Aurigny Air Services
I seem to recall Aurigny had an agreement with Lydd Air to cover for any tech issues - no sign of that happening it seems
From BBC News Online
Posted at 17:41
Aurigny statement
We recognise that the current performance on our Alderney services is unacceptable and we are very confident that the steps we are taking to resolve these difficulties will improve resilience for the rest of the summer and ensure a good level of service is delivered going forward.
The disruption will continue tomorrow with two flights rescheduled and two flights cancelled.
The airline said customers are being contacted with alternatives and it was working on a plan for Sunday before contacting those due to travel.
From BBC News Online
Posted at 17:41
Aurigny statement
We recognise that the current performance on our Alderney services is unacceptable and we are very confident that the steps we are taking to resolve these difficulties will improve resilience for the rest of the summer and ensure a good level of service is delivered going forward.
The disruption will continue tomorrow with two flights rescheduled and two flights cancelled.
The airline said customers are being contacted with alternatives and it was working on a plan for Sunday before contacting those due to travel.
Last edited by Jerbourg; 23rd Jun 2017 at 18:58.
What would AUR's performance be like without the financial support of The States ? And, what has been the total financial outlay of The States in shoring up the airline ? They've coughed up for the airline ; isn't it about time that they coughed up for some decent management ? Or, can the present management ever do any wrong in their eyes ?
I guess no one in government understands the working of an airline & believes any old yarn that is spun by Aurigny management. IMO this is how the taxpayers came to be the owners of the airline in the first place.
A decent management team needs to be put in place immediately with the focus being on turning the airline into profit & delivering a reliable service. The airline should IMO scrap self & third party handling (which must cost & lose the airline a fortune) & invite in a handling agent.
A decent management team needs to be put in place immediately with the focus being on turning the airline into profit & delivering a reliable service. The airline should IMO scrap self & third party handling (which must cost & lose the airline a fortune) & invite in a handling agent.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should be fair to AUR & accept that any CI based airline is going to find it difficult to make a decent profit - the other one doesn't do so, either. The numbers of pax required just aren't there. But, this airline is being run for political purposes (Gatwick slots & Alderney PSO). Furthermore, The States seems to be totally unwilling to hold it to account, or to take any essential measures to bring it into profit. Until they do so, AUR will continue to haemmorhage taxpayers money. It has to be asked; what exactly are the benefits to Guernsey taxpayers of owning their own airline when they lose large sums of money on their commercial operations & have to subsidize both those & their Public Service Obligations ?
Also, why are the States of Guernsey so willing to throw money down the Aurigny drain , & yet refuse to find the trivial funds necessary to trial a frequent boat service to & from Jersey ?
Also, why are the States of Guernsey so willing to throw money down the Aurigny drain , & yet refuse to find the trivial funds necessary to trial a frequent boat service to & from Jersey ?
I think Aurigny should be left to sink. There will always be someone who wants to operate the LGW route, which could be quite lucrative if operated at the right frequency & with the right aircraft, albeit maybe higher fares - but that's better than the taxpayer shelling out millions every year.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extraordinary slash-and-burn views appearing on here. You have an open market free of govt subsidies in the IoM (a far more comparable market to that in Jersey) which has left the business market dependent on poorly-timed easyJet flights or the privately-subsidised and apparently fragile LCY service. As covered a hundred times on this forum there weren't any easy or cheap solutions to Trislander replacement and the issues with Aero VIP are hardly a sack-able offence. The retirement of several of the aircraft now seems premature but (as covered before) this hasn't had a significant impact on punctuality until very recently, and wouldn't have saved much money (delaying the retirement of a 45 year old aircraft under the EASA regime is rather to put off the inevitable). Besides this, the external benefits to the wider economy of a broad range of regional services, and a reliable and guaranteed link to London, continue to outweigh their cost (although this isn't to say more economies cannot or should not be found). kcockayne, Aurigny is not under any formal PSOs (although, to formalise the subsidies it receives, it ought to be). All its operations are 'commercial'. If you disagree with this then it indicts the wooliness of its mandate (it is asked at once to serve two masters, profit and the community, with the various MoUs and agreements not making nearly sufficiently clear where the balance should lie between the two).
One doesn't need to rehearse the history of Channel Islands aviation to note that very few airlines ever made much money in Guernsey operating the sorts of routes and frequencies that Aurigny does, and in Alderney it's worth remembering that BUA charged almost the same real terms fares, and made almost the same losses, in 1967/8. There needs to be a far greater degree of political involvement in the subsidy of Aurigny, preferably based a system of PSOs to maintain a downward pressure on costs, alongside an understanding that such an airline will never be hugely profitable and that you can't have something for nothing. (As a not-particularly-astute outside observer I detect a wider problem in Guernsey's political culture: islanders seem to want more services but are very angry at the prospect of having to pay more taxes for them. The expectation that Aurigny should provide an excellent, cheap and frequent service and not make any losses seems to flow from the same brook.)
There is an alarming tendency to blame personalities when it would seem that circumstances (eg. far tighter regulation under EASA, issues with the second-hand Dorniers and the high cost of new-build Dorniers and Embraers, the dearth of other feasible second-hand <19 seaters and lessors thereof, the operation of the Trislanders well beyond the point where maintenance costs made them uneconomic, the lack of support from B-N - from whom Loganair for instance has waited two years for some parts etc) and the political structure of its ownership (by which its responsibilities are fundamentally uncodified and thus, attempting to please everyone it ends up pleasing no-one) are far more to blame. Scrap the whole management team and you will be left with all these problems (if an airline which provides the islands with what are by historical standards a pretty good range of connections at a subsidy of around 0.02% of their annual GDP). Changing the basis on which Aurigny is owned and funded is more subtle, rather less satisfying to the keyboard warrior but possibly considerably more effective.
One doesn't need to rehearse the history of Channel Islands aviation to note that very few airlines ever made much money in Guernsey operating the sorts of routes and frequencies that Aurigny does, and in Alderney it's worth remembering that BUA charged almost the same real terms fares, and made almost the same losses, in 1967/8. There needs to be a far greater degree of political involvement in the subsidy of Aurigny, preferably based a system of PSOs to maintain a downward pressure on costs, alongside an understanding that such an airline will never be hugely profitable and that you can't have something for nothing. (As a not-particularly-astute outside observer I detect a wider problem in Guernsey's political culture: islanders seem to want more services but are very angry at the prospect of having to pay more taxes for them. The expectation that Aurigny should provide an excellent, cheap and frequent service and not make any losses seems to flow from the same brook.)
There is an alarming tendency to blame personalities when it would seem that circumstances (eg. far tighter regulation under EASA, issues with the second-hand Dorniers and the high cost of new-build Dorniers and Embraers, the dearth of other feasible second-hand <19 seaters and lessors thereof, the operation of the Trislanders well beyond the point where maintenance costs made them uneconomic, the lack of support from B-N - from whom Loganair for instance has waited two years for some parts etc) and the political structure of its ownership (by which its responsibilities are fundamentally uncodified and thus, attempting to please everyone it ends up pleasing no-one) are far more to blame. Scrap the whole management team and you will be left with all these problems (if an airline which provides the islands with what are by historical standards a pretty good range of connections at a subsidy of around 0.02% of their annual GDP). Changing the basis on which Aurigny is owned and funded is more subtle, rather less satisfying to the keyboard warrior but possibly considerably more effective.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extraordinary slash-and-burn views appearing on here. You have an open market free of govt subsidies in the IoM (a far more comparable market to that in Jersey) which has left the business market dependent on poorly-timed easyJet flights or the privately-subsidised and apparently fragile LCY service. As covered a hundred times on this forum there weren't any easy or cheap solutions to Trislander replacement and the issues with Aero VIP are hardly a sack-able offence. The retirement of several of the aircraft now seems premature but (as covered before) this hasn't had a significant impact on punctuality until very recently, and wouldn't have saved much money (delaying the retirement of a 45 year old aircraft under the EASA regime is rather to put off the inevitable). Besides this, the external benefits to the wider economy of a broad range of regional services, and a reliable and guaranteed link to London, continue to outweigh their cost (although this isn't to say more economies cannot or should not be found). kcockayne, Aurigny is not under any formal PSOs (although, to formalise the subsidies it receives, it ought to be). All its operations are 'commercial'. If you disagree with this then it indicts the wooliness of its mandate (it is asked at once to serve two masters, profit and the community, with the various MoUs and agreements not making nearly sufficiently clear where the balance should lie between the two).
One doesn't need to rehearse the history of Channel Islands aviation to note that very few airlines ever made much money in Guernsey operating the sorts of routes and frequencies that Aurigny does, and in Alderney it's worth remembering that BUA charged almost the same real terms fares, and made almost the same losses, in 1967/8. There needs to be a far greater degree of political involvement in the subsidy of Aurigny, preferably based a system of PSOs to maintain a downward pressure on costs, alongside an understanding that such an airline will never be hugely profitable and that you can't have something for nothing. (As a not-particularly-astute outside observer I detect a wider problem in Guernsey's political culture: islanders seem to want more services but are very angry at the prospect of having to pay more taxes for them. The expectation that Aurigny should provide an excellent, cheap and frequent service and not make any losses seems to flow from the same brook.)
There is an alarming tendency to blame personalities when it would seem that circumstances (eg. far tighter regulation under EASA, issues with the second-hand Dorniers and the high cost of new-build Dorniers and Embraers, the dearth of other feasible second-hand <19 seaters and lessors thereof, the operation of the Trislanders well beyond the point where maintenance costs made them uneconomic, the lack of support from B-N - from whom Loganair for instance has waited two years for some parts etc) and the political structure of its ownership (by which its responsibilities are fundamentally uncodified and thus, attempting to please everyone it ends up pleasing no-one) are far more to blame. Scrap the whole management team and you will be left with all these problems (if an airline which provides the islands with what are by historical standards a pretty good range of connections at a subsidy of around 0.02% of their annual GDP). Changing the basis on which Aurigny is owned and funded is more subtle, rather less satisfying to the keyboard warrior but possibly considerably more effective.
One doesn't need to rehearse the history of Channel Islands aviation to note that very few airlines ever made much money in Guernsey operating the sorts of routes and frequencies that Aurigny does, and in Alderney it's worth remembering that BUA charged almost the same real terms fares, and made almost the same losses, in 1967/8. There needs to be a far greater degree of political involvement in the subsidy of Aurigny, preferably based a system of PSOs to maintain a downward pressure on costs, alongside an understanding that such an airline will never be hugely profitable and that you can't have something for nothing. (As a not-particularly-astute outside observer I detect a wider problem in Guernsey's political culture: islanders seem to want more services but are very angry at the prospect of having to pay more taxes for them. The expectation that Aurigny should provide an excellent, cheap and frequent service and not make any losses seems to flow from the same brook.)
There is an alarming tendency to blame personalities when it would seem that circumstances (eg. far tighter regulation under EASA, issues with the second-hand Dorniers and the high cost of new-build Dorniers and Embraers, the dearth of other feasible second-hand <19 seaters and lessors thereof, the operation of the Trislanders well beyond the point where maintenance costs made them uneconomic, the lack of support from B-N - from whom Loganair for instance has waited two years for some parts etc) and the political structure of its ownership (by which its responsibilities are fundamentally uncodified and thus, attempting to please everyone it ends up pleasing no-one) are far more to blame. Scrap the whole management team and you will be left with all these problems (if an airline which provides the islands with what are by historical standards a pretty good range of connections at a subsidy of around 0.02% of their annual GDP). Changing the basis on which Aurigny is owned and funded is more subtle, rather less satisfying to the keyboard warrior but possibly considerably more effective.
That said I'd hate to be an operator in this day and age, from the sound of it Auirigny have been quite appalling but it seems that a staff member only has to fart and it gets reported on this forum, not just Aurigny, the Eastern Airways thread, I believe, has long since belonged in Terms & Endearment as it seems to be more about disgruntled staff than passengers, and these are just two examples.
I myself did have my own aviation business a number of years back that found itself being discussed on PPRuNe, please just remember that whilst the posters here may be pretty much free to say what they like, to slate a business off, the business(s) cannot respond discussing their product unless they have paid to commercially advertise their product on PPRuNe!
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dornier Replacement
Do.228 D-CAAL has flown ZQW-GCI this morning and is currently on stand. Presumably this is the airframe which will provide Aurigny with immediate emergency cover.
Do.228 D-CAAL has flown ZQW-GCI this morning and is currently on stand. Presumably this is the airframe which will provide Aurigny with immediate emergency cover.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the most likely explanation.
It will be interesting to see if Aurigny or Arcus Air will provide the crew as GR have been experiencing crew shortages recently, further compounding their operational problems.
It will be interesting to see if Aurigny or Arcus Air will provide the crew as GR have been experiencing crew shortages recently, further compounding their operational problems.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would not be dry leasing the a/c so the flight crew will almost definitely be Arcus - they could easily allow cabin crew to run the back though if they are type cleared.
Aero Mad, you make some good points , as usual. I acknowledge the points you make & accept what you are trying to convey. Indeed, I did say that AUR have a difficult task to operate as they do &, at the same time, make a profit - which they don't ! I used the term PSO simply to acknowledge what is a de facto situation - if not a legal one. The fact is, AUR operate the Alderney routes at a loss (as probably any airline would).BCI have the same problem (not the PSO), but they are privately bailed out ! (for how much longer ?).
However, as said many times, the Dornier fiasco has been just that; & has yet to be sorted out. It has been well over ten years in the making - how long do AUR need ? The operational losses just go on & on & surely the Guernsey taxpayer has a right to state whether it wants to continue shelling out.
The next thing that it will be asked to fund is the totally unnecessary runway extension which, if it happens, will only make matters worse for AUR, in that it could bring EZY into the equation &,if so, put extra pressure on AUR.
However, as said many times, the Dornier fiasco has been just that; & has yet to be sorted out. It has been well over ten years in the making - how long do AUR need ? The operational losses just go on & on & surely the Guernsey taxpayer has a right to state whether it wants to continue shelling out.
The next thing that it will be asked to fund is the totally unnecessary runway extension which, if it happens, will only make matters worse for AUR, in that it could bring EZY into the equation &,if so, put extra pressure on AUR.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gurnard... my statement was only in the fact that we sometimes had a hosty in our J31's for charters etc - most of the time it was just 2 drivers and pax sat by themselves, but we only had 30 or 45 min sectors and no cock door - just a dog eared curtain separating us from all those would be terror suspects down the back.. that in every case I can ever remember were nothing but charming and polite.... Oh for those heedy days again..
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dornier saga
G-LGIS did engine runs late yesterday afternoon and has undertaken air test from GCI this morning so ought to return to service soon.
An Aurigny statement has suggested that G-SAYE is awaiting spares. The aircraft has not flown since early April, suggesting that Do.228 spares are as rare as Trislander spares
.
Does anyone know what problems G-OMAF has encountered to delay its delivery?
G-LGIS did engine runs late yesterday afternoon and has undertaken air test from GCI this morning so ought to return to service soon.
An Aurigny statement has suggested that G-SAYE is awaiting spares. The aircraft has not flown since early April, suggesting that Do.228 spares are as rare as Trislander spares
.Does anyone know what problems G-OMAF has encountered to delay its delivery?
