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

Jet2-6

Old 12th Apr 2024, 15:24
  #1921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bobradamus
This might put Jet2 in an awkward position if it goes ahead, with their relationship with AirTanker..divisive topic I know *hides*

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-airline-talks
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
1889LS is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2024, 15:27
  #1922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 866
Received 51 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by 1889LS
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
Indeed it'll all be fine, no one will notice a thing; LOL
Anyways Jet2 Holidays are prime time advertisers with the Jess Glynne TV ad (I love it) on both GB News and Talk TV so they won't care. (Giggles)
rog747 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2024, 15:31
  #1923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rog747
Indeed it'll all be fine, no one will notice a thing; LOL
Anyways Jet2 Holidays are prime time advertisers with the Jess Glynne TV ad (I love it) on both GB News and Talk TV so they won't care. (Giggles)
You sarcasm is completely misplaced.

Atleast

95% of the population ether donít know about, donít care about, or support the deportation flights.
95% of the population will have no idea on the relationship between Jet2 and AirTanker.

And the few people that both a) disagree with the flights and b) are knowledgeable about jet2/airtanker operations, will have enough critical thinking capacity to realise that a business agreement made by one company has absolutely no bearing on the other.
1889LS is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2024, 15:35
  #1924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,141
Received 443 Likes on 252 Posts
Originally Posted by 1889LS
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
Were your average bucket and spade holiday maker bothered about whose steed carries them to their week in the sub there might be an issue, but by and large they don't.

However the fact that you felt the need to write what you did in brackets just underscores the contentious nature of the contract and journalists could indeed make trouble for Jet2 were they so inclined.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2024, 15:35
  #1925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 866
Received 51 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by 1889LS
You sarcasm is completely misplaced.

Atleast

95% of the population ether donít know about, donít care about, or support the deportation flights.
95% of the population will have no idea on the relationship between Jet2 and AirTanker.
And the few people that both a) disagree with the flights and b) are knowledgeable about jet2/airtanker operations, will have enough critical thinking capacity to realise that a business agreement made by one company has absolutely no bearing on the other.
Deep.....lol
Its Friday afternoon, its the Weekend - soon will be G&T time, the sun's out so let's keep it light ---- I was having a laugh - It's' Pprune everybody!
rog747 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2024, 16:41
  #1926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 40
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
😂😂🫣🫡😘
bobradamus is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2024, 09:23
  #1927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 495
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 1889LS
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
Once I have to disagree with you. To take on such a contract would be morally wrong. I would not travel with any airline that took part in deporting people, against their will, to a country that is actually far from democratic and corrupt.
I believe gay people are still imprisoned and executed there too. Appalling!
vectisman is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2024, 09:25
  #1928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,699
Received 131 Likes on 84 Posts
Originally Posted by 1889LS
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
It's naive to think that nobody will make the link and that Jet2 won't get dragged into the negative publicity.

Last edited by SWBKCB; 13th Apr 2024 at 13:13.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2024, 13:11
  #1929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1889LS
Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, youíre being stunningly naive if you donít think this would trigger a social media storm. Given it is now public, and Jet2 seem pretty savvy about their brand reputation, Iíd be surprised if there hasnít already been a phone call to find out whatís what.

On the other side of the coin is the Air Tanker/RAF contract due for renewal before the next election?
Curious Pax is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2024, 08:34
  #1930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Interesting point on the above, sky news this morning have pushed an MP hard during an interview on who the airline is should the bill be passed.

No doubt now that any airline associated with the bill will have its name dragged through the mud by the British press, and as mentioned above, Jet2 have a brand reputation they are massive on maintaining so wonít want to be associated with an airline running these flights.

Itíll be very interesting to see how this plays out
azz767 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2024, 08:49
  #1931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,141
Received 443 Likes on 252 Posts
I watched the same interview. Leaving aside the shear uselessness of the minister and, for balance Dodds for the opposition I got the distinct impression that if Air Tanker were considering taking the Rwanda contract they may have got cold feet.

I would imagine Jet2 might have fired a shot across their bows and pointed out possible consequences of taking the business. Problem for Air Tanker must be that the MOD, and therefore the govrnment must be their largest revenue stream and there could be some serious financial arm twisting in play.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2024, 18:28
  #1932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 40
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It’ll be an interesting one to watch how it plays out.
bobradamus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2024, 07:59
  #1933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 1 Post
Big article in The Times about it today.
No mention of Jet2 though.
Jonty is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2024, 08:14
  #1934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,141
Received 443 Likes on 252 Posts
Originally Posted by Jonty
Big article in The Times about it today.
No mention of Jet2 though.
The Air Tanker issue was discussed in the Sky News Press Preview last evening. The suggestion was that within their contract with HMG / MOD they are obliged to take the job if the client requests them to.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 16:27
  #1935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can anybody shed any light of the situation with G-SUNG?

It has a very prologed and delayed testing and finishing phase at XFW, and was eventually delivered after NF which rolled out of the production line weeks later. Been at MAN for over 3 weeks now and not even turned a wheel, while NFs entry into service was a matter of a couple of days.
1889LS is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 16:43
  #1936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The AirTanker issue is indeed an interesting one for Jet2. Itís quite telling that no one wants to operate the flights despite the Government Iím sure offering to pay above the odds, and even Rwandair think it will do damage to the brand!
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 17:02
  #1937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,511
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
I'd be amazed if Air Tanker was able to decline missions tasked to it by Government. At the end of the day, it was created to become and replace the likes of 101 and 216 Squadron - could you imagine a response which says "we're not flying there - there's a war on"? It surely has an obligation to undertake whatever missions the Government of the day may demand of it - whether you, I, the media or anyone else may like the policy in question or not.

I'd have thought that also gives the ability to offer the most straightforward answer for both Jet2 and Air Tanker should the issue come up more widely. Unless someone can enlighten me to the contrary, if Air Tanker is effectively a Government transport department which has been out-sourced, it has a job to do and has no exercise of discretion in the construct of that tasking.
Flightrider is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 17:10
  #1938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,141
Received 443 Likes on 252 Posts
Flightrider,

Your analysis is probably spot on, though I can still see some discomfort for Jet2. All they could do is try and source alternative wide body equipment for the summer from, for example, Wamos or Privilege Style, supposing carriers have capacity this summer.

Cancelling the Air Tanker contract could potentially be costly.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 17:13
  #1939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,265
Received 219 Likes on 130 Posts
Flightridar
By the time those who were to be transported actually get near an aircraft post legal objections, you could probably get away with an A319 or if it goes really badly a Learjet !!! I should say I am against it for clarity.

Cheers
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2024, 18:48
  #1940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lost
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flightrider
Unless someone can enlighten me to the contrary, if Air Tanker is effectively a Government transport department which has been out-sourced, it has a job to do and has no exercise of discretion in the construct of that tasking.
To the best of my knowledge, Airtanker is a purely Civilian company that won the contract to provide the RAF with 9 A330 aircraft to replace the VC10s and Tristars. They have a fleet of 14, the others being used for contacting work such as flying for Jet2. It is not a Government Transport Department. The only way Airtanker aircraft could be forced to fly asylum seekers to Rawanda is if the RAF did it, which I suggest is unlikely to happen. In my experience most Jet2 passengers donít even know what type of aircraft they are on, let alone who owns it!
Oceanic815 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.