Aurigny Air Services
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alderney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Place your Money on E-195's
It was interesting watching the news on the states meeting the other day. On the late news Gavin St Pier said "We have given the go ahead to act as backing for Aurigny. Obviously we will be looking at jets and the plan is they will be here by June. Between March and June we will use lease aircraft"
A rather bold statement seeing as Aurigny are currently working on a plan seems like it's been finalised. but.....
WBD is about to be returned and some VERY reliable sources I hear that frequency will remain the same or even be reduced along with using larger capacity aircraft E-195's in 118 config is what they say.
A rather bold statement seeing as Aurigny are currently working on a plan seems like it's been finalised. but.....
WBD is about to be returned and some VERY reliable sources I hear that frequency will remain the same or even be reduced along with using larger capacity aircraft E-195's in 118 config is what they say.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Yak97 is correct, they will end up with a unit of themselves.
Although economics will never make it for them....
With a rental (ACMI ) unit they might be able to earn a little bit at best...
Imagine them going tech on the E190/195, smallest requirement would be RJ or even 737 would be needed to cover...
Cash out...
1 E190/195 needs maintenance as well... replacement.. cash out...
I know AUR have made a loss for many years... but with jet ops... this will go extra fast as well...
Although economics will never make it for them....
With a rental (ACMI ) unit they might be able to earn a little bit at best...
Imagine them going tech on the E190/195, smallest requirement would be RJ or even 737 would be needed to cover...
Cash out...
1 E190/195 needs maintenance as well... replacement.. cash out...
I know AUR have made a loss for many years... but with jet ops... this will go extra fast as well...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joined up Government
So while one part of the States (T&R) is approved to spend money on an aircraft for AUR another part (PSD) is busily trying to get an operator in to compete on the LGW service as they are worried about the shortfall on the airport budget!
And they are considering the creation of a monopoly situation on the route (as they still apply route licensing they could just not licence another carrier on that route). What would the UK Monopolies Commission have to say about that?
Statements from T&R expect an order by mid Aug for new delivery June 2014, so a requirement for a short term lease to cover the gap? However as Flybe have some E195's coming up for end of lease could they go for a used aircraft - which then would not need the short term coverage?
And they are considering the creation of a monopoly situation on the route (as they still apply route licensing they could just not licence another carrier on that route). What would the UK Monopolies Commission have to say about that?
Statements from T&R expect an order by mid Aug for new delivery June 2014, so a requirement for a short term lease to cover the gap? However as Flybe have some E195's coming up for end of lease could they go for a used aircraft - which then would not need the short term coverage?
Last edited by Yak97; 5th Aug 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC (I know, I know...) writes
"Aurigny expects to take delivery of a 122-seat Embraer 195 jet in the middle of 2014.
It will join the airline's ATRs, which operate six flights a day to Gatwick, with a capacity of about 70 passengers.
Aurigny has not revealed how much it is paying for the new aircraft, but previously said a new jet would likely cost between £27m and £32m.
The States agreed to guarantee the purchase of the jet at its July meeting and the airline has signed an initial agreement with the Brazilian manufacturer."
Did Flybe lease its 195s from Embraer? Also I thought there were some restrictions on the 195 at GCI?
Edit BBC Guernsey Aurigny interim MD confirms purchase, not lease - agreement signed Friday - enters service mid-June with wet-lease from Flybe March pull out...also will retrain local ATR pilots....
No extra slots - and will retain old ATR as back-up in the event of it going tec.
"Aurigny expects to take delivery of a 122-seat Embraer 195 jet in the middle of 2014.
It will join the airline's ATRs, which operate six flights a day to Gatwick, with a capacity of about 70 passengers.
Aurigny has not revealed how much it is paying for the new aircraft, but previously said a new jet would likely cost between £27m and £32m.
The States agreed to guarantee the purchase of the jet at its July meeting and the airline has signed an initial agreement with the Brazilian manufacturer."
Did Flybe lease its 195s from Embraer? Also I thought there were some restrictions on the 195 at GCI?
Edit BBC Guernsey Aurigny interim MD confirms purchase, not lease - agreement signed Friday - enters service mid-June with wet-lease from Flybe March pull out...also will retrain local ATR pilots....
No extra slots - and will retain old ATR as back-up in the event of it going tec.
Last edited by kuningan; 12th Aug 2013 at 07:18.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 daily flights in the E195 will provide 732 seats daily on the LGW route, compared to 892 at the moment with 11 flights and the AT7/E75 mix. If both carriers are currently operating at 75 - 80 per cent loads, it should work out although it would mean a rather tricky 90 per cent plus load factor for Aurigny on the E195 (guess they could always throw in a second daily STN ATR72 rotation catering for travellers who are flexible enough to travel through STN).
If loads for both carriers are lower than 75 per cent, it should be not problem at all capacity-wise and as both operators are operating from the GCI end of the route, there will also be no loss of early morning departures from LGW or late evening departures from GCI when Flybe exits the market.
If loads for both carriers are lower than 75 per cent, it should be not problem at all capacity-wise and as both operators are operating from the GCI end of the route, there will also be no loss of early morning departures from LGW or late evening departures from GCI when Flybe exits the market.
Last edited by virginblue; 12th Aug 2013 at 11:43.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However the 6 rotations cannot be filled by just one EMB. I would expect a mix of 4 EMB rotations and 2 ATR rotations. Using a back of the fag packet I reckon on a reduction of approx 250 seats per day in total once the route reverts just to Aurigny. However if an extra rotation for the EMB could be found then that should about equal the seats available at the moment.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, of course. With a bit of re-scheduling, five can be done (by bringing forward the early afternoon departure and pushing back the last departure of the day). Second flight of the day would need to be on an ATR72.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, but the problem is that Aurigny will have to squeeze the capacity currently spread over 11 LGW-slots into the 6 slots it holds. I doubt that the States will buy two or three additional slot pairs for GR (provided that any are on the market at suitable times). The only chance is really to squeeze as much utilization out of the big jet as possible to provide maximum capacity with 6 slot pairs.
It all boils down, however, to the question how many seats the GCI market really needs on a daily basis. If there is a lot of excess capacity on the market with 11 daily flights by two airlines, then there is not too much to worry about other than the usual problems resulting from a monopoly.
It all boils down, however, to the question how many seats the GCI market really needs on a daily basis. If there is a lot of excess capacity on the market with 11 daily flights by two airlines, then there is not too much to worry about other than the usual problems resulting from a monopoly.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternative London airports
Or offer additional capacity (STN) or new capacity by offering perhaps a LTN flight? Although flight time is more I bet GCI-Central London via LTN is comparable with LGW, if not faster? Then control capacity on LGW through fares?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - bit of a streach to say STN is London (N) as both STN & SEN trains arrive at the same London terminus - Liverpool Street. And as for going North of Stansted - not a lot out there, while LTN has access to M1 North & South. Anyway not an argument about who's airport is best, just looking at options for AUR services.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still think there would be mileage for Aurigny to offer up a code share/franchise with BA on its new Jet. BA does well out of Jer and has a club Europe Cabin which is well utilised and Eastern operates for BA from LCY to IOM
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAS could offer whatever they want to BA, the thing is would BA take them up on it and what would they want in return. Having flown both for AAS and a BA subsidiary company in the past I can tell you that BA does not do favours for other companies and would want/need to see a significant financial benefit before they were remotely interested. AAS are going to need all the revenue they can get to make the jet pay, never mind diluting revenue by code sharing.
I lived on Guernsey, like the place and all that but let's be brutally honest the traffic just isn't there. If it was the likes of Ryannair would be interested and they're simply not. As far as monopolies are concerned the market simply isn't big enough for multiple operators to Guernsey on a regular basis. Don't be fooled by talk of LGW and slot costs. If it was truly profitable for FLYBE somehow they would continue the route.
The same, frankly, is true inter-island. Whatever AAS's faults and believe me I used to moan about them in the crew room, the Islands have had a superb service over the years under AAS's various owners. I also used to fly for Air Sarnia. We couldn't really compete on service and the company went bust trying to compete on price. It cost AAS a small fortune in lost revenue when A/S was operating and at the end of the day I'm not sure that Alderney in particular benefited much. What it did prove was that there were only a finite number of people who wanted flights and even give-away prices didn't generate a significant increase in traffic, at least not enough to cover the reduced revenue per seat due to lower fares. Having multiple operators on a route may be great for the local consumers in the short term but probably isn't beneficial in the long term. The term 'life-line route' implies there is a social necessity for that route and social necessity doesn't necessarily equate with an operator making a profit. In fact generally speaking it means that somebody has to subsidize the fares. AAS did that for years on the ACI-JER route but eventually had to drop the route once Blue Island came along because competition on the GCI-JER route meant lower revenue. In that instance competition very definitely did not benefit the ACI consumer.
Competition may well act as a spur for an operator to get its act together whereas a monopoly might make them lazy but if costs have to continually be driven down to maintain profitability eventually something has to give. If the market is big enough then another operator will step up to the plate. In the case of GCI there probably has to be a near-monopoly at the very least on some routes least so it's better that a local airline which understands the social need for the route has it.
Should the States own AAS? Well the States are or should be acutely aware of the need/benefit of air links. A private/public company might exclusively focus on the bottom line, presumably the States do not because they understand that other operators are not exactly fighting to get on the Island routes. That doesn't mean they can bleed money of course but perhaps the GCI taxpayers derive more benefit from AAS than what it costs them individually in terms of their tax pounds going to AAS. I'm sure somebody will have the figure to hand. How much per year does an individual taxpayer contribute? Now what value would you put on the benefit of a regular service operated by a company that has always done it's best for its local customers?
I lived on Guernsey, like the place and all that but let's be brutally honest the traffic just isn't there. If it was the likes of Ryannair would be interested and they're simply not. As far as monopolies are concerned the market simply isn't big enough for multiple operators to Guernsey on a regular basis. Don't be fooled by talk of LGW and slot costs. If it was truly profitable for FLYBE somehow they would continue the route.
The same, frankly, is true inter-island. Whatever AAS's faults and believe me I used to moan about them in the crew room, the Islands have had a superb service over the years under AAS's various owners. I also used to fly for Air Sarnia. We couldn't really compete on service and the company went bust trying to compete on price. It cost AAS a small fortune in lost revenue when A/S was operating and at the end of the day I'm not sure that Alderney in particular benefited much. What it did prove was that there were only a finite number of people who wanted flights and even give-away prices didn't generate a significant increase in traffic, at least not enough to cover the reduced revenue per seat due to lower fares. Having multiple operators on a route may be great for the local consumers in the short term but probably isn't beneficial in the long term. The term 'life-line route' implies there is a social necessity for that route and social necessity doesn't necessarily equate with an operator making a profit. In fact generally speaking it means that somebody has to subsidize the fares. AAS did that for years on the ACI-JER route but eventually had to drop the route once Blue Island came along because competition on the GCI-JER route meant lower revenue. In that instance competition very definitely did not benefit the ACI consumer.
Competition may well act as a spur for an operator to get its act together whereas a monopoly might make them lazy but if costs have to continually be driven down to maintain profitability eventually something has to give. If the market is big enough then another operator will step up to the plate. In the case of GCI there probably has to be a near-monopoly at the very least on some routes least so it's better that a local airline which understands the social need for the route has it.
Should the States own AAS? Well the States are or should be acutely aware of the need/benefit of air links. A private/public company might exclusively focus on the bottom line, presumably the States do not because they understand that other operators are not exactly fighting to get on the Island routes. That doesn't mean they can bleed money of course but perhaps the GCI taxpayers derive more benefit from AAS than what it costs them individually in terms of their tax pounds going to AAS. I'm sure somebody will have the figure to hand. How much per year does an individual taxpayer contribute? Now what value would you put on the benefit of a regular service operated by a company that has always done it's best for its local customers?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Codeshare?
What would be the point of a Codeshare with BA? As it is AAS will pick up 100 per cent of pax from London hubs to GCI so what will it bring to them, only dilute revenue paying for a name they don't need.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Dublin
Age: 37
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be the point of a Codeshare with BA? As it is AAS will pick up 100 per cent of pax from London hubs to GCI so what will it bring to them, only dilute revenue paying for a name they don't need.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we do not know is the ratio of Point to Point passengers compared to Transfer passengers. If the code share was very good then again why would Flybe be pulling out of Gatwick. As to stopping passengers using AMS there is no service from GCI to AMS. Also PSO does not apply to the CI as they are technically outside of Europe. LGW is now the preferred London destination ideally there should be a LHR route but until there is at least a third runway that is not going to happen. GCI is a relatively limited market that does require the use of life line routes. The same applies for ACI-GCI. By Aurigny become the de-facto operator on the route it could help lessen the losses of the airline.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for going North of Stansted - not a lot out there
Head north of STN up the M11 and it joins up with the A14 dual carriageway that connects with the M1 at the M6 intersection, i.e. from STN there is a direct northern dual carriageway track connecting STN to the M1 and M6.
Whilst the trucks on the A14 can make for less than optimum progress at least it's steady moving traffic rather than the standstill traffic congestions of south of the M6 intersection on the M1.
Using jet equipment will make the appearance of a competitor less likely. It's classic marketing - build barriers to entry for competitors. A new competitor would need (Expensive and in-demand) LGW slots, jet equipment and market recognition. As long as AUR don't get too grredy, they could make a big financial success of the route.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Dublin
Age: 37
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the code share was very good then again why would Flybe be pulling out of Gatwick. As to stopping passengers using AMS there is no service from GCI to AMS.
Blue Islands operate GCI-AMS albeit not particularly often - 2x a week I think.