ALDERNEY
Nest Webcam
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Webcam link
Hi Kar
The link is provided on the webpage, just scroll down and is approx #6 under "useful links" listing on LH column of page. You providing direct link is useful addition though - I'll have to find out how to do that!
Thanks
Pete
The link is provided on the webpage, just scroll down and is approx #6 under "useful links" listing on LH column of page. You providing direct link is useful addition though - I'll have to find out how to do that!
Thanks
Pete
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Scotlandshire
Age: 59
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting news that potentially Citywing could be heading to the Channel Islands
Alderney's States could set-up own airline - ITV News
Alderney to look into running its own airline « Guernsey Press
Alderney's States could set-up own airline - ITV News
Alderney to look into running its own airline « Guernsey Press
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Scotlandshire
Age: 59
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this goes through it'll spell the end of AUR in Alderney. Alternatively City Line won't last long. With 2000 inhabitants there's no way 2 airlines can prosper, or operate at the promised frequencies (AUR's existing one & City Lines' projected one)!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to think they wont be allowed to compete on Aurigny's existing routes (CGI & SOU).
Maybe they can make it pay over the other options, but equally Aurigny are entitled to the same (formal*) subsidy.
* There is a figure often bandied about that Alderney's air links cost the Government £900k, but no one seems to want to make that an actual subsidy.
Maybe they can make it pay over the other options, but equally Aurigny are entitled to the same (formal*) subsidy.
* There is a figure often bandied about that Alderney's air links cost the Government £900k, but no one seems to want to make that an actual subsidy.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: a rock near 50 North
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a mess !
Firstly, I unfortunately have to agree that there is no room for two airlines on the same routes - well, not for them to survive.
But Alderney now has a major problem. Lets look at a few facts....
1. Aurigny's attempted transition to Dorniers has been an unmitigated disaster. Not because its the wrong type, just the way Aurigny have gone about it.
2. As you will see from the new summer schedule for Alderney services, Aurigny is no longer offering a workable service to Alderney. Large cut-backs so they only need one crew per Dornier per day. No chance of getting to Jersey and back without two night stops in Guernsey! No means of getting back from LGW after 11:30. Incoming mail will miss the retimed morning flight. I could go on.
3. We have a States of Alderney that seems incapable of getting a minimum level of service agreement in place. (or, it is Aurigny that won't respond ?)
4. And, we have the States of Guernsey that are not interested in Alderney and couldn't care less.
5. Then there has been 18 months of Trislander tech' problems. Delays and cancellations galore.
6. Aurigny is owned and subsidised (through taxation) by the tax payers of Guernsey and Alderney.
I have always been an Aurigny supporter, until now. Enough is Enough. So come on Aurigny, provide a proper service or let someone else do it.
As for the £900,000 loss on Alderney routes. This includes substantial amounts being re-charged across the network, and in Alderney's case often unfairly. We don't have a 122 seater. Lets just say, if it wasn't for the Alderney routes, the Guernsey to UK routes would be making an even bigger loss.
So, where does Alderney go from here ?
Firstly, I unfortunately have to agree that there is no room for two airlines on the same routes - well, not for them to survive.
But Alderney now has a major problem. Lets look at a few facts....
1. Aurigny's attempted transition to Dorniers has been an unmitigated disaster. Not because its the wrong type, just the way Aurigny have gone about it.
2. As you will see from the new summer schedule for Alderney services, Aurigny is no longer offering a workable service to Alderney. Large cut-backs so they only need one crew per Dornier per day. No chance of getting to Jersey and back without two night stops in Guernsey! No means of getting back from LGW after 11:30. Incoming mail will miss the retimed morning flight. I could go on.
3. We have a States of Alderney that seems incapable of getting a minimum level of service agreement in place. (or, it is Aurigny that won't respond ?)
4. And, we have the States of Guernsey that are not interested in Alderney and couldn't care less.
5. Then there has been 18 months of Trislander tech' problems. Delays and cancellations galore.
6. Aurigny is owned and subsidised (through taxation) by the tax payers of Guernsey and Alderney.
I have always been an Aurigny supporter, until now. Enough is Enough. So come on Aurigny, provide a proper service or let someone else do it.
As for the £900,000 loss on Alderney routes. This includes substantial amounts being re-charged across the network, and in Alderney's case often unfairly. We don't have a 122 seater. Lets just say, if it wasn't for the Alderney routes, the Guernsey to UK routes would be making an even bigger loss.
So, where does Alderney go from here ?
It does rather sound as though Citywing is an airline (and I use that term loosely) in search of a subsidy. They have been seeking to raise new capital over the few months, but now have latched onto both possibilities in Alderney and Derry (using the Route Development Fund) to try to find some new subsidised routes to replace the loss of the Welsh PSO. It's not a show of strength for their core business if they are essentially becoming subsidy junkies. One hopes that a degree of due diligence is carried out before parting with any public funds in this direction.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does rather sound as though Citywing is an airline (and I use that term loosely) in search of a subsidy. They have been seeking to raise new capital over the few months, but now have latched onto both possibilities in Alderney and Derry (using the Route Development Fund) to try to find some new subsidised routes to replace the loss of the Welsh PSO. It's not a show of strength for their core business if they are essentially becoming subsidy junkies. One hopes that a degree of due diligence is carried out before parting with any public funds in this direction.
Read the accident report from the last time Citywing (then called Manx2) flew from Belfast to Cork. Six people died as a result of a chain of events to which a near-total lack of oversight - or indeed operational management competence - on the part of both Citywing/Manx2 and the Spanish subcontractor were significant contributors. I (and probably quite a lot of other people in Ireland) would not trust Citywing/Manx2 to fly a kite on the beach, let alone a scheduled passenger service, and IMHO the sooner the CAA amends the ATOL regulations to eliminate this "sub-20-seat" loophole which shamefully allows them to stay in operation, the better. Let them stay far away from Belfast-Cork, and RIP those who lost their lives.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on Links Air, who are a reputable airline (=AOC holder) which does some flying for Citywing/Manx2 among other business. My gripe is with pretend airlines who are unable to provide the level of safety oversight a passenger is entitled to expect from a real airline.)
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on Links Air, who are a reputable airline (=AOC holder) which does some flying for Citywing/Manx2 among other business. My gripe is with pretend airlines who are unable to provide the level of safety oversight a passenger is entitled to expect from a real airline.)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is
I think it's in the public interest that this report is more widely available, so you can now view it here.
A few thoughts - I can't help but think they've got some numbers wrong... for instance, tucked away is a cheeky plan for an entirely new taxpayer-funded route to Cherbourg, which the report projects will carry 152 passengers in February over 8 block hours in total. Assuming just under 1.5 hours per return flight, that's a 100% load factor on a 19 seater aircraft (or 200% if they're only talking about one-way pax)... and that is definitely not right. If it could do that, then Aurigny would still run it (it was tried, several times, when about twice as many people flew into ACI as they do now). So either way the numbers need serious scrutiny. Same for the proposed Jersey route.
Likewise, why should their passenger tax bill be nearly £150k higher (£669k compared to GR's £525k) if they expect to carry only 1000 more pax? They similarly expect their Eurocontrol/nav bill to be more than doubled (up £68k) despite only increasing movements by 1.6%pa?
They expect to be able to charge higher average fares (thanks to ancillary charges for baggage and booking changes of an avg of £6 per passenger) without affecting passenger numbers at all - and project a slight increase. Straightforward economics of price elasticity of demand, coupled with Alderney's very own experience of increasing air fares, would suggest this is optimistic at least.
More widely, the notion that you can fly a dedicated 19 seater turboprop on a 45 minute hop across the Channel, with massive seasonal variations in demand and incredibly poor airframe utilisation for five months of the year, 365 days a year, with higher fares than at present and expect to make a profit of £10,755 on the route seems bizarre. I don't know of any other airline in the world which can run such an operation profitable with the projected cost base, but it begs the question as to why it requires a subsidy.
A 26% utilisation rate is projected for the month of April. The fact that it's down on Feb, when their projected demand is up 32%, sums up the extent to which these 'costings' need serious scrutiny.
We had a report last year saying the Dorniers might bring the service into profit - just possibly. But here you've got a load of funky numbers and a minimum charge to the States of Alderney for £240k/pa, with projected load factors down substantially on the existing operation. Bearing in mind that this report compares the proposed Citywing operation with the current Trislander operation, and not of the future (cost-saving) Dornier regime, I don't really see what they're getting at. Coupled with the removal of the onus to provide air services on the States of Guernsey, the commercial risks of contracting a third party with annual subsidy levels capped on lower bounds rather than at a maximum, it all looks like it needs a lot of work.
A few thoughts - I can't help but think they've got some numbers wrong... for instance, tucked away is a cheeky plan for an entirely new taxpayer-funded route to Cherbourg, which the report projects will carry 152 passengers in February over 8 block hours in total. Assuming just under 1.5 hours per return flight, that's a 100% load factor on a 19 seater aircraft (or 200% if they're only talking about one-way pax)... and that is definitely not right. If it could do that, then Aurigny would still run it (it was tried, several times, when about twice as many people flew into ACI as they do now). So either way the numbers need serious scrutiny. Same for the proposed Jersey route.
Likewise, why should their passenger tax bill be nearly £150k higher (£669k compared to GR's £525k) if they expect to carry only 1000 more pax? They similarly expect their Eurocontrol/nav bill to be more than doubled (up £68k) despite only increasing movements by 1.6%pa?
They expect to be able to charge higher average fares (thanks to ancillary charges for baggage and booking changes of an avg of £6 per passenger) without affecting passenger numbers at all - and project a slight increase. Straightforward economics of price elasticity of demand, coupled with Alderney's very own experience of increasing air fares, would suggest this is optimistic at least.
More widely, the notion that you can fly a dedicated 19 seater turboprop on a 45 minute hop across the Channel, with massive seasonal variations in demand and incredibly poor airframe utilisation for five months of the year, 365 days a year, with higher fares than at present and expect to make a profit of £10,755 on the route seems bizarre. I don't know of any other airline in the world which can run such an operation profitable with the projected cost base, but it begs the question as to why it requires a subsidy.
A 26% utilisation rate is projected for the month of April. The fact that it's down on Feb, when their projected demand is up 32%, sums up the extent to which these 'costings' need serious scrutiny.
We had a report last year saying the Dorniers might bring the service into profit - just possibly. But here you've got a load of funky numbers and a minimum charge to the States of Alderney for £240k/pa, with projected load factors down substantially on the existing operation. Bearing in mind that this report compares the proposed Citywing operation with the current Trislander operation, and not of the future (cost-saving) Dornier regime, I don't really see what they're getting at. Coupled with the removal of the onus to provide air services on the States of Guernsey, the commercial risks of contracting a third party with annual subsidy levels capped on lower bounds rather than at a maximum, it all looks like it needs a lot of work.
Would it be a statement of the bleeding obvious to suggest that the reason Citywing's proposal is showing a profit on Southampton yet Aurigny shows a big loss is due to the Citywing average fare assumption being horribly over optimistic?
I see that Citywing have announced that their service is dependent on AUR stopping their service to/from Alderney.
What Alderney has to decide is; who can they rely on more, AUR or Citywing?
It may be unfortunate for the island (& those wanting to see the end of AUR), but the answer to that question HAS to be AUR.
What Alderney has to decide is; who can they rely on more, AUR or Citywing?
It may be unfortunate for the island (& those wanting to see the end of AUR), but the answer to that question HAS to be AUR.