Re the public meeting at the Island Hall this evening, the three men who called it haven't quite nailed down their argument. A few observations:
- No formal representative of Aurigny was present.
- One of the five people (out of the 120 present) who attempted to refute the arguments made was booed and silenced for being 'biased'. The argument was thus significantly one-sided.
- The three men laid out the narrative that Aurigny is claiming that the Alderney routes are making losses, but they are in fact making profits - but that the routes are thus under jeopardy. But why would Aurigny wish to cut profitable routes? The argument doesn't quite add up.
- They don't seem to give any sources for various assertions:
- their claim that Dornier's and RUAG's assertions that the 228 and 228NG models are suitable for quick change medevac operations are wrong.
- their claim that a lavatory will be needed on GCI-LCY (on which the type is to be used) and thus that four seats must be removed.
- their assertion that operating costs are lower on the 228 and 228NG than on the Trislander, which is now costing £500 per flying hour to maintain.
- their claim that the Alderney - Southampton route is under threat in some way.
- their claim that frequencies and thus seat capacity will be reduced (Aurigny has stated it will keep to the same frequencies as the current timetable, thus seeing a slight increase in the number of seats available).
- their fundamental assertion that Alderney routes are in fact profitable.
With all due respect to the well-meaning people involved, they seem misled. I can't for the life of me understand why, at this late stage, they are attempting to stop the States of Guernsey from spending significant quantities of money on safer, faster, quieter and more modern aircraft than the Trislander, which as a 44 year old design was the product of innovation and dynamism in its day but perhaps has seen its best days behind it.