Airport.

[Nellie]

24 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Just out of interest, if it was to cost we taxpayers hundreds of thousands to achieve this, would the general public be in favour?

I cannot speak for the 'general public'. 

Obviously it is impossible to answer your question without some insight into the sums involved, and the benefits, including the 'on island' spend. 

But, I would like to see some sort of arrangement that gives us a better, and much more reliable schedule to/from Gatwick, but not at any cost.

As I've set out above, any funding requested by easyJet should be set-off against any improvement in revenue or yield that they generate from flying at more convenient and sensible times. 

It should also be linked to some sort of SLA which guarantees minimum service and capacity levels, and so on.

Also, it would need to consider the money easyJet will save by not having all the disruption costs they have incurred this year through being unable to run their planned schedule so frequently.

Such an arrangement should have positive cost and revenue implications for easyJet and any agreement should take that into accoiunt.

Cobb will know, or be able to find out, how Inverness got a night stop and much better schedule. I wonder if Jersey and Belfast City had to pay for their night stops?

I am fearful of a negotiation that starts with the words "We'd like you to night stop a plane in the IOM. How much money do we have to pay."  The whole thing should be much more nuanced.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nellie

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Just out of interest, if it was to cost we taxpayers hundreds of thousands to achieve this, would the general public be in favour?

OK say £200,000 per year which equates to c £550 per day.

That ( and more) would be a small price to pay to avoid all the expense and misery their operations are currently causing. There would also be some savings for EZY on compensating cancelled flights and associated expenditures in providing accommodation etc for inconvenienced passengers.
 

[NoTailT]

21 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No. Concentrate on the real issues which are long term.

Get ATC up to strength and a succession plan.

Set of runway lights out to sea

increase the CAT level and insist airlines flying here can use.

Introduce a GPS landing system alongside.

Forget the upgrade of the existing departure  lounges ( except downstairs where the seat squabs need to be fitted properly - they were put together wrongly when originally installed - they slope forward rather being flat or sloping slightly backwards )

How about we focus on what’s actually achievable. We know we need these things, but it makes no difference John. They’re too inept and can’t afford it.

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

How about we focus on what’s actually achievable. We know we need these things, but it makes no difference John. They’re too inept and can’t afford it.

At £200,000 a year that equates to £4million in capital expenditure.

It is achievable.

Having planes here overnight won’t solve problems when it’s foggy etc. There’ll still be cancellations. 

[cheesypeas]

16 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

How about we focus on what’s actually achievable. We know we need these things, but it makes no difference John. They’re too inept and can’t afford it.

Perhaps if Peel Holdings owned the airport we’d be falling over them to spend whatever it took. 

[Andy Onchan]

4 minutes ago, cheesypeas said:

Perhaps if Peel Holdings owned the airport we’d be falling over them to spend whatever it took. 

Arghhhhhh...... noooooooo!

[Andy Onchan]

8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

At £200,000 a year that equates to £4million in capital expenditure.

It is achievable.

Having planes here overnight won’t solve problems when it’s foggy etc. There’ll still be cancellations. 

On the other hand there'll be no excuse to cancel flights for anything other than weather if only they will sit down and talk sensible rotations.

[John Wright]

Just now, Andy Onchan said:

On the other hand there'll be no excuse to cancel flights for anything other than whether if only they will sit down and talk sensible rotations.

ATC, here, LGW, technical. 
 

[newaccount]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Just out of interest, if it was to cost we taxpayers hundreds of thousands to achieve this, would the general public be in favour?

If there was a night stop people would complain that the first departure wasn't before 2pm

[John Wright]

Just now, newaccount said:

If there was a night stop people would complain that the first departure wasn't before 2pm

That doesn’t make any sense

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

ATC, here, LGW, technical. 
 

I'm afraid I won't be using EZY any time soon. I don't particularly dislike them but at the moment their inability to stick to the schedule doesn't suit me. I need to 'work' with companies that I can trust. Right now that's not happening. 

[Nellie]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That doesn’t make any sense

I think he means the first departure from LGW. 

[IOM]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

 

I mean, they made a business case to staff millions subsidising Heathrow and City - but I think there is a strong case argument for an overnight Gatwick. Just look how important this has become to some Scottish airports and Jersey.

 

Have you got the detail to confirm that it is millions to underwrite Heathrow and City ? 

[NoTailT]

16 minutes ago, IOM said:

Have you got the detail to confirm that it is millions to underwrite Heathrow and City ? 

Submit your own FOI.

Im reliably told the subsidy so far has been £1.7mln, excluding the £4.5mln during the pandemic.

[IOM]

2 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Submit your own FOI.

Im reliably told the subsidy so far has been £1.7mln, excluding the £4.5mln during the pandemic.

I have no intention of submitting an FOI . You have been consistently saying it was multi millions and quoting the pandemic costs which agreed were  £4.5m . I note you have never referenced the £44m for the runway extension which was effectively a ‘subsidy’  to EasyJet but I know that does not really suit your narrative.