Airport.

[Non-Believer]

31 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Those that did apply were told that they didn't have relevant 'Board Experience'. 

AKA, "Weren't Cobb's mates or previous colleagues"?

[Andy Onchan]

35 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Those that did apply were told that they didn't have relevant 'Board Experience'. 

Assholes! 

[The Voice of Reason]

39 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

You mean two wise men. And a wise lady.

Apologies. Quite right. I read Lorna Jack a bit too quickly.

Nice though to have a modern twist to these things.
Wonder if they will be bearing gifts?

 

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Apologies. Quite right. I read Lorna Jack a bit too quickly.

Nice though to have a modern twist to these things.
Wonder if they will be bearing gifts?

 

Brown envelopes?

[slinkydevil]

17 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Lorna Jack uses LinkedIn as a recruitment tool.

Presumably she thinks those people who post their c.v.s written in the third person as the type she would hire.

Ah well, I suppose it is cheaper than using an agency.

LinkedIn is a recruitment tool. Plenty of successful businesses and people use it exclusively for that purpose.

[dreamon]

1 hour ago, slinkydevil said:

LinkedIn is a recruitment tool. Plenty of successful businesses and people use it exclusively for that purpose.

Along with plenty of people that are economic with the truth about their qualifications and experience!

[kevster]

2 hours ago, Nellie said:

I hope it happens, and I hope that the clowns at the DfE aren't paying to make it happen.

But, until Loganair, the Airport or the DfE make an announcement, and the flights go on sale, it is just a rumour......

But this is not any rumour, it's a Manx Forums rumour

[Ringy Rose]

2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

The appointees all have connections with HIAL or have worked with Mr Cobb before, I find that difficult to reconcile as a coincidence.

It’s no coincidence, it’s just he’s such an astounding intellect that he’s surrounded by people of equally enormous intellect.

Or something like that.

3 hours ago, NoTailT said:

Haven't they just recently announced they are dropping Dundee or somewhere else in Scotland, can't remember where.

Inverness to Dublin and Birmingham, and Aberdeen to Oslo, were the main ones.

Heathrow’s load factors are higher than City, and I can see why the switch will happen. Shame though, City is such a lovely airport to travel through.

[slinkydevil]

30 minutes ago, dreamon said:

Along with plenty of people that are economic with the truth about their qualifications and experience!

People have always done that, even pre-internet.

[dreamon]

8 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

People have always done that, even pre-internet.

Exactly. Another good reason for not selecting candidates for interview based on such websites.

[madmanxpilot]

7 hours ago, code99 said:

Back in April this year Chris Thomas said that it could cost up to £300m to ‘fix’ the Airport. I am not questioning the three NEDS’ professional experience, expertise or any other potentially positive aspects about their appointments. I am questioning the whole principle of the Government ‘privatising’ core public infrastructure.

In 2019 York Aviation LLC was commissioned to undertake a review of The Isle of Mann Airport’s Operations. They said in their report that; a) there was a lack of transparency of financial information relating to the Airport, and, b) their best estimate was that the Airport had a trading deficit of £3.7m annually. That estimated deficit excludes any capital expenditure and also the subsequent detrimental impacts of Covid (it was a pre-Covid report), and also all of the flight cancellation problems we have had recently. I therefore estimate that the true annual loss of the Airport today is currently somewhere in the range of £5m-£6m. No private operator will take on an operation that is making this sort of a loss – unless they are able to massively change the terms and conditions of employees, increase air-passenger duties and landing fees, etc. etc.

If the Airport is privatised, then another critical piece of Manx infrastructure will be left in the hands of private operators, who’s top concern will be generating profits for themselves. At the end of the day, after they have ‘squeezed every last drop of blood’ out of everything, and the whole place is run-down, the private operator will then probably come back to the IOMG and ask for a hefty bailout.

The excerpt from the Government’s public announcement is a clear indication that the Government is seriously considering the running of the Airport at arm’s length and that the three NEDS have been appointed to advise on this seemingly headlong desire for the Government to absolve themselves from another responsibility. IMHO, if they do this, this will inevitably lead to the decline of yet another crucial public service – just like what is happening with Manx Care and Steam Packet, e.g., it becomes impossible for the politicians (Ministers, MHKs) to have any direct influence over the long waiting lists at Noble's.

If IOM residents are concerned about the business model that Manx Care and the Steam Packet operate under, then the same concerns should apply to what is being proposed for the Airport: "Arm’s-Length Airport Plan Voted Through by Tynwald".

The IOMG 'Function Future and Form' document/policy, which details the requirement for a board, and the appointment of NEDs states: 

'Many airports are commercial businesses, and in fact, all UK airports with a turnover of over £1 million must operate as arm’s length companies to comply with the Airports Act 1986'

This is incorrect. The Act actually says, for airports with a turnover of more than £1 million:

The Secretary of State may give to any principal council who control (whether alone or jointly with one or more other principal councils) an airport to which th ” is section applies in accordance with section 14, a direction requiring the council to form a company for the purpose of carrying on—

(a)the business of operating the airport as a commercial undertaking; and

(b)any activities which appear to the council to be incidental to or connected with carrying on that business.

 

In any event, this 1980's Act was simply a piece of legislation that transferred the power of running government owned airports to the private sector as part of the Tory government's wide ranging policy of privatisation.

It does not necessarily mean that it is right for the Isle of Man, where our critical infrastructure may not be best served by being exposed to the vagaries of businesses and their financial goals, even if government oversight exists.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by madmanxpilot

[asitis]

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

The IOMG 'Function Future and Form' document/policy, which details the requirement for a board, and the appointment of NEDs states: 

'Many airports are commercial businesses, and in fact, all UK airports with a turnover of over £1 million must operate as arm’s length companies to comply with the Airports Act 1986'

This is incorrect. The Act actually says, for airports with a turnover of more than £1 million:

The Secretary of State may give to any principal council who control (whether alone or jointly with one or more other principal councils) an airport to which th ” is section applies in accordance with section 14, a direction requiring the council to form a company for the purpose of carrying on—

(a)the business of operating the airport as a commercial undertaking; and

(b)any activities which appear to the council to be incidental to or connected with carrying on that business.

 

In any event, this 1980's Act was simply a piece of legislation that transferred the power of running government owned airports to the private sector as part of the Tory government's wide ranging policy of privatisation.

It does not necessarily mean that it is right for the Isle of Man, where our critical infrastructure may not be best served by being exposed to the vagaries of businesses and their financial goals, even if government oversight exists.

 

 

 

 

It's quite easy to see why MMP would not have been a candidate for the job ! Could you imagine the gnashing of teeth in the echelons of power at the airport by having someone who actually knows what they are talking about from all perspectives !

[slinkydevil]

3 hours ago, dreamon said:

Exactly. Another good reason for not selecting candidates for interview based on such websites.

That doesn't make sense, you would just treat them with the same safeguards as a person applying through traditional methods. Anyway, I'll take the word of multi-million-pound entrepreneurs obtaining 90% of their workforce from LinkedIn applicants over yours.

 

[Mercenary]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

It's quite easy to see why MMP would not have been a candidate for the job ! Could you imagine the gnashing of teeth in the echelons of power at the airport by having someone who actually knows what they are talking about from all perspectives !

They didn't though apply so can't judge them on whatifs.

 

Same with all the schtick Peters gets at least he's stood up and been counted. I've not done either but imagine it's a bit harder than moaning on anonymous online forums

[asitis]

42 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

They didn't though apply so can't judge them on whatifs.

 

Same with all the schtick Peters gets at least he's stood up and been counted. I've not done either but imagine it's a bit harder than moaning on anonymous online forums

People didn't apply as the criteria were specifically written to exclude them !

We all knew it was a stich up from early in the process.