Alderney States Members to lodge a vote of no confidence in Aurigny's Management following two years of poor service to/from Alderney.
It would be a pity to see them lose their Alderney connection; particularly as the airline's name is the French for Alderney - as you know.
The requête represents an attempt to launch a(nother) debate in Guernsey over the standard of Aurigny's service, rather than an outright endeavour to remove its ability to operate or to force a replacement of its management. So the prospect of it no longer operating to Alderney is no less remote than heretofore. Aurigny's
response contains facts pertaining to the resilience of its services. I must admit that I find it extremely disappointing that the very people who should be engaging with Aurigny and T&R in getting a PSO moving are busier signing bits of paper which by their own admission (!) relate to grievances dating back years.
Their complaints may be well-founded, but surely they should not expect to see them given a great deal of time or respect in Guernsey if they refuse (in perpetuating with mere anecdote what the numbers simply don't bear out) to tackle the specific reasons for the problems they bemoan. If they really cared more for action than words (the pledge of every States candidate since the year dot, and more or less the very platform on which Steve Roberts himself stood), they'd be complaining about delays to the PSO. Why? Three simple reasons.
1) when the process comes to bear, it would give them a legitimate legal framework which would permit the removal of Aurigny's de facto right to operate (the routes being only able to support one carrier, and GR having no commercial incentive to provide) if they can prove that its service has been poor enough. If the contents of their requête are sincerely meant, surely this should be their holy grail.
2) even if they failed to dislodge Aurigny's position, it would give them a proper document to which it could be held accountable, and a minimum service level as previously discussed on this forum. Consequences, as above, would follow if it failed.
3) a PSO's economic benefits for the island they represent, in keeping service levels above those affordable to the airline alone but well within the means of Bailiwick taxpayers collectively (as has occurred this year through SoA subsidy), and its ability to formalise the financial relationship between all parties, are obvious.
Yet rather than actually fashioning for themselves a perfectly good (and extremely useful) stick with which to thwhack Aurigny, they have gone to war with mealy mouths and meaningless missives. In failing to even try to engage with any of the specifics of the problem, to anyone with a shred of education or good sense I'm afraid their requête is made to smell and to look like the decomposing contents of a two-week-old dustbin. They will get precisely nowhere for as long as they act as angry parishioners instead of elected policymakers.
As States members they should
absolutely hold Aurigny to account. This will often involve voicing dissatisfaction. Yet in failing to rebut Aurigny's claims directly, which seem perfectly reasonable, they are wasting their breath and fueling disillusionment based on conjecture alone – without a clear plan to solve the problems which they outline. A sound complaint would constitute (for instance) an evidenced rebuttal of Aurigny's justifications, and a realistic plan to rectify the situation (worth noting that this process should probably occur before any vote of no confidence. It hasn't). Yet they propose nothing (not even a new Tri!). Perhaps this reluctance to deal with crucial details is because weather delays are boring, or – for instance – because scrapping G-FTSE (arguably) too early was by itself not quite a sackable offence. But if you want to reinforce the States' sorry reputation as a talking shop for the self-obsessed, rather than actually working to achieve good outcomes for the islands, carry right on boys.
The fact remains that you could scrap and replace the entire management team, and Alderney would still be in exactly the same position. You could go back to flying in the Tris, and you'd have more delays and higher costs. You could have gone for the Twotter and had a lower xwind limit. In complaining on the one hand whilst failing to propose any alternative whatsoever on the other, they do their electors a very grave disservice.