length like Aurigny can we afford this?

If an IOM based operation was profitable it would running. 

You’ve sort of answered your own question.

An IOM based operation, run as described in the first paragraph quoted above, with exclusivity on key routes, would almost certainly be profitable, and importantly, would provide a more reliable service.

Remember, the fuller an aeroplane gets, the higher the fares tend to become. So, critically, each passenger that airline B takes from airline A, was very likely to have been the one who would have paid the highest fare to airline A.

It just makes the effect of competition on airline routes more corrosive on the bottom lines of the airlines involved.

Edited August 17, 2023 by madmanxpilot

[Major Rushen]

I stand corrected.

[Utah 01]

2 hours ago, Major Rushen said:

So to start a profitable sustainable operation based on IOM you would need  to have sole operation of all the key routes

Sound fanfare - has the penny finally dropped?

[Utah 01]

6 hours ago, Major Rushen said:

Why would you night stop an aircraft in IOM

It is standard airline scheduling practise around the world.  Indeed, I would venture to say that thousands of aircraft are night-stopped every night around the world.

1. you would need engineering for checks and defects and spares - no, chances of a U/S aircraft are remote

2. You would need another crew flight and cabin crew for the morning departure - no, it is catered for in the rostering system.

3. The off going crew would need hotel and transport - how kind!

4. The off going crew would need to be rostered on the next day and not days off - see 2 above.

5. The aircraft would need cleaning toilet servicing with equipment - yes as do all the other aircraft arriving and departing during the day.

6 . The aircraft would need catering for the morning departure - yes, see 5 above.

7. Risk of aircraft not getting out in the morning dues to WX / Tech etc. would disrupt the next 8 sectors - yes, but see 1 above.

You're trying to buck a long tried and tested system.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Utah 01

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

Remember, the fuller an aeroplane gets, the higher the fares tend to become. So, critically, each passenger that airline B takes from airline A, was very likely to have been the one who would have paid the highest fare to airline A.

This is nonsense. Firstly airlines use a variety of pricing models, but they tend to be based more on nearness of time to departure as well as how many seats are left.  And if a lot of seats are left unsold, they'll probably just cancel the flight.  And if that happens on too many flights, they'll just cancel the route.  No airline is going to agree to always provide a route at given frequency etc without subsidy or guarantee.  Exclusivity won't be enough, after all most routes have only one carrier at the moment.

From the consumer point of view, airline travel is mostly a discretionary activity.  If you 'make' people pay much higher fares most of them won't.  They'll not go or go less often or catch the boat.  You could argue that it would be all the better for the planet, but it's not going to to do much for the air travel industry not the Island's economy.  And the Airport will need even bigger subsidies, so maybe just close it down.

Far too many people (including too many is business and government) seem to stuck in a fantasy of the air travel market as if it was in an imaginary 1950s[1] and there was an endless supply of wealthy people willing to pay whatever to have the 'right' flights with no plebs allowed.  But there wasn't even then and there certainly isn't now and any attempt to reimpose anything like it is doomed to expensive failure.

 

[1]  Obviously this fantasy applies to a large number of other areas of British life as well.

[madmanxpilot]

24 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is nonsense. Firstly airlines use a variety of pricing models, but they tend to be based more on nearness of time to departure as well as how many seats are left.  And if a lot of seats are left unsold, they'll probably just cancel the flight.  And if that happens on too many flights, they'll just cancel the route.  No airline is going to agree to always provide a route at given frequency etc without subsidy or guarantee.  Exclusivity won't be enough, after all most routes have only one carrier at the moment.

From the consumer point of view, airline travel is mostly a discretionary activity.  If you 'make' people pay much higher fares most of them won't.  They'll not go or go less often or catch the boat.  You could argue that it would be all the better for the planet, but it's not going to to do much for the air travel industry not the Island's economy.  And the Airport will need even bigger subsidies, so maybe just close it down.

Far too many people (including too many is business and government) seem to stuck in a fantasy of the air travel market as if it was in an imaginary 1950s[1] and there was an endless supply of wealthy people willing to pay whatever to have the 'right' flights with no plebs allowed.  But there wasn't even then and there certainly isn't now and any attempt to reimpose anything like it is doomed to expensive failure.

 

[1]  Obviously this fantasy applies to a large number of other areas of British life as well.

It’s not nonsense at all. Fares very rarely, if ever, get cheaper the closer to the departure date you book, or the fuller the flight gets. Any regular flier will attest to that.
 

Airlines don’t just cancel flights either because they haven’t sold enough tickets to make it profitable on any particular day. They suck it up, and if the trend continues, then yes, the route will likely be cancelled as unviable.

Regarding licensing, I would suggest there are three lifeline routes at the moment that we should consider, Liverpool and Manchester which are currently served by two carriers, and London.

London is obviously a different case because of three airports each being served by a single carrier. However, the question should be asked whether we can justify having services to all three. Would it be better having one of the two main London airports served with greater regularity and more reliability? We  managed for years just like that, I’m sure we would manage just fine if that became the case again.

We simply must have a situation where the needs of the IOM are best served. By needs I mean frequent and dependable air services to key destinations in the UK. I firmly believe that the open skies policy has failed, and that we need to seriously consider the benefits of licensing sole carriers on those key routes in exchange for guaranteed levels of service.

 

 

 

 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is nonsense. Firstly airlines use a variety of pricing models, but they tend to be based more on nearness of time to departure as well as how many seats are left.  And if a lot of seats are left unsold, they'll probably just cancel the flight.  And if that happens on too many flights, they'll just cancel the route.  No airline is going to agree to always provide a route at given frequency etc without subsidy or guarantee.  Exclusivity won't be enough, after all most routes have only one carrier at the moment.

From the consumer point of view, airline travel is mostly a discretionary activity.  If you 'make' people pay much higher fares most of them won't.  They'll not go or go less often or catch the boat.  You could argue that it would be all the better for the planet, but it's not going to to do much for the air travel industry not the Island's economy.  And the Airport will need even bigger subsidies, so maybe just close it down.

Far too many people (including too many is business and government) seem to stuck in a fantasy of the air travel market as if it was in an imaginary 1950s[1] and there was an endless supply of wealthy people willing to pay whatever to have the 'right' flights with no plebs allowed.  But there wasn't even then and there certainly isn't now and any attempt to reimpose anything like it is doomed to expensive failure.

 

[1]  Obviously this fantasy applies to a large number of other areas of British life as well.

I think you've misunderstood what MMP is saying.

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

Fares very rarely, if ever, get cheaper the closer to the departure date you book, or the fuller the flight gets. Any regular flier will attest to that.

Sorry Madmanxpilot. They definitely do. I have looked at Ryanair flights months in advance and thought "no way, too expensive". I have gone back on a couple of months later and they have come down. Absolutely no doubt about it. There is a sweet spot. They must have algorithms that vary the costs. Too early and they think you are super organised and you'll pay anything - because you are expecting that they will only go up. Too late - you are desperate and pay anything.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Happier diner