Airport.

[The Voice of Reason]

41 minutes ago, Nellie said:

Cobb is on the Mannin Line on Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see of anyone is able to put him under a bit of pressure on these issues. 

He does seem to get away with “ It’s not my fault guv , it’s Easyjets fault or ATC’s  fault or the guy at Costa making the coffees’ fault. 
 

Well if the above is true. What purpose does he serve? What does he actually do?Do we need him?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Nellie said:

2 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

Todays Loganair to Lcity cancelled earlier and tonight’s Gatwick just cancelled , for a change! . Apparently ATC  restrictions here.  

Cobb is on the Mannin Line on Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see of anyone is able to put him under a bit of pressure on these issues. 

Well we already knew that the situation was going to get worse in October as they were due to lose another ATCO, so unless one of the others has passed their localisation qualifications, there were always going to be problems.  

Not Cobb's fault of course, but this situation is increasingly common in public services, especially healthcare.  Poor workforce planning and 'saving' money by operating without any slack means that the remaining staff are perpetually under pressure and look for ways of getting out (taking retirement as soon as possible for instance) which causes even more pressure and so on. 

Add to that 'professional' managers who are able to step down and cover the job of those under them - which doesn't just reduce flexibility, but causes resentment - and you've got the recipe for a perfect storm.

[Roger Mexico]

Returning to my earlier comment about the incorrect cancellation figures supplied by the Airport to the CAA[1], this isn't just about the overall percentage being higher that they stated.  If you compare the two sets of columns, you see that while the total number of flights that actually took place more or less matches, the other Airports show cancelled flights that IOM ignores completely.  To the extent that it is claimed that there were no Gatwick cancellation that month for example.  This does not match most people's recollection.

Now I don't think that this is deliberate fraud, if only because the figures are cocked up in too many other ways as well so as to suggest incompetence as a better explanation.  We've got all the easyJet Manchester flights reallocated to Bristol (again) this time and the Loganair Manchester has gained a dozen cancellated flights it didn't have.  Clearly someone has little idea what they are doing, either in compiling the numbers or supplying them to the CAA.  And there's no system of verification or cross-checking or even realisation that things have gone wrong - this has happened before.

This matters not just because it gives the impression that the Airport is doing better than it is, but because the CAA expects accuracy in everything.  You can't just go "Oh it's only a load of old paperwork!" because in aviation paperwork is what keep people safe.  And we have an Airport that is still in special measures, and the CAA will be looking for an increase in competence.  Supplying them with a load of garbage info suggests you're not able to work some of your own systems and that a similar sloppiness may affect other, more vital, ones.

 

[1]  The vast majority of UK+ Airports have their punctuality and cancellation data calculated and supplied to the CAA by a private company, who presumably cross check.  But IOM Airport do their own and have no one else to blame.

[Numbnuts]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Returning to my earlier comment about the incorrect cancellation figures supplied by the Airport to the CAA[1], this isn't just about the overall percentage being higher that they stated.  If you compare the two sets of columns, you see that while the total number of flights that actually took place more or less matches, the other Airports show cancelled flights that IOM ignores completely.  To the extent that it is claimed that there were no Gatwick cancellation that month for example.  This does not match most people's recollection.

Now I don't think that this is deliberate fraud, if only because the figures are cocked up in too many other ways as well so as to suggest incompetence as a better explanation.  We've got all the easyJet Manchester flights reallocated to Bristol (again) this time and the Loganair Manchester has gained a dozen cancellated flights it didn't have.  Clearly someone has little idea what they are doing, either in compiling the numbers or supplying them to the CAA.  And there's no system of verification or cross-checking or even realisation that things have gone wrong - this has happened before.

This matters not just because it gives the impression that the Airport is doing better than it is, but because the CAA expects accuracy in everything.  You can't just go "Oh it's only a load of old paperwork!" because in aviation paperwork is what keep people safe.  And we have an Airport that is still in special measures, and the CAA will be looking for an increase in competence.  Supplying them with a load of garbage info suggests you're not able to work some of your own systems and that a similar sloppiness may affect other, more vital, ones.

 

[1]  The vast majority of UK+ Airports have their punctuality and cancellation data calculated and supplied to the CAA by a private company, who presumably cross check.  But IOM Airport do their own and have no one else to blame.

Do the CAA  then do their own cross checking of figures Roger and compare or do they just ‘believe’ the ones supplied by IOM Airrports. If they compare be interesting how long it will be before the anomaly comes to light . 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

Do the CAA  then do their own cross checking of figures Roger and compare or do they just ‘believe’ the ones supplied by IOM Airrports. If they compare be interesting how long it will be before the anomaly comes to light . 

I don't know.  In the report intro they say " CAA validates this data, however, no warranty is given as to its accuracy, integrity or reliability" but I suspect it's an area that they don't look at much, simply because those airports that participate[1] nearly all get a third party to work them out for the CAA.  It's only Isle of Man and Southend that don't seem to.

I would have hoped the Airport and the IOM CAA at least (though these are UK CAA reports) would have picked this up anyway, if only from my comments.  But a lot of other stuff may seem more urgent (it probably is) and this get shoved to the bottom of the agenda.  The danger is the UK may take it as indicative of an organisation that doesn't know what it is doing.

I don't know if @Stu Peters has noticed these, but perhaps he could have a word to discover what is going on.  It shouldn't be that difficult to get the figures right or set up internal checks.  It's possible that GTS supplied some expensive front end that doesn't work, or just that the person inputting needs better training.

 

[1]  Most of the smaller island airports and similar (eg Wick) don't participate in the punctuality statistics, though they must have to supply cancellation figures for the main airport report.  This even includes Guernsey, though Jersey is there.  Of course you can still get some figures from the other end of the flights in most cases.

[Omobono]

were on final call to cancel easy jet gatwick flight tonight ?   Cobb is on the Radio at manin line tomorrow , I hope someone will give him a hard time 

[Numbnuts]

1 minute ago, Omobono said:

were on final call to cancel easy jet gatwick flight tonight ?   Cobb is on the Radio at manin line tomorrow , I hope someone will give him a hard time 

So do I but don’t think they will. But to be fair most of the issues are squarely at Eayjets feet , or wings even . 

[asitis]

You can give him as much of a hard time as you want, he'll just continue talking management speak, phrase after phrase without ever saying anything ! In the same premier league of management buzz words as Reynolds ! However I agree re easy jet much of the blame lies squarely with them !

[CrazyDave]

Did anyone hear Mr Cobb on the Manninline?

I thought he did very well, and highlighted the fact that most decisions are down to cost vs benefit and need to be backed up by a valid business case.  Yes we could make it easier to land in fog but it would cost 10m and save roughly 8 fog days a year.

It also highlighted the lack of understanding of the people who moan.  Gatwick flights.  It’s a budget airline and Mr Cobb said himself that he uses that route on the understanding that there might be delays, but that if he needs to be at a meeting he will fly Heathrow or London City.  More money, but better odds of being on time.

Another classic was the guy who phoned in asking Mr Cobb to categorically state if it was his responsibility to make sure taxis were there when a flight came in.  Obviously not ffs.  Book one in future.

All in he did very well and answered clearly and it really highlighted how few people understand his position and what he does and doesn’t have control over.  Like waiting for a handling agent paid by the budget airline you chose to fly with because they were cheap to bring steps or offload bags.

[Two-lane]

5 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

it would cost 10m and save roughly 8 fog days a year.

Has anyone got any figures that do not match this statement?

[Banker]

11 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

Did anyone hear Mr Cobb on the Manninline?

I thought he did very well, and highlighted the fact that most decisions are down to cost vs benefit and need to be backed up by a valid business case.  Yes we could make it easier to land in fog but it would cost 10m and save roughly 8 fog days a year.

It also highlighted the lack of understanding of the people who moan.  Gatwick flights.  It’s a budget airline and Mr Cobb said himself that he uses that route on the understanding that there might be delays, but that if he needs to be at a meeting he will fly Heathrow or London City.  More money, but better odds of being on time.

Another classic was the guy who phoned in asking Mr Cobb to categorically state if it was his responsibility to make sure taxis were there when a flight came in.  Obviously not ffs.  Book one in future.

All in he did very well and answered clearly and it really highlighted how few people understand his position and what he does and doesn’t have control over.  Like waiting for a handling agent paid by the budget airline you chose to fly with because they were cheap to bring steps or offload bags.

Yes I thought he spoke clearly & explaining who was responsible for what.

Wont satisfy the usual suspects on here plus Facebook warriors though who expect airport to sort out hotel’s, travel expenses, taxis etc etc

[When Skies are Grey V2]

"Its a budget Airline!!!"

Indeed I appreciate I must suffer if I keep using the budget option instead of the.......

[asitis]

13 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Has anyone got any figures that do not match this statement?

I'm not an expert on commercial stuff but I think at one time it was quoted as 3.5 million each end for Cat 2. I do know however that couldn't have been accurate as CAT2 can't be done at the 08 approach. It may be to replace the gantry which herself was told not to remove is expensive ! There are experts on here hopefully one will opine .

[Two-lane]

41 minutes ago, asitis said:

I'm not an expert on commercial stuff but I think at one time it was quoted as 3.5 million each end for Cat 2. I do know however that couldn't have been accurate as CAT2 can't be done at the 08 approach. It may be to replace the gantry which herself was told not to remove is expensive ! There are experts on here hopefully one will opine .

What about an RNAV approach, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread as a possibility - at a lower cost.

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, Two-lane said:

What about an RNAV approach, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread as a possibility - at a lower cost.

RNAV will make no difference as the minima are higher than the current ILS. It will only be a benefit when the ILS is off for maintenance and will speed up the flow rate for procedural approaches. I understand that the process to design and validate this type of approach is ongoing. It’s a shame they weren’t in place before the ILS maintenance earlier this year.

Regarding ‘fog days’ - here are the official records from Ronaldsway for the last 30 years. This shows the average number of days each month when the visibility was less than 1000 metres at some point.

There are a few factors that are worth considering too. 
 

First, it is not just fog that causes missed approaches, more often than not it is low cloud. You quite often have good visibility below a low overcast. Full approach lights would mitigate most of this type of disruption .

Second, disruption caused by fog tends to take a day or so to resolve - aircraft and crews tend to be out of position as a result.

Third, let’s not forget that the expenditure is a one off. It will reap benefits for decades, so to let people think it’s £10mil for 8 days is perhaps a bit disingenuous. Assuming the airport functions for another 30 years, then that price comes down to £300K for each year, and as I said above, there are more than 8 days per year where operations could take place with proper lighting where currently they can’t. 
 

Mr Cobb talks about cost benefit analysis - but you can bet your bottom dollar that no benefit analysis has been done.

This is too important an issue to be left to one or two fellas to  make a decision on based on what they think rather than what they know.