Aurigny Air Services
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny was founded by Sir Derek Bailey after yet another airline had failed in trying to provide services into the islands. It succeeded for close to 40 years because Bailey understood that the conventional airline model doesn't work in the islands. He set Aurigny up as a flexible "bush flying" operation with minimal overheads. The rot set in when Guernsey States started to push towards being an airline because they wanted it to safeguard their Gatwick route. The inevitable result was that Aurigny went down the pan like all the other conventional airlines and Guernsey nationalised it. The current management openly state that their primary objective is to safeguard the Gatwick route and nothing else really matters. However they have not learned from history and their conventional airline approach is working just as well as all those that have gone before!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current management openly state that their primary objective is to safeguard the Gatwick route and nothing else really matters.
The rot set in when Guernsey States started to push towards being an airline because they wanted it to safeguard their Gatwick route. The inevitable result was that Aurigny went down the pan like all the other conventional airlines and Guernsey nationalised it.
However they have not learned from history
To be quite frank I'm not sure who it should fall to to pronounce on Sir Derrick Bailey's historic objectives but I'm fairly certain you'd have a greater entitlement to do so if you could even spell the man's name.
I was told today that two leased AT7's are due later this year to replace COBO & VZON as they both come up for a major check. I wonder leased models will actually replace the BO & ON or just cover for maintenance?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies to Sir Derrick's shade for the inadvertent misspelling.
However I sat in a public meeting where the Directors of Aurigny specifically stated that their primary objective was the security of the Gatwick Guernsey "lifeline route" and that nothing much else mattered as far as they were concerned, unless it contributed to that goal.
It remains a fact that the rot set in when Aurigny began to behave like an airline instead of a bush flying operation. Citywing run a successful operation following the correct model with LET410 and I see it every day at Gloucestershire airport.
However I sat in a public meeting where the Directors of Aurigny specifically stated that their primary objective was the security of the Gatwick Guernsey "lifeline route" and that nothing much else mattered as far as they were concerned, unless it contributed to that goal.
It remains a fact that the rot set in when Aurigny began to behave like an airline instead of a bush flying operation. Citywing run a successful operation following the correct model with LET410 and I see it every day at Gloucestershire airport.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny also changed overnight with the 9/11 attacks. Tucked away in its own little corner of the airport in Jersey with no security screening (the bags were never screened either!) and an intimate service almost akin to a bus route. The very next morning after 9/11 (I remember it well) that area ceased to exist and the operation was shunted up to the western end of the pier at Gates 6 &7 with passengers and bags subjected to full screening (in case Al Qaeda wanted to take out a beach hut with a trislander). I'm not suggesting that has led to the airline's downfall but it certainly didn't help with the level of inter island traffic and a small contribution at least.
A bit harsh there, Aero Mad. You may well be correct with your version of "the facts" , but it is also a fact that AUR were a very small scale airline & that they are not profitable now that they have expanded beyond the Inter Island service ; & have the "dead hand" of The States of Guernsey in control.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rexbanner, 9/11 affected all air services ops of course but as it happens small scale operations don't have to follow the full monty under EASA rules provided they have a robust, risk assessed and proportionate operation. Again we see this in action with Citywing at Gloucestershire.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnm, with respect, I don't think you know or understand the situation at Jersey Airport at the time (and currently). There are no common sense procedures. Aurigny were forced to move lock, stock and barrel. Nobody in the company voluntarily asked to be stuck out in Gates 6&7 with no air conditioning, having to fax load and trim sheets back and forward between check in and the departure gates and having to clear security to go down to the cargo apron and pick up a fully screened box of strawberries going up to Alderney. The passengers suddenly went from being able to walk through the airport door, turn right and be in the departure lounge to being subjected to full security, then the longest possible walk in Jersey airport. This was not a situation of the company's choosing and, had they the opportunity, I'm sure they would have tirelessly worked to exploit any alleviation they could have possibly found.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand Rexbanner and I accept that Aurigny's difficulties were undoubtedly exacerbated by unsympathetic management at Jersey and more especially at Guernsey Airports who seem incapable of giving Aurigny's local small scale ops the simple facilities required under the rules, instead subjecting them to the full (costly) monty. Basically the problem can summed up in a sentence. Aurigny management with delusions of BA and airport management with delusions of Gatwick!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dorniers: really?
Personally I doubted the decision to acquire the 228s from the outset; surely the Cessna 208 EX Grands would make much more sense: you get 3 news ones for the price of 1x228; lowest operating cost; least number of empty seats flown in low season, but able to operate high frequencies in high season. The passengers would take to them instantly and the Pratt engine is bulletproof, as the CAA recognise, and EASA is about to.
I think entry into service would be much easier too.
Maybe that's what you actually mean by bush flying operations, Johnm?
I think entry into service would be much easier too.
Maybe that's what you actually mean by bush flying operations, Johnm?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At some point in the mid to late 90s (1997?) GR were flying 3 or 4x daily to STN with a Saab. I recall they were also going to AMS and MAN? So they were a 'proper airline' some time before LGW came on the scene.
Is that version correct?
Is that version correct?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA are almost there; sign off expected in less than a year.
DHC6 is still 3x the cost of the 208 for less than twice the seats, and too big for low season, resulting in heavy losses when flown < half full; at that level 208 is still profitable. I would guess it would break even with 6 on board.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The choice of aircraft was limited by the runway at Alderney. Viable options on performance were Dornier 228, Twotter, LET410 and Trislander.
The most flexible for a mix of passengers, medevac and freight is the Trislander which has been doing the job for 40 years.
Dornier chosen partly because when cross wind performance looked at it appears Aurigny management can't tell the difference between demonstrated and actual performance limit.
Trislander ruled out because it doesn't look like an airliner, despite the fact they could have bought 5 brand new ones for the price of a Dornier and B-N were willing to build them on that basis. Moreover it has taken longer to get the Dorniers into service than it would have to build the Trislanders.
The most flexible for a mix of passengers, medevac and freight is the Trislander which has been doing the job for 40 years.
Dornier chosen partly because when cross wind performance looked at it appears Aurigny management can't tell the difference between demonstrated and actual performance limit.
Trislander ruled out because it doesn't look like an airliner, despite the fact they could have bought 5 brand new ones for the price of a Dornier and B-N were willing to build them on that basis. Moreover it has taken longer to get the Dorniers into service than it would have to build the Trislanders.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Out there
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The choice of aircraft was limited by the runway at Alderney. Viable options on performance were Dornier 228, Twotter, LET410 and Trislander.
The most flexible for a mix of passengers, medevac and freight is the Trislander which has been doing the job for 40 years.
Dornier chosen partly because when cross wind performance looked at it appears Aurigny management can't tell the difference between demonstrated and actual performance limit.
Trislander ruled out because it doesn't look like an airliner, despite the fact they could have bought 5 brand new ones for the price of a Dornier and B-N were willing to build them on that basis. Moreover it has taken longer to get the Dorniers into service than it would have to build the Trislanders.
The most flexible for a mix of passengers, medevac and freight is the Trislander which has been doing the job for 40 years.
Dornier chosen partly because when cross wind performance looked at it appears Aurigny management can't tell the difference between demonstrated and actual performance limit.
Trislander ruled out because it doesn't look like an airliner, despite the fact they could have bought 5 brand new ones for the price of a Dornier and B-N were willing to build them on that basis. Moreover it has taken longer to get the Dorniers into service than it would have to build the Trislanders.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd have to ask Aurigny why they fastened on the Dornier, it's mystery to everybody else.
I suspect they were naïve when looking around on the second hand market.
Most of the issues in operating a Dornier instead of the Trislanders seem to have come as a surprise, which is why it has taken upwards of two years and counting to start getting them into service.
I suspect they were naïve when looking around on the second hand market.
Most of the issues in operating a Dornier instead of the Trislanders seem to have come as a surprise, which is why it has taken upwards of two years and counting to start getting them into service.
I believe that DB is/was suffering some corrosion issues.
ATR 72 LY-MCA is expected at GCI Sunday evening as flight GR101P, could this be to cover for the 'sick' DB?
ATR 72 LY-MCA is expected at GCI Sunday evening as flight GR101P, could this be to cover for the 'sick' DB?
Last edited by Jerbourg; 10th Apr 2016 at 12:01.