Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Aurigny Air Services

Old 1st Aug 2010, 18:53
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 8
Cloud 1 - oh how I sooooo agree. You can explain the truth to passengers until you are blue in the face but they will still conclude you are lying.

Many years ago my ADF went U/S en-route to Alderney so I couldn't get in (overcast at 600' AMSL)but could get in to Jersey/Guernsey using the ILS. The passenger reaction to the explanation was "I've phoned my friends and there's no problem with fog at Alderney, I won't fly with your airline again". Attempts to explain that different equipment was necessary for different airports was met with an unshakeable belief that I was simply lying through my teeth.

Fortunately, I managed to resist the temptation to nut the b*******d but I have never forgotten this shining example of the gross arrogance of some passengers. As you say, for some, there is never a sufficient explanation.
SleekMover is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2010, 20:15
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LGW
Age: 46
Posts: 268
takeover of GR by Blue islands will be turned down by the politicians this week anyway. Too many people are anti it.
jetstreamtechrecords is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2010, 22:10
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 731
SleekMover - yay! at last I see a post where someone agrees with what I say.....its a moment I will cherish

Ahh yes the phone call to friends at the destination...dont you just love them when they come up with that one!
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2010, 06:06
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by SleekMover
You can explain the truth to passengers until you are blue in the face but they will still conclude you are lying
Flew yesterday on GR607 - 90 minutes late. On the ground the apology was the completely meaningless 'due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft' - in the aircraft, the Pilot explained that the aircraft had gone tech and required an electrical component in one engine replaced - now done so everything fine.......though I did wonder why they were inspecting an engine as we disembarked in Guernsey.....
kuningan is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2010, 07:30
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 425
More thread drift.......perhaps passengers feel that they are not being told the truth because so very often that is the case. Passengers have been fobbed off with lies, meaningless words and in the case of some Locos no explanation at all, for donkey's years. That leads to suspicion that they are being fobbed off and not treated as valued customers.

Inevitably passengers do not understand the vagaries of weather, navaid availability, ILS Category etc hence I believe that there are many occasions when a proper explanation for delays would be a jolly good idea!

Helen49
Helen49 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2010, 14:19
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Garden of England
Age: 80
Posts: 165
I was on GR606 Guernsey-Gatwick on Tuesday, in the ATR G-COBO (neatly registered after my favourite island bay!). We were kept informed before departure that there would be a 30 minute delay due to weather conditions earlier, and I believed this, having seen the poor visibility for myself. Unlike previous experiences with another airline a few years back, who appeared to have a suspiciously frequent tendency to "go tech" with their BAE 146 aircraft when neither the Jersey nor the Guernsey service from Gatwick was anywhere near full, so they combined both sets of passengers on one aircraft flying first to Jersey, then back to Guernsey. Having been inconvenienced more than once in this way, I was not convinced of the veracity of their "explanations".

Incidentally, being aware of the rather fraught and uncertain situation regarding Aurigny/Blue Islands, I was quite pleased to note that the PA announcement on arrival was something like "We thank you for flying Aurigny, the islands' air service for 40 years, and we hope to be providing it into the future". A La Perchoine!!

Last edited by 603DX; 12th Aug 2010 at 16:05. Reason: Patois, not French!
603DX is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2010, 08:25
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 65
Sale to Blue Islands is dead.

R.I.P.

Oh happy day!
tin canary is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2010, 15:53
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Just south of 50N
Posts: 100
I was thinking the same thing.
Now he can pull out of BI and blame the states of guernsey while he's doing it!

Also while I'm thinking about it, wasn't it strange that in an interview Coates stated that BI could not afford to continue to make a loss against Aurigny, yet stated in another that he could fund a loss making bluerigny for 100 years?
quazz is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2010, 18:34
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Just south of 50N
Posts: 100
I've flown on one of his biscuit tins and he is welcome to them
quazz is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 06:30
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 55
Surely it is obvious that changes are necessary at Aurigny starting at the very top. It cannot go on as it is.
Sark is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 07:10
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: a rock near 50 North
Posts: 109
I agree with you Sark. The current loss making situation cannot continue, something has to change. I fail to see why some people are so happy with the deal being called off. If you think the losses are bad now, just wait till Flybe starts the jungle jets on GCI-LGW and all the pax jump ship.
five zero by ortac is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 10:42
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 115
I hope the States have a serious look at the way Aurigny is currently being run.

Malcolm Hart should be the first to go, he's had his chance and failed miserably.

New blood is needed to turn Aurigny around, without it Derek Coates will end up buying it's sad remains from the liquidator for a 1.

None of us want it to end up like that.
Geo73 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 12:43
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 86
Why does everything with Aurigny hang on the safeguarding of the Gatwick route? Flybe flys there so the argument that the islanders will be cut of is nonsense surely.
second coming is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 13:48
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Control of London Slots

History tells us that it would only be a matter of time before FlyBE sold its slots to the highest bidder and transfered its flights to non-hub airports such as Luton or Stanstead. Please see my posts on 20 and 21 July for more info.

A single commercial operator would also mean fares likely to go through the roof before very long.

Re the statement regarding how the airline is run...I seem to recall an audit by an independant consultancy recently found exactly opposite and that the airline is run extremely well!

Last edited by PeteAndre; 15th Sep 2010 at 15:27. Reason: Additional info
PeteAndre is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 16:05
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sussex
Posts: 90
Katie Price and Slots

History does not tell you that Flybe would sell the slots. Flybe are the UK's largest domestic airline by some distance now. This is their business model, that's what they do. They are the biggest domestic Airline in LGW by a country mile. They have served GCI for nearly 30 years, so how does that equate to they would sell slots definately?

With regards to prices, they may rise in a single market scenario, but competition would be attracted in if they got too high. Slots are freely available at LGW and will be for some time, so there are no barriers to entry. Anyway didn't they offer to agree a legally binding tarriff and to be subject to regulation.

But hey don't let facts get in the way of long held predjudice
uncovered is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 16:49
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 70
PeteAndre

With respect, you are directly contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you say:

History tells us that it would only be a matter of time before FlyBE sold its slots to the highest bidder
and on the other hand you say:

A single commercial operator would also mean fares likely to go through the roof before very long
How could any operator who doesn't own slots charge excessive fares?!

The real issue here seems to be that the States need to ensure Guernsey remains a destination that any airline wants to serve. Flybe saying that they're bringing in their first E175 to Guernsey suggests a) that it is high on the list of their most valuable destinations and b) the States have lobbied BE hard to make that happen.
Drink Up Thee Cider is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 19:44
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50N
Posts: 870
Or, DUTC, it means that they wanted to put a cat amongst the pigeons for the merger, making BI think that a couple of ATRs won't compete with the 175s. Now they've said they will, they probably will but it may just have been a strategic decision to make Coates think again.

AM
Aero Mad is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 20:01
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Thumbs up Not contradictory - sequential !

This discussion thread is irrelevant as the States of Guernsey are not selling Aurigny - I appologise for responding to the posts below!

The slots at Gatwick may not be under pressure at the moment, but left to a UK based (dominant) domestic operator (cf BA Express, Air UK and BEA in the past) with profit (rightly so in their cases) - they did not have the interest of the island of Guernsey as their "raison d'etre"). This must now be the case with FlyBE (I am resisting the the Fly... BE taunt) notwithstanding their roots as Jersey based Intra and JEA. The alocation of slots from Gatwick are bound to come under pressure to more pofitable routes with load factors in the 85-90% plus zones. Fare rises possible with no competition would inevitably lead to a "lack of demand" and an excuse to discontinue operations from Gatwick to a "third" London airport.

The statements made in my post are not mutally exclisive, merely sequential.

Judging by the posting history of the 2 posters below, both would seem to have the FlyBE marketing department interests at the root of their motivation, I fear I might have touched on a sensitive chord!

Finnally I would like to ask FlyBE to respect a basic business ethic that that in building up their own business it is not necessary to tear down another's; to be loyal to my clients and customers and true to myself.
PeteAndre is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 20:08
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 86
Think there are certainly some good points there. One thing I am curious about is whether Aurigny make or lose money on the Gatwick route. If they are indeed losing money on the route then why should a prospective buyer have to keep operating it. Its ok when the tax payer is subsidizing it but an independent company may need to stop operating the route.
second coming is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2010, 20:15
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Profitabilty of Aurigny

I understand GCI-UK routes make a profit - losses stem from competition on JER - GCI route (Busisness men like the "sexy" but equally old Jetsteams!)
PeteAndre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.