Aurigny Air Services
AeroMad
Nice to get an informed, informative, substantiated & well-mannered reply - so different to some that I've received !
I am not suggesting that AUR are near bankruptcy; indeed, it probably isn't because SoG are subsidizing it. I'm simply relaying the facts (as reported by the airline itself - as well as the media) & wondering what the future holds & pointing out contradictions & valid arguments.
In my opinion, the future holds more of the same, although I agree that the situation should improve somewhat. However, I would point out that AUR was bought by The States SOLELY (or so they said) to protect the Gatwick slots. Again, in my opinion, a sound & apparently sensible decision. But, it did open up a whole can of worms with reference to even handed airline policies & possible favouritism towards their wholly owned airline etc.
However, it did not stop there, did it ? AUR's finances meant that SoG had to bail it out, or lose it (&, as mattc56410 says, the value of the airline to the island lies not just in its Gatwick operation, or in its financial performance). That meant that the Guernsey taxpayers are now subsidizing AUR, whether they like it , or not - all of this landed on them without their approval by The States, who had not seen fit to warn the public that this would be the case.
To my mind, the Guernsey electorate need to be directly asked the question as to whether they understand the importance of "their airline" to their welfare & economy; & then be asked if it supports the SoG decision to bail it out both now & in the future. I have no objection to The States ensuring the future of its airline in this democratic way & would, being "left leaning" politically, support such an action & policy IF it were approved by the island's taxpayers & electorate.
I hope that you are right about the Dornier. So far, the whole affair has been an unmitigated disaster. Surely, no one disagrees with that statement ?
As far as Alderney is concerned, I feel that, on the face of it, it could be said that the Alderney residents appear to be unreasonable in their demands for the level of service, & the price they want to pay for it. It is a very small population which CANNOT support or sustain such a level, or price, of service. But, look closer, & realise that theirs' is an extremely small community with no other effective way on & off of the island - notwithstanding Bumblebee (which is a very small launch that only operates twice per week Apr.-Oct. & NOT AT ALL in the Winter !). The nature of Alderney is such that without accessible & reasonably priced air travel, the whole future viability of their community IS under severe threat.
The only way out of this would be for Guernsey States to acknowledge Alderney's unique problems & to provide a "reasonably priced" & efficient/effective air service as a Public Service Obligation. After all, they should have no fundamental objection to doing this, as they have already bought AUR & have bailed it out - & are continuing to bail it out for the foreseeable future (mainly to Guernsey's benefit)! Could they not do the same for Alderney ?
By the way, in these days of European intervention/interference in competitive, commercial & social matters, could the SoG expect to be able to continue to treat this ONE airline in this way without being accused of indulging in unfair & discriminatory business legislation etc ?
Just a question, matcc - not an accusation, or a dig, or mud throwing.
mattc56410
Thank you for your reply, although it falls short of actually providing any plausible or supportable & coherent answers as to why I should have angered you so much on this subject; or why, in your original post, you made such unfounded assumptions about my opinions. I guess that I will just have to accept your animosity & that you just don't like me or my argument style. At least it will save me on the Christmas card & the cost of a postage stamp - & you too, come to think of it. So, this situation is not a total loss !
But, I would counsel you on taking good care of your blood pressure, if this is how you react to someone that you do not agree with !
Albeit, without the necessary level of civility, I don't think that there is any further need to prolong our exchanges.
Nice to get an informed, informative, substantiated & well-mannered reply - so different to some that I've received !
I am not suggesting that AUR are near bankruptcy; indeed, it probably isn't because SoG are subsidizing it. I'm simply relaying the facts (as reported by the airline itself - as well as the media) & wondering what the future holds & pointing out contradictions & valid arguments.
In my opinion, the future holds more of the same, although I agree that the situation should improve somewhat. However, I would point out that AUR was bought by The States SOLELY (or so they said) to protect the Gatwick slots. Again, in my opinion, a sound & apparently sensible decision. But, it did open up a whole can of worms with reference to even handed airline policies & possible favouritism towards their wholly owned airline etc.
However, it did not stop there, did it ? AUR's finances meant that SoG had to bail it out, or lose it (&, as mattc56410 says, the value of the airline to the island lies not just in its Gatwick operation, or in its financial performance). That meant that the Guernsey taxpayers are now subsidizing AUR, whether they like it , or not - all of this landed on them without their approval by The States, who had not seen fit to warn the public that this would be the case.
To my mind, the Guernsey electorate need to be directly asked the question as to whether they understand the importance of "their airline" to their welfare & economy; & then be asked if it supports the SoG decision to bail it out both now & in the future. I have no objection to The States ensuring the future of its airline in this democratic way & would, being "left leaning" politically, support such an action & policy IF it were approved by the island's taxpayers & electorate.
I hope that you are right about the Dornier. So far, the whole affair has been an unmitigated disaster. Surely, no one disagrees with that statement ?
As far as Alderney is concerned, I feel that, on the face of it, it could be said that the Alderney residents appear to be unreasonable in their demands for the level of service, & the price they want to pay for it. It is a very small population which CANNOT support or sustain such a level, or price, of service. But, look closer, & realise that theirs' is an extremely small community with no other effective way on & off of the island - notwithstanding Bumblebee (which is a very small launch that only operates twice per week Apr.-Oct. & NOT AT ALL in the Winter !). The nature of Alderney is such that without accessible & reasonably priced air travel, the whole future viability of their community IS under severe threat.
The only way out of this would be for Guernsey States to acknowledge Alderney's unique problems & to provide a "reasonably priced" & efficient/effective air service as a Public Service Obligation. After all, they should have no fundamental objection to doing this, as they have already bought AUR & have bailed it out - & are continuing to bail it out for the foreseeable future (mainly to Guernsey's benefit)! Could they not do the same for Alderney ?
By the way, in these days of European intervention/interference in competitive, commercial & social matters, could the SoG expect to be able to continue to treat this ONE airline in this way without being accused of indulging in unfair & discriminatory business legislation etc ?
Just a question, matcc - not an accusation, or a dig, or mud throwing.
mattc56410
Thank you for your reply, although it falls short of actually providing any plausible or supportable & coherent answers as to why I should have angered you so much on this subject; or why, in your original post, you made such unfounded assumptions about my opinions. I guess that I will just have to accept your animosity & that you just don't like me or my argument style. At least it will save me on the Christmas card & the cost of a postage stamp - & you too, come to think of it. So, this situation is not a total loss !
But, I would counsel you on taking good care of your blood pressure, if this is how you react to someone that you do not agree with !
Albeit, without the necessary level of civility, I don't think that there is any further need to prolong our exchanges.
AeroMad
Just seen your latest post. Factual & correct.
I would argue that "disaster" is the right term to use ref. the Dornier - because of the length of time that it has taken to get it into service. I know all about the unfortunate Directives on the Tri, & the spares situation - but AUR have had an inordinately long period of grace to come to terms with many of the issues.
Well before I retired from Jersey ATC (2007) the Directives began to appear on the Tri. The word was that the a/c would shortly be taken out of service, even so long ago. They weren't.
There was talk, even 8 years ago, of Dorniers. Some time later action was taken to obtain one &, notwithstanding the problems caused by relations with the Portuguese operator, AUR have had many years to decide upon & introduce a Tri. replacement. For goodness sake, AUR have had Dorniers sitting around for many months. I would say that an efficient operator would have taken action well before now to get the a/c into service - & to keep it there. Other airlines don't usually take as long to get new a/c into service !
Be that as it may, let us hope that the problems are now, & will continue to be, over.
Just seen your latest post. Factual & correct.
I would argue that "disaster" is the right term to use ref. the Dornier - because of the length of time that it has taken to get it into service. I know all about the unfortunate Directives on the Tri, & the spares situation - but AUR have had an inordinately long period of grace to come to terms with many of the issues.
Well before I retired from Jersey ATC (2007) the Directives began to appear on the Tri. The word was that the a/c would shortly be taken out of service, even so long ago. They weren't.
There was talk, even 8 years ago, of Dorniers. Some time later action was taken to obtain one &, notwithstanding the problems caused by relations with the Portuguese operator, AUR have had many years to decide upon & introduce a Tri. replacement. For goodness sake, AUR have had Dorniers sitting around for many months. I would say that an efficient operator would have taken action well before now to get the a/c into service - & to keep it there. Other airlines don't usually take as long to get new a/c into service !
Be that as it may, let us hope that the problems are now, & will continue to be, over.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kcockayne, Guernsey is not an EU member state and is thus not subjected to EU competition or state aid rules. But Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) specifically protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art 106 (often cited by those who claim that EU law bans nationalisation) doesn't ban it; it simply regulates how nationalised firms can behave with regard to competition (although the ECJ has recently been interpreting this rather more aggressively). Nationalised rail and electricity networks persist in Europe; so even if Guernsey's relationship with the EU was to change, Aurigny would probably be safe.
You say Aurigny was too slow to get on with the business of Tri replacement. But remember that the ancien régime, so to speak, saw no need for it. Mark Darby arrived in Sept 2013, and by Nov CS-TGG was on trial on ACI-SOU. With a shortage of adequate aircraft (both types and airframes), with 20 year old aircraft, with no manufacturer support (for the first two aircraft), with four days of sim training (in Germany, near Braunschweig) at a cool 25,000 EUR per pilot... I think you get the idea.
You say Aurigny was too slow to get on with the business of Tri replacement. But remember that the ancien régime, so to speak, saw no need for it. Mark Darby arrived in Sept 2013, and by Nov CS-TGG was on trial on ACI-SOU. With a shortage of adequate aircraft (both types and airframes), with 20 year old aircraft, with no manufacturer support (for the first two aircraft), with four days of sim training (in Germany, near Braunschweig) at a cool 25,000 EUR per pilot... I think you get the idea.
Aero Mad
Yes, the CI are only associate members of the EU, but that does not seem to stop it getting its tentacles into every one of our nooks & crannies. In fact, it's worse than that. EU citizens seem to be free to come, go & work here, whilst CI citizens are not allowed to reside or work in the EU. So, I am afraid that I have no great faith in the islands being willing to oppose any interference from it - whether such interference is allowed, or not! Consequently, it would seem to me that "what the EU says, goes".
Anyway, I hope that your reassurances on the airline etc. front would prove to be correct - though I have no faith that they would be.
I accept your observations with reference to the Tri. replacement, but I feel that it is of no great importance as to which individuals were involved, it is the airline itself, collectively, which bares the responsibility for the inaction on this front. That may be a little unfair on those who have really tried to get something done; but the fact remains - that the impression is that very little effective action has been taken.
What is your reaction to these points ?
Yes, the CI are only associate members of the EU, but that does not seem to stop it getting its tentacles into every one of our nooks & crannies. In fact, it's worse than that. EU citizens seem to be free to come, go & work here, whilst CI citizens are not allowed to reside or work in the EU. So, I am afraid that I have no great faith in the islands being willing to oppose any interference from it - whether such interference is allowed, or not! Consequently, it would seem to me that "what the EU says, goes".
Anyway, I hope that your reassurances on the airline etc. front would prove to be correct - though I have no faith that they would be.
I accept your observations with reference to the Tri. replacement, but I feel that it is of no great importance as to which individuals were involved, it is the airline itself, collectively, which bares the responsibility for the inaction on this front. That may be a little unfair on those who have really tried to get something done; but the fact remains - that the impression is that very little effective action has been taken.
What is your reaction to these points ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: In a Forest
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad, sorry, but you cannot defend the tris replacement program at GR. Everyone knew at least five to six years ago that the tris would never meet EASA requirements, without massive amounts of work and probably more importantly, constructor help and support. It's been mismanaged for way too long.
Sure, Mr Darby has done his best since he arrived but the previous management stuck their heads in the sand. BI got rid of theirs in 2011 and publicly stated that the main reason was that they were never going to be compliant with the new Europe wide requirements. Utter madness not to have sorted this years ago.
Sure, Mr Darby has done his best since he arrived but the previous management stuck their heads in the sand. BI got rid of theirs in 2011 and publicly stated that the main reason was that they were never going to be compliant with the new Europe wide requirements. Utter madness not to have sorted this years ago.
Yes, very good question.
AeroMad
I detect a skilled diplomat trying to keep both sides at the table !
Or, rather, a character witness or probation officer in court trying to mitigate the defendant's actions. You do it very well, but, as prosecuting officer, it doesn't quite wash with me !
Anyway, I enjoy the process - keep going.
AeroMad
I detect a skilled diplomat trying to keep both sides at the table !
Or, rather, a character witness or probation officer in court trying to mitigate the defendant's actions. You do it very well, but, as prosecuting officer, it doesn't quite wash with me !
Anyway, I enjoy the process - keep going.
Last edited by kcockayne; 24th Jan 2016 at 09:18. Reason: Additional comment
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Comprehensive answers - can't say that I have too much disagreement with you. I totally take your point about the current management, but that does not dispel the complete disappointment with "the airline".
I was being light hearted about the "diplomat" tag, bought on, I suppose, by your accommodating fairness towards the "defendants"!
Thank you for your comments.
I was being light hearted about the "diplomat" tag, bought on, I suppose, by your accommodating fairness towards the "defendants"!
Thank you for your comments.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO228 type rating cost
I find it hard to believe the DO228 type rating, a ten hour course, cost 25k euro per pilot.
Having been to Simtec loads in a previouse position I do not imagine they were charging that much.
Just 60 miles to the North of the Channel Island's Cobham would have been a good company to contact to quickly get the 228's in the air.
Just to put the 25k euro price tag in context, my 757 type rating left me with a 20k bond and that included 40 hrs in the sim and 3 weeks ground school.
Still miss flying the good old Dornier, great pilots aircraft.
Having been to Simtec loads in a previouse position I do not imagine they were charging that much.
Just 60 miles to the North of the Channel Island's Cobham would have been a good company to contact to quickly get the 228's in the air.
Just to put the 25k euro price tag in context, my 757 type rating left me with a 20k bond and that included 40 hrs in the sim and 3 weeks ground school.
Still miss flying the good old Dornier, great pilots aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's what I'd heard but don't know the numbers precisely; you may well be right. However, by any measure it don't come cheap.
Do 228 Pilot Training « Aero Bildung
Do 228 Pilot Training « Aero Bildung
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DO228 rating costs are mighty expensive these days. I think when I did the rating on the aircraft with FR Aviation back in 2001, 10hrs, the bond was £10k.
Aero Bildung appear to charge about 3k euroes an hour on the aircraft.
Looking at the costs by the time they have paid for flights, hotels, meals etc as well as the training the 25k euroes might not be far of.
Aero Bildung appear to charge about 3k euroes an hour on the aircraft.
Looking at the costs by the time they have paid for flights, hotels, meals etc as well as the training the 25k euroes might not be far of.
Last edited by Council Van; 30th Jan 2016 at 13:52.