Aurigny Air Services
ACI-SOU
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alderney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£15m !!!
I am fully aware of the history of GR. My issue is that when then States of Guernsey decided to buy Aurigny the sole reason was to ensure that the GCI - LGW slots were kept and Guernsey kept the so called lifeline to London. Aurigny is still losing money every year mainly due to trying to run up to 6 flights a day on the Gatwick route. Many of you may have read my previous posts on this subject and feel that I am anti - Aurigny but I am not, I am anti "The States of Guernsey owning Aurigny". It's us poor tax payers who have to fund the Airline and deserve to see it run properly. Here is a pure example recently Flybe brought the Jet service back. How did Aurigny compete with this they lowered their prices on the Red Eye service and said on that service they would give a free hot breakfast. Yes that sounds a fair deal to compete but if you every fly on the Red Eye flights to LGW you will find both Flybe and GR are normally close to full anyway so it wont attract any more passengers as the flights are normally fully booked it's just giving money away. I cannot believe that Aurigny in their current financial situation think they can just borrow another £15m to spend on a/c for interisland / Southampton services and make the money to pay it back. Once again I state the reason the States purchased Aurigny was to secure the Gatwick slots. All of a sudden Aurigny seem to think they have an open cheque book to do what they like with. Next year the lease is up on the leased ATR they have so will it be £15M this year to replace the trilanders, and another god knows how many million next year to replace the ATR on top of the how ever many million still owed on the 2 current ATR's. Surely someone in the states needs to be thinking ahead small airlines are being squeezed out of Gatwick in a few years time if Aurigny are force out of LGW through high landing fees the States (IE Us tax payers) could end up with over £30m of debt 3 ATR's a few interisland A/c and no Gatwick link.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guern123, you'll note that GR borrowed about £24m in 2007 to pay for COBO and VZON. Total outstanding debt at September 2012 was £15.1m - so the money is being paid back. The reported annual losses are after loan repayments. Given that the repayments equate to about £1.8m per annum, if these are excluded Aurigny is in profit. There is no 'open cheque book'. Media also reporting that a jet is on the cards for the LGW - this would further ensure the security of the link.
I think your concerns are a little OTT. Mark Darby has his head firmly screwed on.
I think your concerns are a little OTT. Mark Darby has his head firmly screwed on.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL) gave its position on airlines operating <100 seat aircraft in the CAA document on the recent landing fee rises.
The CAA acknowledged that the landing fee changes (a 65% rise in summer fees) penalised operators of smaller aircraft but also noted that this was necessary to ensure optimum use of capacity at Gatwick. Furthermore, GAL has acknowledged that Aurigny would be the most proportionately affected operator. Fair 'nough, they want A380s instead of ATRs.
A hypothetical jet would maintain the security of the route by ensuring that a large enough aircraft is serving the route. Loads on LGW-GCI are pretty good; small aircraft are only used because of the runway length in Guernsey. Hence Flybe is using 88-seater E75s instead of DH8s on several flights. A larger aircraft will not be penalised by GAL's fee structure to the same extent as an AT7.
GAL was seeking to encourage peak slots to be used by aircraft carrying more passengers, by both higher load factors and, potentially, larger aircraft. Those using smaller aircraft should recognise the opportunity cost associated with their use of those slots.
A hypothetical jet would maintain the security of the route by ensuring that a large enough aircraft is serving the route. Loads on LGW-GCI are pretty good; small aircraft are only used because of the runway length in Guernsey. Hence Flybe is using 88-seater E75s instead of DH8s on several flights. A larger aircraft will not be penalised by GAL's fee structure to the same extent as an AT7.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to hear recently that Aurigny suffer an annual loss of approximately £1m on the Alderney services alone.
It makes you wonder what would have happened if the States of Guernsey hadn't stepped in and purchased the airline?
I think saving the Gatwick slots was only half of the story.
It makes you wonder what would have happened if the States of Guernsey hadn't stepped in and purchased the airline?
I think saving the Gatwick slots was only half of the story.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to hear recently that Aurigny suffer an annual loss of approximately £1m on the Alderney services alone.
By the way, this little gem courtesy of an April Fool article in the islands some time ago.
Last edited by Aero Mad; 19th Apr 2013 at 20:46.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a helicopter! You could use the Barckley brothers one. In my mind its down to three possible options 1) twoter already on UK register, 2) Dornier 228 again already on UK register - or - 3) You could down grade the capacity and use an Islander. Any of the above options will not require a runway extension. However there is still the potential issue of the lack of Jet A1 on Alderney.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's runway 08/26 at Alderney is 877 metre long (277 metre longer than Scilly Isles/St. Marys) and it's more than long enough for up to Dash-8-100 / 39 seat sized aircraft. The problem at ACI is the width of runway 08/26. The surface is a mix of asphalt and grass (UK AIP says total width 23 metres, 2.5 metres of outer sides are grass and then the alphalt width will only be 18 metres). St. Marys has 23 metre with asphalt and that qualifies for Dash-6 (Twotter) operation, but isn't enough for Dash-8-100 where you need 30 metre wide runways.
I think the taxiways (12 metre wide) and the apron too need to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft than the Trislander. The position of the taxiway Bravo may also have to be moved westward since the bend today is so close to the shrubs and other vegetation (at least it was so the last time I flew in to ACI).
In other words, ACI has to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft and in most cases it is more difficult to widen a runway than to lengthen it.
I think the taxiways (12 metre wide) and the apron too need to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft than the Trislander. The position of the taxiway Bravo may also have to be moved westward since the bend today is so close to the shrubs and other vegetation (at least it was so the last time I flew in to ACI).
In other words, ACI has to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft and in most cases it is more difficult to widen a runway than to lengthen it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be just in case fuel. Also not all flights are just inter island but also serve the SOU route as well. Another factor is the weather and the need to carry extra diversion fuel if its bad. I have sat in a Tris for 1hr 50 after departing from ACI after two attempts at GCI back to ACI one attempt there and then divert to SOU.
More than possible to operate without JetA1 on either the Twin Otter or Dornier 228 - both could comfortably round-trip fuel on GCI-ACI-SOU or vice versa. That should not be a constraint - and the enormous cost saving of JetA1 versus Avgas will transform the economics, even if a second pilot has to be added.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my ignorance as this isn't my area, but I've read comments before to the effect that when operating a relatively large number of very short sectors in a day, the cycle-based maintenance requirements of a turboprop tend to disadvantage it compared with a piston engine. Is there any truth in this?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its more pressurisation cycles which kills the TP's.
Anything less than a 30-40 min sector tends to increase your capital usage cost for the flight above what it should be. Also there tend to be life'd items due number of landings on retractable gear.
The actual starting and stopping of the engines doesn't really come into it apart from an increase in the number of starter gens you go through and battery's if your not doing GPU starts. There is no record in the techlog of starts only of landings and airborne hours.
And there might not be an option on the tri's anyway because the report is out now for the one that blew an engine. And there are several safety items that need addressed in regards to the engine out performance.
Anything less than a 30-40 min sector tends to increase your capital usage cost for the flight above what it should be. Also there tend to be life'd items due number of landings on retractable gear.
The actual starting and stopping of the engines doesn't really come into it apart from an increase in the number of starter gens you go through and battery's if your not doing GPU starts. There is no record in the techlog of starts only of landings and airborne hours.
And there might not be an option on the tri's anyway because the report is out now for the one that blew an engine. And there are several safety items that need addressed in regards to the engine out performance.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my ignorance as this isn't my area, but I've read comments before to the effect that when operating a relatively large number of very short sectors in a day, the cycle-based maintenance requirements of a turboprop tend to disadvantage it compared with a piston engine. Is there any truth in this?
I thought AeroNormandy Engineering had bought the type certificate for the Trislander with a view to building new replacements in/with China. Whatever happened to that plan?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also you need 2 crew for TP operation. PT6 engines and twotters are used for 20-40 sector days all over the world.
I can't see the engines being the whole problem. Multi crew, hot sections, twotter is a sort after aircraft so purchase value is quite high as well. They are worth more than a Jetstream. And an EU mod spec will be worth more again after you have fitted TCAS TWAS and all that other stuff.
Tri islanders very few want the things apart from 3rd world country's. They now have problems with them as well with avgas going out of fashion.
Oh and here is the AAIB report
Air Accidents Investigation: BN2A MK.III-2 Trislander, G-BDTO
I can't see the engines being the whole problem. Multi crew, hot sections, twotter is a sort after aircraft so purchase value is quite high as well. They are worth more than a Jetstream. And an EU mod spec will be worth more again after you have fitted TCAS TWAS and all that other stuff.
Tri islanders very few want the things apart from 3rd world country's. They now have problems with them as well with avgas going out of fashion.
Oh and here is the AAIB report
Air Accidents Investigation: BN2A MK.III-2 Trislander, G-BDTO
Last edited by mad_jock; 25th Apr 2013 at 13:12.