Airport.

[Ringy Rose]

10 hours ago, JessTickle said:

ETA - Also 🙂 how do I track the plane so I can see if it is likely to be significantly delayed for the last flight?

Get the FlightRadar24 app. It tends to be good for EasyJet, as EasyJet use it as the basis for their own live tracking page.

 

10 hours ago, JessTickle said:

Can anyone point me in the right direction to get accurate information on what EJ are responsible for if they cancel your flight please?  I'm utterly confused as to who is responsible for what.

The MoneySavingExpert guides are the best place to look for advice and guidance on how it all works.

[asitis]

It's very sad that Government led by the CS, would overlook someone like MMP, who does know exactly what he is talking about, and could make a huge contribution to assisting the management of the airport with technical issues and what money it would be wise exploring to be spent where ! It reinforces what we all know, utter bullshit and incompetence underpinned by ego are rife within the upper echelons of the CS. Anyone who actually doesn't talk in management speak but knows their stuff is like garlic to a vampire !

The shadow airports board function will be to massage the egos of management and achieve the square root of eff all.

Much respect MMP.

 

 

[newaccount]

easyJet Manchester cancelled.

Airport on FB said they were able to remain open late, but the airline cancelled.

 

easyJet app states tech issue with plane.

[dreamon]

Interesting post on NW Air News:

For anyone who is interested, I have had a Freedom of Information response published in relation to EZY punctuality during June and July. There is some shocking data in there. The Airport Director has tried to avoid publishing the most damning numbers, but a review has been requested and I feel sure the data will be published, in due course.  

[Mercenary]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

It's very sad that Government led by the CS, would overlook someone like MMP

It sounds like MMP is not applying rather than CS/Gov rejecting them? (aka, 'doing a Bernie Moffatt')

 

You miss every runway you don't approach!

[Nellie]

32 minutes ago, newaccount said:

easyJet Manchester cancelled.

Airport on FB said they were able to remain open late, but the airline cancelled.

 

easyJet app states tech issue with plane.

Good news that the people inconvenienced will be able to claim their £220 each! 

[madmanxpilot]

1 hour ago, Mercenary said:

It sounds like MMP is not applying rather than CS/Gov rejecting them? (aka, 'doing a Bernie Moffatt')

 

You miss every runway you don't approach!

That is true. 

Taking that analogy forward, when you have accurate information about an unavoidable area of severe turbulence between you and the runway, the smart move is to hold off from making an approach until conditions improve. If that means diverting to an alternate, and only setting off again when a safe landing is assured at your destination, then so be it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, dreamon said:

Interesting post on NW Air News:

For anyone who is interested, I have had a Freedom of Information response published in relation to EZY punctuality during June and July. There is some shocking data in there. The Airport Director has tried to avoid publishing the most damning numbers, but a review has been requested and I feel sure the data will be published, in due course.  

That's a fairly weird FoI to request because the number are published anyway.  The punctuality figures for June are already out:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/10303/ffbf3cdf-a6ff-4501-a1e0-d91d8e39be59/1539

with the LPL figures available from page 149 of pdf.  July's punctuality figures will come out late-ish September.  You can analyse by airline.  There's no obligation to give out information on an FoI if it is scheduled for publication anyway.

[dreamon]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's a fairly weird FoI to request because the number are published anyway.  The punctuality figures for June are already out:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/10303/ffbf3cdf-a6ff-4501-a1e0-d91d8e39be59/1539

with the LPL figures available from page 149 of pdf.  July's punctuality figures will come out late-ish September.  You can analyse by airline.  There's no obligation to give out information on an FoI if it is scheduled for publication anyway.

https://iom.icasework.com/servlet/servlets.getImg?ref=D1752917&bin=Y&auth=0&db=ZVD1ZPdIGvo%3D&access_token=5Qyz0Q9JBojuN8NkzZdzg5ZEG-Md7XmuN84cszff-A8nHMTln_BzWDicVRLqpeDq.lnyRF6w6sdqtchFK_NSyEw%3D%3D

[asitis]

9 hours ago, Mercenary said:

It sounds like MMP is not applying rather than CS/Gov rejecting them? (aka, 'doing a Bernie Moffatt')

 

You miss every runway you don't approach!

Agree with MMP if you already know the runway is unserviceable due to prevailing conditions there is no point setting forth !

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, dreamon said:

https://iom.icasework.com/servlet/servlets.getImg?ref=D1752917&bin=Y&auth=0&db=ZVD1ZPdIGvo%3D&access_token=5Qyz0Q9JBojuN8NkzZdzg5ZEG-Md7XmuN84cszff-A8nHMTln_BzWDicVRLqpeDq.lnyRF6w6sdqtchFK_NSyEw%3D%3D

Is part of the link missing? I can't open it.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is part of the link missing? I can't open it.

You can't use permanent links on a Manx FoI because they are expressed as servlets, which means that the link will only operate for a short time or work for a limited number of times.  To look at an FoI you have to go to the FoI Search page and either enter the case ID (in this case it's 3295801) or search for a word that might find it (eg "punctuality"). 

There's no real reason why the public should have to do this, other FoI jurisdictions manage a system where permanent links are possible.  I think they actually bought the wrong bit of software and won't admit it or they are just making things as awkward as possible.

Because NW Air News is a talkboard that mainly refers to Liverpool Airport, I'd assumed that the FoI request referred had been made to there under English rules but the point about information already publicly available is true here as well as you can see from the reply:

1. This information is not held by the Isle of Man Airport, it is held by EasyJet.

2. Under Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act, information is absolutely exempt if it is reasonably accessible to you by other means. UK & IoM Airport data is published by the Civil Aviation Authority, data relating to cancelled flights can be found here https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviationmarket/airports/uk-airport-data/uk-airport-data-2023/

3. Answers to questions 3 – 7 can all be found within the CAA’s published data: https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviation-market/airports/ukairport-data/uk-airport-data-2023/

8. In June 2023, 32 individual extension fees were charged to airlines/companies, 18 of these were invoiced to EasyJet.

In July 2023, 32 individual extension fees were charged to airlines/companies, 20 of these were invoiced to EasyJet.

9. In June & July 2023, 38 extension charges were invoiced to EasyJet. Information regarding the total value is commercially sensitive under Section 30 of the Act, as Section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

In fact the answer to question 1 is in the CAA Reports as well, you just have to add the number of flights that took place to the number that are shown as cancelled.  As for 9, they actually gave a total amount charged for extensions for some months in 2022 (see my previous comment on this topic here), though it wasn't split by operator.  So it's difficult to see how they can refuse it a year later.

[dreamon]

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is part of the link missing? I can't open it.

IOM Freedom of Information > Search > Easyjet 

Open 

Request re. the punctuality of the evening flights LGW-IOM-LGW

[Nellie]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You can't use permanent links on a Manx FoI because they are expressed as servlets, which means that the link will only operate for a short time or work for a limited number of times.  To look at an FoI you have to go to the FoI Search page and either enter the case ID (in this case it's 3295801) or search for a word that might find it (eg "punctuality"). 

There's no real reason why the public should have to do this, other FoI jurisdictions manage a system where permanent links are possible.  I think they actually bought the wrong bit of software and won't admit it or they are just making things as awkward as possible.

Because NW Air News is a talkboard that mainly refers to Liverpool Airport, I'd assumed that the FoI request referred had been made to there under English rules but the point about information already publicly available is true here as well as you can see from the reply:

1. This information is not held by the Isle of Man Airport, it is held by EasyJet.

2. Under Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act, information is absolutely exempt if it is reasonably accessible to you by other means. UK & IoM Airport data is published by the Civil Aviation Authority, data relating to cancelled flights can be found here https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviationmarket/airports/uk-airport-data/uk-airport-data-2023/

3. Answers to questions 3 – 7 can all be found within the CAA’s published data: https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviation-market/airports/ukairport-data/uk-airport-data-2023/

8. In June 2023, 32 individual extension fees were charged to airlines/companies, 18 of these were invoiced to EasyJet.

In July 2023, 32 individual extension fees were charged to airlines/companies, 20 of these were invoiced to EasyJet.

9. In June & July 2023, 38 extension charges were invoiced to EasyJet. Information regarding the total value is commercially sensitive under Section 30 of the Act, as Section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

In fact the answer to question 1 is in the CAA Reports as well, you just have to add the number of flights that took place to the number that are shown as cancelled.  As for 9, they actually gave a total amount charged for extensions for some months in 2022 (see my previous comment on this topic here), though it wasn't split by operator.  So it's difficult to see how they can refuse it a year later.

I've had a look at this request, and the partial response too.

An aspect that you seem to have missed is that the request refers only to the "punctuality of the evening LGW-IOM-LGW flights". The CAA datasets don't report on individual flights, only on routes, so the data requested is not available from the CAA. I'd have thought it reasonable to expect the Airport to know exactly when flights have arrived and departed, and that it wouldn't be too hard to collate it in the way requested. Using the route data masks evening performance because the morning flight tends to be fairly punctual.

I'd agree that they have provided the 'commercially sensitive' charging information before, so why they would refuse this time, is hard to understand. 

The main number that jumped out at me, from the data they did supply, was that easyJet had to request an extention to operating hours 38 times during June and July. That would be out of around 55 days when there was an evening flight scheduled. The difference of 17 will include some days when the flight was cancelled altogether so the number of days that operated without an extention is low single figures or around 10%.

This highlights that there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the way this flight is scheduled and operated. The partial response from the Airport suggests to me that rather than present a transparent picture, they want to conceal the facts, and are thus complicit in the current farce.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Nellie

[Andy Onchan]

29 minutes ago, Nellie said:

I've had a look at this request, and the partial response too.

An aspect that you seem to have missed is that the request refers only to the "punctuality of the evening LGW-IOM-LGW flights". The CAA datasets don't report on individual flights, only on routes, so the data requested is not available from the CAA. I'd have thought it reasonable to expect the Airport to know exactly when flights have arrived and departed, and that it wouldn't be too hard to collate it in the way requested. Using the route data masks evening performance because the morning flight tends to be fairly punctual.

I'd agree that they have provided the 'commercially sensitive' charging information before, so why they would refuse this time, is hard to understand. 

The main number that jumped out at me, from the data they did supply, was that the easyJet had to request an extention to operating hours 38 times during June and July. That would be out of around 55 days when there was an evening flight scheduled. The differecne of 17 will include some days when the flight was cancelled altogether so the number of day that operated without an extention is low single figures or around 10%.

This highlights that there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the way this flight is scheduled and operated. The partial response from the Airport suggests to me that rather than present a transparent picture, they want to conceal the facts, and are thus complicit in the current farce.

Response 9 is a load of bollox.

Quote

Information regarding the total value is commercially sensitive under Section 30 of the Act

The charges are publicly available on the airport website:  
https://www.airport.im/media/lx1podkx/_iom_airport_charges_sheet_2023_compressed-1.pdf

The only thing missing is how those charges were applied to each of the flights according to the scales on the rate sheet.

What is wrong with these people, it's not a fucking state secret.

These people must think we were born yesterday.