Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

If there was then they would have dumped IOM years ago.

It obviously suits them to come here. The IOM is a convenient stocking filler for them, short sectors that can be used to fill the gaps in the daily schedule, or easily tagged on at the end of the day.

 

 

 

 

[Andy Onchan]

2 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

It obviously suits them to come here. The IOM is a convenient stocking filler for them, short sectors that can be used to fill the gaps in the daily schedule, or easily tagged on at the end of the day.

My guess is that despite all the shenanigans that's gone on recently EZY have made good money on the rotations they have operated during their time here. The same probably goes for the CI's.

[The Phantom]

Let's just face it, the era of cheap and reliable air travel has now finished. 

It's not just us though.  It seems to be a fairly common global problem now. 

Once again the world is actually going backwards. 

[Utah 01]

4 hours ago, Banker said:

What do you think government can do to force easyJet to change their schedules to accommodate a small island?

Many will say it would be 'cutting of your nose to spite your face' but the pain would be short-lived and it is within the power of the 'authorities' to refuse easyjet, or anyone else, access to the airport.

It is time, and has been for many years, for the total abandonment of 'open skies', the government licensing of routes and operators to serve the interests of the island and not the whims of some spotty-faced youths in an airline's commercial department - and if need be set up an operation (I would favor a joint effort with Aurigny, if they were amenable to create 'Aurigny Manx') to fulfil OUR needs and interests.

Airlines not interested need no apply.

We do it with our sea services - air should be no different and are as equally important to the Island.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Utah 01

[newaccount]

If LGW-IOM is going to be too late for the IOM curfew, why not swap the operating aircraft with a LGW-BHD or EDI or GLA.

 

Swap it for somewhere that doesn't have a relatively early curfew

[madmanxpilot]

18 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Many will say it would be 'cutting of your nose to spite your face' but the pain would be short-lived and it is within the power of the 'authorities' to refuse easyjet, or anyone else, access to the airport.

It is time, and has been for many years, for the total abandonment of 'open skies', the government licensing of routes and operators to serve the interests of the island and not the whims of some spotty-faced youths in an airline's commercial department - and if need be set up an operation (I would favor a joint effort with Aurigny, if they were amenable to create 'Aurigny Manx') to fulfil OUR needs and interests.

Airlines not interested need no apply.

We do it with our sea services - air should be no different and are as equally important to the Island.

I think a few more people can see the sense in that now. 
 

Regarding the other issue that can cause delays and cancellations, here is a controversial suggestion., As funds are tight, put a £5 passenger charge on all departures from Ronaldsway to fund improvements to the all weather capability of the airport. If ‘sold’ properly, I would expect the scheme to have a large level of support.

Importantly, the decision on how to invest the revenue raised, or borrowed against the income generated, must not be taken until proper consultation with industry professionals has taken place.

[Twitch]

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

If there was then they would have dumped IOM years ago.

Perhaps. They have launched a heap of new routes over the past 12 months from UK into Europe, just not here.

[manxman8180]

9 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

I think a few more people can see the sense in that now. 
 

Regarding the other issue that can cause delays and cancellations, here is a controversial suggestion., As funds are tight, put a £5 passenger charge on all departures from Ronaldsway to fund improvements to the all weather capability of the airport. If ‘sold’ properly, I would expect the scheme to have a large level of support.

Importantly, the decision on how to invest the revenue raised, or borrowed against the income generated, must not be taken until proper consultation with industry professionals has taken place.

I don't happen to think this is a controversial idea at all.  In fact, as you say, I think if there was a clear plan laid out which talked to improving / expanding the departure lounge and facilities, upgrading ILS, upgrading security scanners, recruiting a bigger ATC workforce and so on (there is probably much more) and said - this is going to cost £Xm over the next 3 years and as such we will levy £x onto each Departing pax......and look to generate £xm from car parking etc.

 

I think that would at least be an honest way of approaching it.  It would prevent things being drop fed in (random parking charge order etc).  Ultimately, the principle should be the passenger pays - in the short term that might needs more direct revenue through an additional departure tax  - then on an ongoing basis annual costs are met through standard passenger charges passed through by the airline.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by manxman8180

[Andy Onchan]

36 minutes ago, manxman8180 said:

I don't happen to think this is a controversial idea at all.  In fact, as you say, I think if there was a clear plan laid out which talked to improving / expanding the departure lounge and facilities, upgrading ILS, upgrading security scanners, recruiting a bigger ATC workforce and so on (there is probably much more) and said - this is going to cost £Xm over the next 3 years and as such we will levy £x onto each Departing pax......and look to generate £xm from car parking etc.

 

I think that would at least be an honest way of approaching it.  It would prevent things being drop fed in (random parking charge order etc).  Ultimately, the principle should be the passenger pays - in the short term that might needs more direct revenue through an additional departure tax  - then on an ongoing basis annual costs are met through standard passenger charges passed through by the airline.

 

Didn't BLK airport do something similar some years ago when Manx2, or one of its other incarnations operated in/out there? I seem to recall you had to pay a check-in fee before entering the check-in area. Or maybe I'm thinking of elsewhere.

I was correct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackpool_Airport)
 

Quote

........ However, on 25 November 2008, Ryanair announced the intention to withdraw all flights from 5 January 2009, following the airport's introduction of a £10 per person Airport Development Fee.[22][23]

After the £10 Airport Development Fee was introduced at the start of 2009, a new airline was sought to replace Ryanair on its very popular route to Dublin. Aer Arann were their successors and commenced operations shortly after.[24] The flights continued until the closure of the airport in 2014.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Andy Onchan

[Declan]

Just now, Andy Onchan said:

Didn't BLK airport do something similar some years ago when Manx2, or one of its other incarnations operated in/out there? I seem to recall you had to pay a check-in fee before entering the check-in area. Or maybe I'm thinking of elsewhere.

Yeah. But Manx 2 negotiated a deal whereby you could enter the executive lounge. So it could be value for money. 

[Utah 01]

55 minutes ago, manxman8180 said:

Ultimately, the principle should be the passenger pays

I'm afraid I disagree. 

The airport is part of the Manx national infrastructure in the same way as the Douglas port.  It is there as an asset that directly or indirectly affects for everyone be it from hoteliers to businesses, to 'Mrs Manx' having her annual visit from the family to 'Mr Manx' entertaining foreign interests in, heaven forbid, setting up a business here.  Therefore, any costs should be found from the public purse.

Notwithstanding that, there has to be a thorough evaluation of what is REALLY needed to improve the 'airport experience' for users and operators by experts and contractors must be held contractually accountable for any overspend.

The days of the outside world (the Liverpool fiasco springs to mind but is but one glaring example) seeing gullible Manx idiots turn up to negotiations with 'MUG' tattooed on their foreheads has to end.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Utah 01

[Utah 01]

4 hours ago, Banker said:

But that’s in the past , people somehow expect Alf will ring up easyJet CEO & say these cancellations are not on please can you reschedule all your services to accommodate IOM & they will say ok , it’s not going to happen 

You're absolutely correct...................because the conversation should go 'these cancellations together with your shambolic, useless schedules are not meeting the needs of my people.  Reschedule all your services to accommodate IOM.  You either enter a formal service provision agreement or find some other mugs to dump your spare capacity into'.

 

[madmanxpilot]

3 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

I'm afraid I disagree. 

The airport is part of the Manx national infrastructure in the same way as the Douglas port.  It is there as an asset that directly or indirectly affects for everyone be it from hoteliers to businesses, to 'Mrs Manx' having her annual visit from the family to 'Mr Manx' entertaining foreign interests in, heaven forbid, setting up a business here.  Therefore, any costs should be found from the public purse

I get that principle.

However, this notion of an airport development charge does tie in with the current future form and function process that the government has embarked on, where commercialisation of the airport is front and centre. After all, we already charge APD so what is the difference?

It’s not a new concept, as has been previously mentioned, Blackpool did it, and other airports have too. Here is one example:

Norwich ADF

 

[asitis]

4 hours ago, Banker said:

But that’s in the past , people somehow expect Alf will ring up easyJet CEO & say these cancellations are not on please can you reschedule all your services to accommodate IOM & they will say ok , it’s not going to happen 

Nope which is why he should tell them to stick it and let Loganair take it on !

[asitis]

18 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

You're absolutely correct...................because the conversation should go 'these cancellations together with your shambolic, useless schedules are not meeting the needs of my people.  Reschedule all your services to accommodate IOM.  You either enter a formal service provision agreement or find some other mugs to dump your spare capacity into'.

 

I understand the extra passenger volumes from here gave them a further tier of discounts in their uk operation that's why they did it, closest place to get some bodies through the UK. That was told to me by an airport business owner close to the operations.

Edited September 12, 2023 by asitis