Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Aurigny Air Services-2

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

Aurigny Air Services-2

Old 7th Oct 2019, 10:36
  #221 (permalink)  
MDS
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 45
Do Aurigny operate occasional charters to Spain?

Looked up G-HUET on FR24 and saw it had made the trip GCI-AGP-GCI back in December last year. Return sector was over 3.5 hours! Impressive for an ATR42. In Feb and March of this year an ATR72 also operated down there.

Wasn't sure if these were charters (as hadn't seen these mentioned before) or if they were for other operational reasons.
MDS is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 10:54
  #222 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 215
G-HUET as well as all three ATR72s went to Malaga last winter and onward to Las Palmas for maintenance. One of the legs from GCI to AGP and return took pax - a special put on by Aurigny.
As for the Dornier saga, one airframe can do the required flights over the winter months, but the schedule requires two - one based overnight in ACI, the other at GCI. Normally the Guernsey a/c goes to ACI and on to SOU, while the Alderney aircraft begins the day with a trip to GCI. If flight times are adjusted for one a/c to do the lot, starting from ACI, it means a delay for the GCI-ACI first flight of the day and a delay for the morning ACI-SOU sector.
Forgetting G-SAYE (which is a bit of a disaster with its limitations and no longer flies) there should be one spare airframe, not two.
Gurnard is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 10:56
  #223 (permalink)  
MDS
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Gurnard View Post
G-HUET as well as all three ATR72s went to Malaga last winter and onward to Las Palmas for maintenance. One of the legs from GCI to AGP and return took pax - a special put on by Aurigny.
Interesting! Thanks for the information.
MDS is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 23:46
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,117
Latest projections for AUR are a £9.7m loss next year - to add to £7m for this year & £4m for last year. The States of Guernsey are attempting to determine what exactly is in its & AUR's best interests to make the airline a "going concern". Meanwhile, the "Runway Extenders" are continuing to push their pet project on the promise of enabling low cost carriers, larger aircraft & lower fares to be offered. Pie in the sky ! Larger aircraft, low cost airlines & lower fares will only materialize as a result of a large increase in demand. With a population of 65,000 people & a declining tourism industry, this will not happen. If the States want AUR to continue to operate, & especially if they want it to be profitable, then the last thing that they should be doing is extending the runway & letting low cost carriers operate to the island. AUR could never compete with Easy Jet etc. AUR could never make a profit in those circumstances. Even if they maintain their monopoly on the Gatwick route AUR will struggle to become profitable. The only way for them to achieve that would be to cut the fleet to three ATR 72s, drop the E195 & drop all their other routes, with the possible exception of Southampton. Discuss .....
kcockayne is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 07:43
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 159
Drop Manchester? don`t think so
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:08
  #226 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by kcockayne View Post
Latest projections for AUR are a £9.7m loss next year - to add to £7m for this year & £4m for last year. The States of Guernsey are attempting to determine what exactly is in its & AUR's best interests to make the airline a "going concern". Meanwhile, the "Runway Extenders" are continuing to push their pet project on the promise of enabling low cost carriers, larger aircraft & lower fares to be offered. Pie in the sky ! Larger aircraft, low cost airlines & lower fares will only materialize as a result of a large increase in demand. With a population of 65,000 people & a declining tourism industry, this will not happen. If the States want AUR to continue to operate, & especially if they want it to be profitable, then the last thing that they should be doing is extending the runway & letting low cost carriers operate to the island. AUR could never compete with Easy Jet etc. AUR could never make a profit in those circumstances. Even if they maintain their monopoly on the Gatwick route AUR will struggle to become profitable. The only way for them to achieve that would be to cut the fleet to three ATR 72s, drop the E195 & drop all their other routes, with the possible exception of Southampton. Discuss .....
Discuss...... Hardly any need as your comments make pretty good sense! Consider how Aurigny's aircraft are utilized. Often an ATR flies for half a day only - two round trips from GCI. Aircraft seem to have considerable leisure time. EasyJet don't keep their aircraft on the ground; they use them all day and into the night! Also, you're right that EasyJet won't be interested in GCI for the simple reason that the island is not a big enough market. Well - on a positive note those new ATR72s will soon be on the way. It will be interesting to see whether their fog-breaking qualities will make the investment really worthwhile.
Gurnard is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:34
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 107
I came back from Manchester a couple of weeks ago, and there were only 24 people on it. The time before when I was flying to SOU, I counted 16 people board the Aurigny SOU whilst the Blue Islands one was almost full. Yet, they are blaming everyone else for their losses.
I can see Flybe/Virgin whatever they will be called re-start the MAN at some point to link in to Virgin long haul. Last time Flybe operated the route, the flight was more or less full every day, operating once a day around lunch time. Their licence got revoked as they were accused of cherry picking when they operated the route. Funny how now Aurigny can operate flights to JER from GCI only when they think they can make money, which from what the crew are saying is another route with extremely poor loads.
GCILover is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:19
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,183
On the other hand is it not possible that the decline in Guernsey compared with Jersey is due to the absence of low cost access?
inOban is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 13:07
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 870
Guernsey's population is basically half the size of Jersey's; there is a problem of strategy/utilisation but also a complete political failure to address Aurigny's funding, and a lack of political joined-up thinking in the simultaneous introduction of open skies and the decision to fund a competitor airline to fly a competitor route (Heathrow); although Economic Development say the route was offered to Aurigny but Flybe offered a cheaper and better-timed operation, the end result (if one looks at the CAA stats) is an almost direct leakage of 3-4k passengers per month from LGW to LHR, and the States of Guernsey spending about £66 per passenger (when I last worked it out, including lost revenue on GCI-LGW) to compete with itself. As far as I can see the only way Aurigny would ever balance the competing ends of making money and providing a satisfactory level of service would be in a protected regime with sole operator status on GCI-JER, with a larger market supporting the community service and intense seasonality of the ACI operation, and on GCI-LON as the thickest market in supporting the wider regional operation, which could then be left to open skies. This setup would effectively use the profitable (commercial) part of the operation to support the unprofitable (community service) part, which was the traditional model of Aurigny operation from 1968. However, now that genie is out of the bottle there will in practice probably be little change of squeezing it back in again. In the absence of suitable regulation, the only other way is to derive a suitable cost advantage on the routes - particularly the inter-island ones might work well for electrification in the next 5-10 years - which could destroy the rationale for competitors' ATR/Q400 ops. But that requires investment and foresight which is also presently lacking. Probably only a new generation of politicians and managers would get us there on that - but one just has to hope that the current setup doesn't sap to extinction the political will for Aurigny's existence in its current form.
Aero Mad is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 13:08
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by GCILover View Post
I can see Flybe/Virgin whatever they will be called re-start the MAN at some point to link in to Virgin long haul..
How many daily long-haul passengers can an island of 65.000 generate? Realistically, not enough to make a P2P-route worthwhile, given that you need at least two daily flights as otherwise those connecting need to overnight at least once at the transit airport.

virginblue is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 14:03
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,117
Originally Posted by virginblue View Post
How many daily long-haul passengers can an island of 65.000 generate? Realistically, not enough to make a P2P-route worthwhile, given that you need at least two daily flights as otherwise those connecting need to overnight at least once at the transit airport.
In reality, VB, that is what a lot of us do - both here in Jersey & in Guernsey. We overnight in Gatwick (usually). In our case, that is even so regardless of the fact that we have 8 daily A319/320s to Gatwick. It is not just due to the lack of good connections, but also to allow for fog disruption in the islands. In fact, I am doing this today - but taking a chance on the weather for my return connection Palma-Gatwick-Jersey.
Aeromad is totally correct in his observations, as are the other contributors. Guernsey people have to be realistic about what they can expect; & the “Runway Extenders” also need to get real. If the runway is extended, at a cost of £10m+, you may get EZY etc. in, you may get bigger aircraft ( I would not argue that there is scope for charters with A320/B737 etc) operating the occasional charter; but what you definitely WILL get in the case of EZY to Gatwick, or RYR to Stansted , is the demise of AUR.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 20:19
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 709
Surely you're looking at this the wrong way round? Guernsey should be marketing destination Guernsey, surely? With European holidays becoming more and more expensive there is probably going to be a once in a generation opportunity for destinations like Guernsey to fill their boots as long as they are prepared to invest in the resources/marketing/infrastructure to service an influx of inbound tourism. Part of that will be runways that can take A220/319/320/B737 aircraft. Unfortunately GR have proven themselves not fit for purpose despite some protectionism so let them go and let someone more efficient take over. Lost jobs will quickly be replaced with some imagination from the Guernsey state.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 21:23
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,117
Yes, you are correct in what you say, but the reason that the States Of Guernsey bought AUR in the first place was to protect the Gatwick slots. They could decide to sell the airline- if anyone would buy it - or they could close it down. But that would mean that the slots were vulnerable, or lost. There is no guarantee that EZY would protect the slots for them. They would also be writing off over £20m that they have invested in the airline’s losses over the years. They have also guaranteed over £60m which AUR have borrowed to finance the purchase their new ATRs. It would be a very bold decision to pull the plug on AUR, with no surety of a secure Gatwick service from whoever would then provide it.
The other part of what you suggest, although possible, is not as easy as you think. Over the years there has been a loss of many hotel beds. I fear that the remaining bed stock is far from the level required to support the sort of activity that you recommend. Some very important, & complex decisions need to be made. For my part, I think that the States will take the path of least resistance & continue to support AUR financially, fail to extend the runway & generally meander on along the same old path. Why ? Because the Channel Islands are no longer “ money machines “, & cannot throw it around as they did in the past. Nor can they take the risk of spending tens of millions on the airport , losing AUR (because it cannot compete with EZY, for example), & then losing EZY (& the slots) if that airline were to decide that those slots were better value if used on more lucrative routes.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 22:35
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 709
There are ways and means of protecting slots by offering out PSO routes and stipulating airports/frequencies. Look at NQY...no-one would have thought a few years ago that they would be operating in and out of LHR but there they are. The airlines losses are growing year on year with nothing on the horizon to save them. Best to let it go having done the required legwork in the mean time to secure services on a risk-shared PSO basis as so many other airports have done. It's not rocket science but it does require some vision and growing a pair from the authorities.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 19:58
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: rochford essex
Posts: 52
Had email from Aurigny today stating that their Summer 2020 flights to Jersey and Southampton are now available to book, also that these routes will be operated by their new ATR-600s. If that is the case has the lease on their ATR-42 HUET expired or will have by then?. They also stated that Bristol, East midlands, Norwich, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford would be available to book next week but no mention of Stansted, is this a oversight i wonder or are they going to chop this route as rumours have suggested a while ago, anyone know?
aurigny72 is online now  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 20:01
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the real world.
Posts: 524
HUET is due to leave the fleet by March 2020 according to Jethros.
Jerbourg is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 20:22
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: EGJJ
Posts: 221
Rumour has it that G- HUET is moving to Loganair shortly and Blue Islands will be training the Logan pilots!
welkyboy is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2019, 01:18
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by aurigny72 View Post
Had email from Aurigny today stating that their Summer 2020 flights to Jersey and Southampton are now available to book, also that these routes will be operated by their new ATR-600s. If that is the case has the lease on their ATR-42 HUET expired or will have by then?. They also stated that Bristol, East midlands, Norwich, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford would be available to book next week but no mention of Stansted, is this a oversight i wonder or are they going to chop this route as rumours have suggested a while ago, anyone know?
Don't have any insight but the ATR Gatwick flights have not been loaded yet (only the Embraer ones).Considering Gatwick self-handling has a big gap between the GR605 departure at 11.55 and the GR606 arriving at 15.45ish (can't remember the time off the top of my head) I wonder if Stansted could be replaced by a midday LGW rotation with a bit of shuffling on the ATR services and timings.
KindaUnstuck is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2019, 10:25
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: rochford essex
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by KindaUnstuck View Post
Don't have any insight but the ATR Gatwick flights have not been loaded yet (only the Embraer ones).Considering Gatwick self-handling has a big gap between the GR605 departure at 11.55 and the GR606 arriving at 15.45ish (can't remember the time off the top of my head) I wonder if Stansted could be replaced by a midday LGW rotation with a bit of shuffling on the ATR services and timings.
I looked at the LGW flights for various dates in May and was a bit surprised to see only the four Embraer flights loaded but also was confused to see that the flight times advertised returning from LGW to GCI were much longer than the flight times for GCI to LGW, i know they are block to block times but even allowing for a busy LGW the four different returning schedules varied from one hour I0 mins to one hour 25 mins?. I would expect the additional ATR flights will be added soon.
aurigny72 is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 12:30
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 151
There are a few negative comments floating around on Aurigny's facebook page following the late running and cancellation of Gatwick flights yesterday due to a passenger's illness. He required oxygen resulting in the need to replace an oxygen bottle on the Embraer before it could take off. One was shipped in from Guernsey on an ATR, which was itself delayed due to the required paperwork for carrying the bottle (dangerous cargo). Various people are asking why Aurigny weren't better prepared for such a basic situation and also why there wasn't a supply of oxygen bottles in Gatwick. Any thoughts on the operational aspects of this situation?
Hermite is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.