JetJamie, absolutely agree. Of course Tri replacement should have been started earlier. It was clear by 2010 (when EASA released draft Part-CAT rules for EU OPS) that it would eventually be on the losing side of a battle against a shortage of spare parts and the growing regulatory burden. My point was simply that it's foolish to blame current management for the failures of a previous regime; draw your own conclusions from the fact that new metal was on trial on the ACI routes within eight weeks of Mark Darby's arrival.
Feet on ground, to my knowledge the most obstructive new regs concerned TAWS (see CAT.IDE.A.150), ACAS (CAT.IDE.A.155), ELTs (CAT.IDE.A.280) and increasingly stringent miscellaneous requirements (crow bars, crash axes, emergency exit lighting etc.) which are collectively expensive and inconvenient to implement. From memory these went over and above JAR OPS requirements for aircraft with a max seating capacity >9.
kcockayne, like yours my posts are only my own views; I'm not some sort of 'diplomat' or spokesman and I have no interest in 'keeping both sides at the table'. See above re your point about responsibility. Clearly the delay in getting started has had unsatisfactory consequences on the resilience of the ACI services. Scapegoating current management, who have worked their socks off to try and make the best of a bad lot, probably ain't gonna do much. Re the EU and Aurigny's funding, state aid rules to not apply in the CI. Even if they did, nationalised entities are de facto exempt. If the ECJ was to pick a fight on this, it would surely target the German rail network or the French electricity grid a millennium before it set to with a regional airline from Guernsey. Should precedent demand a change, funding could continue through a wider use of PSOs.