Aurigny Air Services
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are hardly going to get a codeshare to JER in competition with BA, are they, or did you just mean GCI?
It would seem that, after years of slugging it out, there ought to be a good opportunity for FlyBe and Aurigny to work together, with a brace of shiny new FlyBe E-jets contract flying between LGW and both JER and GCI in Aurigny colours. After all, a big chunk of BE's recovery plan is based around contract flying and their investor presentation suggest that they seem to be struggling to utilise what aircraft they have, post LGW
Would Aurigny have enough LGW slots to make this work?
It would seem that, after years of slugging it out, there ought to be a good opportunity for FlyBe and Aurigny to work together, with a brace of shiny new FlyBe E-jets contract flying between LGW and both JER and GCI in Aurigny colours. After all, a big chunk of BE's recovery plan is based around contract flying and their investor presentation suggest that they seem to be struggling to utilise what aircraft they have, post LGW
Would Aurigny have enough LGW slots to make this work?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would BA with 6 daily 150seater flights be interested in having GR operating the route with smaller aircraft that would have to accommodate all the capacity BA offers + the lost Flybe capacity?
As for GCI, why should GR pay BA lots of money for using the BA brand if they have a monopoly on GCI-LON on their plate as of March 2014?
As for GCI, why should GR pay BA lots of money for using the BA brand if they have a monopoly on GCI-LON on their plate as of March 2014?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much coverage in Guernsey of Aurigny getting loans/guarantees for a new aircraft purchase/lease to maintain capacity on the Gatwick run:
BBC News - Aurigny Guernsey-Gatwick route 'needs new plane'
BBC News - Aurigny Guernsey-Gatwick route 'needs new plane'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SUPPORT
As if to prove a point the Cello RJ will be in operation today as back-up. Ok to back up an ATR but less easy to find equipment to cover E-jet or whatever considering GCI restricted runway.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this is anywhere near as complicated as you make it sound.
IF BE (or anyone else) were contracted to fly to LGW and back x times a day, at specified times, then any mx cover etc, for the regular (liveried?) aircraft would come from the main BE fleet. It would be in the contract.
It's what happens with the current BE/Brussels Airlines contract.
It's what happens with the arrangement between T3 and BA on IOM-LCY.
It's what happens with contract flying, the World over, every day.
It's effectively what happens now with the current BE GCI based E175.
IF BE (or anyone else) were contracted to fly to LGW and back x times a day, at specified times, then any mx cover etc, for the regular (liveried?) aircraft would come from the main BE fleet. It would be in the contract.
It's what happens with the current BE/Brussels Airlines contract.
It's what happens with the arrangement between T3 and BA on IOM-LCY.
It's what happens with contract flying, the World over, every day.
It's effectively what happens now with the current BE GCI based E175.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB
Would you need it? If they get a bigger aircraft for LGW (don't think they would go down the path of getting more slots?) then what are the ATR's going to be used for? MAN / STN / BRS / EMA - would you actually need 3? Unless they are going to give Flybe a run for their money on SOU????
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yak97. The type of operation I was referring to would not be a lease. It would be Contract Flying. i.e. airline A operates certain rotations on behalf of airline B. Simples!
If you check out FlyBe's accounts, this is a significant part of their business.
If you check out FlyBe's accounts, this is a significant part of their business.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe for AUR
Don't think it would be politically viable for AUR to be seen to be contracting Flybe (who have just let the Island down by withdrawing their service - notwithstanding the reasons) for the flagship route. And would a E175 be capable of taking the loads if it was the only aircraft? Think AUR would want to have more control over the operation than that. However, as they also need to upgrade from the Trislanders and have, possibly, a new MD in the offing, who knows which way it will go. Maybe they take the quick option of a contract for a period to keep running while they get their ducks in a row. March is not that far away to introduce a new type, which to AUR will represent a big change from the ATR's they have currently been operating.
Aurigny ops
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ownership
Yes there are operators around with equipment, but I feel that because of the situation regarding the ownership of AUR, if they (the States) put money up or guaranteed loans etc, they will be looking to purchase/lease their "own" aircraft, rather than just pay an operator to supply a service.
I think the Flybe situation regarding the LGW service has been a wake-up call for those people who queried why the States would want to own an airline. Living on a rock in the Channel is all very well so long as you can get off it easily (and to somewhere with some decent onwards connections)!!
Also the IOM situation, where choice is being taken out of the market because of the actions of a LCC to whom the IOM is not a core market but just somewhere to go, has concentrated minds.
I think the Flybe situation regarding the LGW service has been a wake-up call for those people who queried why the States would want to own an airline. Living on a rock in the Channel is all very well so long as you can get off it easily (and to somewhere with some decent onwards connections)!!
Also the IOM situation, where choice is being taken out of the market because of the actions of a LCC to whom the IOM is not a core market but just somewhere to go, has concentrated minds.