Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

ALDERNEY

Old 16th Apr 2017, 19:28
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Age: 39
Posts: 114
Not Kidding, the Cessna Caravan with a cargo pod with a cruise of 170 KTAS would cover the distance ACI- GCI, GCI-JER, JER-DNR, ACI-CER, ACI-JER in less than the 15 min specified below.




AMC1 SPA.SET-IMC.105(d)(2) SET-IMC operations




FLIGHT PLANNING


(a) The operator should establish flight planning procedures to ensure that the routings and cruise altitude are selected so as to have a landing site within gliding range.


(b) Notwithstanding (a), one or more risk periods of no more than a total of 15 minutes per flight may be determined whenever a landing site is not within gliding range and for the following operations:


(1) over water;


Granted in very strong winds you would have to be careful, but I reckon the 15 min restriction could be extended after a trials as ICAO does not specific a time in its SET-IMC criteria in Annex 6 App 3.


Waves didn't start up for no reason.
Sleepybhudda is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 19:08
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,328
The same EASA Part-SET rule set also contains a lot of additional provisions about operator training programmes, engine reliability programmes (specific to the operator and not the manufacturer) and a whole load of issues which it will be distinctly challenging to achieve as a start-up operator. As with all regulatory measures, it is a package of requirements rather than a pick-and-mix and I still remain highly sceptical that this concept can be applied in practice by new AOC holder. Time will tell.

My scepticism isn't helped by the fact (as stated in their presentation that I saw) Waves seem to think you can fly a Cessna Caravan with more than 10 passengers with a single pilot, which you can't?
Flightrider is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 21:31
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 663
I'm not entirely convinced it's necessarily in Alderney's interests to allow Aurigny to be potentially de-stabilised by new operators with little history or reputation.

Competition is good... unless you have a population of 2,000 and risk hosting a race to the bottom?
01475 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2017, 02:11
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 963
Sleepybuddha, you have piqued my interest... What were the 'interesting issues' that Air Sarnia suffered from? If you are able to discuss them in a public forum, that is!
jensdad is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2017, 07:20
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by 01475 View Post
I'm not entirely convinced it's necessarily in Alderney's interests to allow Aurigny to be potentially de-stabilised by new operators with little history or reputation.

Competition is good... unless you have a population of 2,000 and risk hosting a race to the bottom?
I agree, giving Aurigny the chance to pull out of Alderney leaving us with no air links at all if Air Alderney don't pan out.

However, the absence of flights to Jersey and general lack of flights/freight/medical is even more pressing. IMHO
Malthouse is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2017, 07:30
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 72
Posts: 1,361
Originally Posted by Malthouse View Post
I agree, giving Aurigny the chance to pull out of Alderney leaving us with no air links at all if Air Alderney don't pan out.

However, the absence of flights to Jersey and general lack of flights/freight/medical is even more pressing. IMHO
Being an Alderney resident, you'd know more about the actual demand for a Jersey route than I would, but what exactly is this demand ? After all, it has been tried before & didn't last,
kcockayne is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2017, 07:47
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by kcockayne View Post
Being an Alderney resident, you'd know more about the actual demand for a Jersey route than I would, but what exactly is this demand ? After all, it has been tried before & didn't last,
When Rockhopper and Aurigny both operated the route it was well used, those were different economic times of course.

I don't believe Aurigny's refusal to operate the route has anything to do with profit, it has everything to do with the States of Guernsey's flawed desire to have Guernsey be a "hub".

There is a strong demand for travel in both directions, Alderney residents with family and social ties to Jersey and vice versa. Jersey's onward destinations are the best of all the islands, so the potential for businesses to market to those areas is a great opportunity.

The trial that was underwritten by the States of Alderney a few years ago was designed to fail, they picked a 5 week window avoiding all school holidays for a start. Even so it was uses enough to break even, without any effective marketing or planning.
Malthouse is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 08:20
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 87
The trial operated on Friday and Sunday afternoons in late summer/autumn, any route should work at that time over a limited period, it proved nothing. Operating in the winter, it will be a disaster, just like it was when it operated previously.

How can there possibly be a sustainable demand to use Jersey as a hub when the population of Alderney is around 1600 people, and the business community maybe attracts 3 or 4 visitors a day from off island, with most of them being day trips?
Feet on ground is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 08:36
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Feet on ground View Post
How can there possibly be a sustainable demand to use Jersey as a hub...
I am not saying the demand is for Jersey to be a hub, simply that Jersey is a better option that Guernsey is.
Malthouse is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 19:22
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 893
The history of ACI-JER is fairly prosaic and its current dormancy to my knowledge has very little to do directly any desire on the part of the States of Guernsey for it not to operate. After it was relinquished by BUA, Aurigny operated the route from Jul 1968 until Oct 2004, carrying between around 10-20,000 passengers pa (numbers peaked in 1989, flattening out to around 15,000 in the late 1990s and 10,000 in the early 2000s). Rockhopper was successful in its application to operate in 2003; the two airlines carried 10,000 passengers together (hardly growing the market at all). Numbers fell to just under 5,000 in 2004. Blue Islands then dropped the route, operated it seasonally (often with Islanders) from 2006-9, and did not fly during 2010 nor 2011 (its last year of ACI operations).

Having established its main base of operation in Guernsey, Aurigny wasn't going to restart a route which would both lose money in its own right and feed potential ACI residents away from GR's GCI-mainland and onto others' JER-mainland services. This decision is almost purely commercial and not directly political; States members have mandated it to minimise its losses - they have not mandated it to run an ACI-JER service justified by wider economic benefit (much as it used to). This comes down to a complete lack of vision from Alderney States members who spend far too much complaining about Aurigny and almost none trying to improve it, much as I pointed out at the time of their ludicrous requête. Asking it to run a (lossmaking) ACI-JER service is a decision involving taxpayers' money, so it's not one for Aurigny to make on its own.

The take-up of the 2013 trial was more than satisfactory, but the States of Alderney did not fund the operation thereafter. It's a ridiculous way to fund an airline and a measure of how poor the States of Alderney's efforts at actually working with (not against) the States of Guernsey and Aurigny to improve services have been that it had to be paid for in this way (and also a measure of how unaware T&R is of Alderney's requirements). Subsidies for ACI-JER are just the same as subsidies for ACI-GCI and should be rolled into the same debt write-offs/PSOs.

Every minute States of Alderney members spend slagging off the States of Guernsey's airline in the pages of their press is a minute they could use to lobby Gavin St Pier, the wider States of Guernsey and Aurigny as to the economic benefits of the links they want. I know not whether it is conviction or expertise they lack, but for as long as they spend more time engaged in meaningless, introspective and grandstanding debate than attempting to engage constructively with the issues at hand and the organisations and people that have a more direct role in choosing where, when, for whom and at what cost Aurigny is asked to fly, it shall be one or the other. Glad to see efforts to restore it, but unsurprised to see it wasn't States of Alderney members who took the initiative. Stop blaming. Take responsibility.

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017...boost-tourism/
Aero Mad is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 22:16
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 72
Posts: 1,361
That sums it all up quite well, AeroMad. Well done.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2022, 11:55
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 893
Runway extension being given serious consideration. Business case to go to the States of Guernsey Policy & Resources committee at the end of the month.

Press Release - runway project team reveals Alderney options - States of Alderney
Aero Mad is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2022, 12:09
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
What do you think the chances are?
Malthouse is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2022, 16:00
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 72
Posts: 1,361
They may well approve it; but what will it do for Alderney? On an island of less than 2000 people, with a very small tourism industry, if you operate fifty seaters instead of twenty seaters, it would appear to me that you are only going to succeed in getting 40 percent of the flights that you get now. So, sacrifice frequency ( as far as it is possible to call it "frequency") in favour of a more comfortable, far less frequent service. You pays your money (or, rather, the States Of Guernsey does) & you makes your choice.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 15:28
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 893
The question here is about the amount of money 'you pays'. An ATR 72-600 could take 55ish pax on a restricted load basis from an extended runway, with projected figures of 3% less fuel burn compared to the existing Dornier operation, with a reduction in subsidy from £2m to £1.3m per year at current figures. The runway and terminal, which were built in 1967, need rebuilding anyway. The runway was resurfaced in the late 1980s and in 2006, and is now crumbling to an extent that it requires regular and expensive repairs. The fire station has asbestos in its roof. It may be that it would 'only' cost an extra £8-15m to extend the runway, build a slightly bigger terminal, etc, vs to rebuild to the same length.

The other side of the coin are the political considerations. Given the size of its structural deficit, the States of Guernsey mayn't be willing, in the future, to make this level of investment in Alderney - so it's not an issue which can be returned to simply or reliably at a later date. The political will is definitely there at the moment (if the numbers are right) - but it may evaporate as Guernsey's tax debate focuses more on spending cuts, the constituent members of P&R change, and/or Peter Ferbrache ceases to be president of P&R. Hydrogen and battery powered aircraft, even of Dornier size, are likely to require longer runways than conventionally fuelled versions for take off. So, even if the ATR seems a white elephant in a decade, there is a significant element of future-proofing in option C.

Much will rest on the business case presented to P&R at the end of the month, in terms of the opportunity cost and the pay-back period of the investment. This is a decision which will determine a lot for the future of the island, whatever decision is made, and it will be very interesting to see the figures.
Aero Mad is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 15:48
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 72
Posts: 1,361
Nicely explained, Aero Mad. It may well be that a longer runway will be needed, as you say, but I don't really see how this will benefit the island's economy (even if Alderney is not paying for it); or how the islanders expectations of more frequent, less expensive flights will materialize.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 16:14
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: a rock near 50 North
Posts: 112
Good comments. The real questions are;

Is a longer runway needed - Yes
Will fleet consolidation improve Aurigny's finances - Yes
Will the business case add up - probably not when you take into account higher airport operating costs and buying in Medivac
Would this improve Alderney's economy - No
Will this provide higher flight frequencys - No
Does this reduce fares - No
Is there the money to do this - No

Also your 55 pax payload is for a perfect day, dry runway and wind straight down it. An average winter day is 37. A bad day = no flight.
However, to future proof the airport, yes it should be extended.
five zero by ortac is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2022, 06:38
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Really good post Aero Mad, thank you

Seems to me to be a less logical process, the books have not balanced (no one has really tried) since 1948, so it has to be a decision based on what is needed to move forward. In the long room it will benefit the whole Bailiwick

Alderney has carried it's weight in the past and may well again, but not if forced into being a 3rd rate backwater

Government, especially transport, cannot be based solely on bean counting over 3 years
Malthouse is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2022, 08:48
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,219
Any logic in Aurigny picking up 1/2 ATR42 for to operate from an extended Alderney runway? The short field 'S' models would probably quite reliably carry a full load in most conditions, and they can work on slimmer Guernsey routes as well, not to mention the obvious commonality with the '72 fleet.
adfly is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2022, 10:44
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 72
The medical side is covered by Social Security in Guernsey so it's swings and roundabouts in a way as they wouldn't be paying for Aurigny to cover the service but it may bring down the per leg cost of the contract they have with Gama Aviation and potentially be offset by lower costs for medical patients that need to travel on schedule services to Guernsey or Southampton if they can negotiate lower medical fares... On the flip side, any Alderney patient going to Southampton would be unable to go for check ups as a day trip, so Health would end up having to pay for overnight accommodation.

As said above, presumably we're looking at an extra ATR also which may help with the current Aurigny Guernsey schedule and Alderney Airport does need work done to it - but it's a lot of work that isn't necessarily going to bring about wide scale benefits for everyone, even if in reality it has to be done to at least keep the airport in a decent state.

Last edited by KindaUnstuck; 13th Mar 2022 at 10:56.
KindaUnstuck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.