Aurigny Air Services
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The States (and thus unfortunately Guernsey's taxpayers) deserve all they get.
A few years ago they rejected a well-financed offer that would have turned Aurigny into a substantial private sector airline based in the Channel Islands, and owned and supported by shareholders in both main Islands.
The offer protected the LGW route with full legal safeguards.
The relevant politician and civil servant turned the offer down with what amounted to contempt. It was evident that they were barely capable of understanding how the airline industry works, moreover that they did not care so long as their egos were sufficiently massaged.
I hope that Blue Wings prospers, and I'm sure it will. But it could have been a whole lot better for the taxpayers of Guernsey, to say nothing of air services to the Channel Islands in general, had Guernsey's politicians and civil servants been rather better at their jobs.
A few years ago they rejected a well-financed offer that would have turned Aurigny into a substantial private sector airline based in the Channel Islands, and owned and supported by shareholders in both main Islands.
The offer protected the LGW route with full legal safeguards.
The relevant politician and civil servant turned the offer down with what amounted to contempt. It was evident that they were barely capable of understanding how the airline industry works, moreover that they did not care so long as their egos were sufficiently massaged.
I hope that Blue Wings prospers, and I'm sure it will. But it could have been a whole lot better for the taxpayers of Guernsey, to say nothing of air services to the Channel Islands in general, had Guernsey's politicians and civil servants been rather better at their jobs.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, let me clarify that I am out of nappies - don't know where you got that from???
I would be perfectly happy for an Aurigny sale to Blue Islands so long as they do not cut routes, however looking at their previous history of such things (Alderney - Bournemouth, Jersey, Shoreham, Cherbourg. Guernsey - Bournemouth, Biggin Hill, Oxford, St Brieuc. Jersey - Dinard, Paris), I'm just not convinced. Over a 10 year period, that rate of cutting is very unusual for an airline.
What worries me is their Alderney routes. They say that there is no immediate replacement for the Trislander. This is untrue. There is the GECI Skylander, the Twin Otter, the Islander, the Trislander (newbuild from BN if 3 orders are placed + glass cockpits et cetera) and the Dornier 228. Given their history of Alderney routes, they might use this as an excuse to pull out all together. And then Aurigny won't be there to come to the rescue.
Hope you can understand my worries.
I would be perfectly happy for an Aurigny sale to Blue Islands so long as they do not cut routes, however looking at their previous history of such things (Alderney - Bournemouth, Jersey, Shoreham, Cherbourg. Guernsey - Bournemouth, Biggin Hill, Oxford, St Brieuc. Jersey - Dinard, Paris), I'm just not convinced. Over a 10 year period, that rate of cutting is very unusual for an airline.
What worries me is their Alderney routes. They say that there is no immediate replacement for the Trislander. This is untrue. There is the GECI Skylander, the Twin Otter, the Islander, the Trislander (newbuild from BN if 3 orders are placed + glass cockpits et cetera) and the Dornier 228. Given their history of Alderney routes, they might use this as an excuse to pull out all together. And then Aurigny won't be there to come to the rescue.
Hope you can understand my worries.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I'm no fan of the concept of Aurignyflot, the practice over the last couple of years has been much better than Fly-when-we-want-to-be, or indeed Blue-blink-and-you-miss-dropped-routes-Islands.
Also not sure that Mr Coates vitamin empire is a secure footing for long-term success - the VAT exemption on goods shipped from the C-I is being looked at with an uncharitable eye by the UK Govt - so it would be interesting to see what a 17.5% (soon enough 20%) increase to his retail price would do to his business model.....
Also why scrap the Aurigny brand? Surely that's stronger and has better awareness than 'Blue Islands', which is but a few years old? Strikes me as 'corporate machismo', rather than good business sense.
This will end in tears......the States can waste many times more in a year than Aurigny costs them.....
Also not sure that Mr Coates vitamin empire is a secure footing for long-term success - the VAT exemption on goods shipped from the C-I is being looked at with an uncharitable eye by the UK Govt - so it would be interesting to see what a 17.5% (soon enough 20%) increase to his retail price would do to his business model.....
Also why scrap the Aurigny brand? Surely that's stronger and has better awareness than 'Blue Islands', which is but a few years old? Strikes me as 'corporate machismo', rather than good business sense.
This will end in tears......the States can waste many times more in a year than Aurigny costs them.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kuningan, you just voiced my thoughts exactly. why scrap a 40 year old (successful brand)? suppose blue circle are rubbing salt in open wounds that they won this one! so long as they give up their policy of route cutting, good luck to them and i look forward to seeing a successful channel islands airline that doesn't need taxpayers money.
Kuningan, I agree the Aurigny brand is a far stronger one than BI. Even many islanders still haven't a clue Blue Islands are. (I expect the media coverage in the last few days will change that tho).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny has been in business since 1968, Blue Islands since 2006 (before that Rockhopper, before that Le Cocq's - three name changes in a decade!).
A simple check of web stats shows Aurigny.com much higher ranked (#81,000 in the UK) than Blue Islands (#136,000) - so WHY dump the stronger brand in favour of the weaker one. I can only assume 'vanity'.
And how can Blue Islands - who lost as much money as Aurigny on a much smaller business be 'better run'? Because these aren't 'losses' but 'investment'
Finally, which airline has 11 aircraft in (effectively) two types, and which 8 in five? I know which I'd think was better run!
I hope the States has the wit to chuck this out.....
A simple check of web stats shows Aurigny.com much higher ranked (#81,000 in the UK) than Blue Islands (#136,000) - so WHY dump the stronger brand in favour of the weaker one. I can only assume 'vanity'.
And how can Blue Islands - who lost as much money as Aurigny on a much smaller business be 'better run'? Because these aren't 'losses' but 'investment'
Finally, which airline has 11 aircraft in (effectively) two types, and which 8 in five? I know which I'd think was better run!
I hope the States has the wit to chuck this out.....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is barely out of nappies.
On current statements about Trislanders being "the OAPs of the skies", ignoring Britten Norman's current renewal of the availability of the marque, and in saying that no there are no suitable replacements, it looks as though Alderney will be as bereft of BI flights as Shoreham. Not good if there's no public service facility available. Looks like economic death to the island.
Am I alone in my hatred of travelling through Gatwick? SOU is a tedious train ride or car journey.
With competent marketing this side of the water, routes, the islands and the airlines could be in a good deal healthier position now. A merger won't bring better competence to the equation.
Best wishes
OldShoreham
Last edited by oldshoreham; 17th Jul 2010 at 10:47. Reason: Error
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of an era
I've travelled on Aurigny for the last 30 years, and have little doubt that the proposed buy-out would a total tragedy.
Aurigny is one of a very rare breed of airline which still has a 'public service' ethos. They are always mightily impressive when it comes to getting passengers home during bad weather, and very accommodating of locals' needs when it comes to unusual baggage, bereavements, illnesses and so on. The Trislanders are also a unique flying experience, one I am totally in love with.
The States may be subsidising Aurigny, but so what? It's a price worth paying for having secure air routes (including the vital Alderney link), and at least one airline in the world that cares about more than the bottom line.
Please don't sell!!
Aurigny is one of a very rare breed of airline which still has a 'public service' ethos. They are always mightily impressive when it comes to getting passengers home during bad weather, and very accommodating of locals' needs when it comes to unusual baggage, bereavements, illnesses and so on. The Trislanders are also a unique flying experience, one I am totally in love with.
The States may be subsidising Aurigny, but so what? It's a price worth paying for having secure air routes (including the vital Alderney link), and at least one airline in the world that cares about more than the bottom line.
Please don't sell!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how well this has been thought through:
Aurigny
Blue Aurigny
FlyBlue
Or......Something Completely Different.....(which given Le Cocq's/Rock Hopper/Blue Islands would be entirely in character....)
THE NAME WASN'T SEEN AS A PRIORITY..........
Lord, forgive them, they know not what they do.......
Originally Posted by Derek Coates, BBC News
Mr Coates said the name wasn't seen as a priority: "Whether the Alderney part is called Aurigny, whether we leave Joey yellow, whether it's called Blue Aurigny which doesn't quite work... we might call ourselves FlyBlue, it might be a complete change.
Blue Aurigny
FlyBlue
Or......Something Completely Different.....(which given Le Cocq's/Rock Hopper/Blue Islands would be entirely in character....)
THE NAME WASN'T SEEN AS A PRIORITY..........
Lord, forgive them, they know not what they do.......
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind that the South East Tourist Board on the mainland disposes of a budget of over £5,000,000 per year on paper pushing, the States' expenditure of a fifth of that on subsidising Aurigny looks like good value. So I can't see what they are penny-pinching about.
The States have much more to lose if the economy of the Channel Islands goes belly up if airlinks are not properly maintained. Already the slump in Alderney is hurting in a way that I'm sure it would not be were airlinks with the South East were to be opened up again.
With the hop across from Shoreham, one used to be able to go there for 24 hours. Now a trip lasts three days with two days travelling, hanging around at Guernsey.
Who on earth in their right minds can take Alderney as a go-ahead business centre seriously with such logistical difficulties in getting there?
Best wishes
OldShoreham
The States have much more to lose if the economy of the Channel Islands goes belly up if airlinks are not properly maintained. Already the slump in Alderney is hurting in a way that I'm sure it would not be were airlinks with the South East were to be opened up again.
With the hop across from Shoreham, one used to be able to go there for 24 hours. Now a trip lasts three days with two days travelling, hanging around at Guernsey.
Who on earth in their right minds can take Alderney as a go-ahead business centre seriously with such logistical difficulties in getting there?
Best wishes
OldShoreham
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the States up to making the right decision?
As an observer of Channel Island aviation and a researcher into the history of air travel to and from the island, there are many factors that I think the States should consider before agreeing to the sale of Aurigny to Blue Islands.
Whilst an agreement regarding the retention of the London hub-airport slots is possible with the current owner of Blue Islands, it is imperative that the States satisfy themselves that these will continue under the circumstance, say in five or ten years time, when the current chairman of BI (now in his early 60’s) stands down from his interests in Healthspan, or sells his companies.
This will be to the highest bidder - who may or may not have any interest in continuing with the airline, for example a company such as Holland and Barrett is unlikely to want to continue to act as banker to a CI based airline.
The States should ensure that they are aware of the succession plans for the Healthspan businesses following Derek Coates’ retirement and whether these ensure the continued operation of the airline and the guarantee of the London hub slots.
History does not bode well for the continuation of the service. Commercial decisions invariably dominate airline activities and operations and the Guernsey – London service has been repeatedly threatened, for instance in:
1. 1947 BEA incurred a huge financial deficit and as part of its cost cutting decided to suspend the direct Guernsey to London service – offering in its place a connection via Jersey. The States complained so vehemently about the loss of the direct link to a London hub airport, the service was reinstated the next spring.
2. 1962 BEA transferred its CI services from Heathrow to Gatwick – before the latter could justifiably be called a London hub, but Gatwick was not popular with the travelling public and in 1963 BEA returned all but one of its daily London flights to Heathrow.
3. On 31March 1999, KLM uk withdrew all operations from Guernsey, including services to Southampton, London Stansted and Amsterdam
4. 16 June 2003, British Airways announced the withdrawal of services between Guernsey and London Gatwick airport leading to where we are today.
Alongside all of this is the proposed work on the runway – failure of the current proposals to gain timely approval from the States will be likely to lead to the relegation of the island from the future plans of any commercial airline, as any successor to BI is unlikely to keep on flying small outdated equipment just for one destination. The most likely outcome would then be migration of banking and international businesses to Jersey, with Guernsey either by-passed or becoming a dormitory for the bigger island. The island has seldom faced a set of decisions with the potential for so great an impact regarding the islands future prosperity as it does now.
Whilst an agreement regarding the retention of the London hub-airport slots is possible with the current owner of Blue Islands, it is imperative that the States satisfy themselves that these will continue under the circumstance, say in five or ten years time, when the current chairman of BI (now in his early 60’s) stands down from his interests in Healthspan, or sells his companies.
This will be to the highest bidder - who may or may not have any interest in continuing with the airline, for example a company such as Holland and Barrett is unlikely to want to continue to act as banker to a CI based airline.
The States should ensure that they are aware of the succession plans for the Healthspan businesses following Derek Coates’ retirement and whether these ensure the continued operation of the airline and the guarantee of the London hub slots.
History does not bode well for the continuation of the service. Commercial decisions invariably dominate airline activities and operations and the Guernsey – London service has been repeatedly threatened, for instance in:
1. 1947 BEA incurred a huge financial deficit and as part of its cost cutting decided to suspend the direct Guernsey to London service – offering in its place a connection via Jersey. The States complained so vehemently about the loss of the direct link to a London hub airport, the service was reinstated the next spring.
2. 1962 BEA transferred its CI services from Heathrow to Gatwick – before the latter could justifiably be called a London hub, but Gatwick was not popular with the travelling public and in 1963 BEA returned all but one of its daily London flights to Heathrow.
3. On 31March 1999, KLM uk withdrew all operations from Guernsey, including services to Southampton, London Stansted and Amsterdam
4. 16 June 2003, British Airways announced the withdrawal of services between Guernsey and London Gatwick airport leading to where we are today.
Alongside all of this is the proposed work on the runway – failure of the current proposals to gain timely approval from the States will be likely to lead to the relegation of the island from the future plans of any commercial airline, as any successor to BI is unlikely to keep on flying small outdated equipment just for one destination. The most likely outcome would then be migration of banking and international businesses to Jersey, with Guernsey either by-passed or becoming a dormitory for the bigger island. The island has seldom faced a set of decisions with the potential for so great an impact regarding the islands future prosperity as it does now.
Ring-fencing of slots via golden share mechanisms is all very well, but the whole thing falls apart if the operator concerned cannot profitably operate the slots. Paris Orly had loads of slots guaranteed for years for regional routes but they could never find an airline which could make any money flying them.
So the States has agreed a mechanism with Blue Islands to protect the slots. What happens if/when Blue Islands finds that it cannot make any money on Gatwick, either because Flybe ramps up its service or Gatwick further ramps up its fees and charges (which it did earlier this year at significant cost to operators like Aurigny). BI would either have to pull off the route (and lose the slots under the use-it or lose-it rules which are EU regulations and impervious to any agreement between Derek Coates and the States of Guernsey) or need a States subsidy to carry on flying it! Right back to square one.
The wonderful policy agreed to protect the Gatwick slots is not resilient to this type of occurrence and may well end up in a situation where the States gets itself into exactly the position which it was trying to avoid by buying Aurigny in the first place. The whole thing falls apart if Blue Islands can't make any money flying to Gatwick, and with the Gatwick owner's intention to continue escalating charges for smaller aircraft like the ATR, that is a very real possibility in the next couple of years.
So the States has agreed a mechanism with Blue Islands to protect the slots. What happens if/when Blue Islands finds that it cannot make any money on Gatwick, either because Flybe ramps up its service or Gatwick further ramps up its fees and charges (which it did earlier this year at significant cost to operators like Aurigny). BI would either have to pull off the route (and lose the slots under the use-it or lose-it rules which are EU regulations and impervious to any agreement between Derek Coates and the States of Guernsey) or need a States subsidy to carry on flying it! Right back to square one.
The wonderful policy agreed to protect the Gatwick slots is not resilient to this type of occurrence and may well end up in a situation where the States gets itself into exactly the position which it was trying to avoid by buying Aurigny in the first place. The whole thing falls apart if Blue Islands can't make any money flying to Gatwick, and with the Gatwick owner's intention to continue escalating charges for smaller aircraft like the ATR, that is a very real possibility in the next couple of years.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Barton Upon Humber
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How important is it for two carriers to be serving GCI-LGW? Considering that BE seem committed to GCI, and financially stable, do Aurigny's Gatwick slots need protecting? Would it be better to encourage a double daily STN or LTN instead to offer more choice and options for DIY connections onto airlines like FR. Or encourage the resumption of a link into AMS and/or CDG
From an outsiders perspective there seems to be a lot of focus on one route. If Aurigny however withdrew it's double daily MAN, or it's BRS, wouldn't that have just as big impact on Guernsey?
From an outsiders perspective there seems to be a lot of focus on one route. If Aurigny however withdrew it's double daily MAN, or it's BRS, wouldn't that have just as big impact on Guernsey?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Importance Guernsey of a London Hub connection
The economy of Guernsey is now largely dependant on the offshore banking industry - hence daily flights to IOM and Zurich and the emphasis on London. The hub connection to give ready access to the City of London and facilitate connections to international flights.....USA, Bahamas, Bermuda and Middle East etc and other banking centres is seen as crucial to continued health of this industry in the island. International Bankers are prepared to link from Heathrow to Gatwick if a flight to Gatwick can't be obtained but would be unlikely to be prepared to traipse all the way out to Stanstead or Luton. Time is money to them and as a result would be likely to take their investments and business elsewhere.
As I wrote in my previous post airlines, have a track record on pulling out on this service and/or trading their slots to the highest bidder (See this months Air Britain News and the formation of a new concern "SlotTrade" by BA and other major companies to do just this) hence the islanders preference to have two operators on the route. This also has the effect of keeping the fares at a reasonable level for islanders visiting the mainland. Sadly the days of mass tourism to the island from destinations all over the UK are long gone.
As I wrote in my previous post airlines, have a track record on pulling out on this service and/or trading their slots to the highest bidder (See this months Air Britain News and the formation of a new concern "SlotTrade" by BA and other major companies to do just this) hence the islanders preference to have two operators on the route. This also has the effect of keeping the fares at a reasonable level for islanders visiting the mainland. Sadly the days of mass tourism to the island from destinations all over the UK are long gone.