Aurigny Air Services-3
BBC radio reported this morning that G-ETAC would be back in service today, however FR24 shows otherwise (if it's correct).
The last ACI-GCI flight is currently showing as delayed so maybe G-OAUR is 'playing up' again.
The last ACI-GCI flight is currently showing as delayed so maybe G-OAUR is 'playing up' again.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Godalming
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Air Alderney were already committed with their own private charters on the day(s) when the disruption occurred, hence why they couldn't help out.
EDIT: Just seen this post on Air Alderney's Facebook page:
EDIT: Just seen this post on Air Alderney's Facebook page:
Air Alderney Statement - Easter 2022
You would fully expect Air Alderney to be making much of the Easter weekends disruption, indeed many have stated ‘where are you Air Alderney’. In reply to these comments and others, we simply wish to make the following statement.
Air Alderney offered an aircraft on two occasions (Thursday and Good Friday) as it become clear the problem was not going to be rectified as soon as hoped. Our aircraft was flying to and from Alderney on charter commitments however, between these commitments our aircraft was available. We estimate around 70 + people per day could have been flown in and out of Alderney to Guernsey, that’s around 280 + people over the four days by our aircraft. The reports by the BBC and comments which state ‘no aircraft where available which can land on Alderney’s runway’ are not correct, one was available, and it managed to fly in and out of Alderney without any problems.
With all the disruption this Easter weekend with cancelled flights on Alderney's scheduled services, it’s not surprising to see one of Alderney States member (Mr Snowden) asking for a 'rethink on how air services are delivered to Alderney'. Unsurprisingly to many of you, Air Alderney welcomes such comments however, it’s difficult to see any of the proposals Mr Snowden has raised delivering a solution anytime soon. (Airport rebuild 5-7 years, or additional aircraft, the last ones cost £6M ) We all expect our politician’s to comment at such times but, Alderney needs States members which can suggest and deliver answers now, not in years to come…. The truth is the problems of this weekend could have been significantly reduced if there was ‘resilience’ within Alderneys Air Services. The good news is, this is available to Alderney now and could be operating within days without rebuilding the airport, a single shovel breaking ground or more expensive unaffordable aircraft being purchased. While Alderney burns its elected representatives are pointing finger at others whilst preventing an immediate solution.
Air Alderney will be giving its view on the airport options which have been presented to date including, one or two of its own very soon.
You would fully expect Air Alderney to be making much of the Easter weekends disruption, indeed many have stated ‘where are you Air Alderney’. In reply to these comments and others, we simply wish to make the following statement.
Air Alderney offered an aircraft on two occasions (Thursday and Good Friday) as it become clear the problem was not going to be rectified as soon as hoped. Our aircraft was flying to and from Alderney on charter commitments however, between these commitments our aircraft was available. We estimate around 70 + people per day could have been flown in and out of Alderney to Guernsey, that’s around 280 + people over the four days by our aircraft. The reports by the BBC and comments which state ‘no aircraft where available which can land on Alderney’s runway’ are not correct, one was available, and it managed to fly in and out of Alderney without any problems.
With all the disruption this Easter weekend with cancelled flights on Alderney's scheduled services, it’s not surprising to see one of Alderney States member (Mr Snowden) asking for a 'rethink on how air services are delivered to Alderney'. Unsurprisingly to many of you, Air Alderney welcomes such comments however, it’s difficult to see any of the proposals Mr Snowden has raised delivering a solution anytime soon. (Airport rebuild 5-7 years, or additional aircraft, the last ones cost £6M ) We all expect our politician’s to comment at such times but, Alderney needs States members which can suggest and deliver answers now, not in years to come…. The truth is the problems of this weekend could have been significantly reduced if there was ‘resilience’ within Alderneys Air Services. The good news is, this is available to Alderney now and could be operating within days without rebuilding the airport, a single shovel breaking ground or more expensive unaffordable aircraft being purchased. While Alderney burns its elected representatives are pointing finger at others whilst preventing an immediate solution.
Air Alderney will be giving its view on the airport options which have been presented to date including, one or two of its own very soon.
Last edited by jmdavies86; 23rd Apr 2022 at 22:30.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Air Alderney were already committed with their own private charters on the day(s) when the disruption occurred, hence why they couldn't help out.
EDIT: Just seen this post on Air Alderney's Facebook page:
EDIT: Just seen this post on Air Alderney's Facebook page:
The fact they are talking about extending the runway to accommodate an ATR with 70 odd seats when the dornier with 19 seats is rarely full is even more mad. I don’t live on the island so maybe I am missing something, but surely a boat service to Guernsey and then flights from there would be a more sensible long term solution?
I appreciate Aurigny seem to always have issues but having two aircraft for essentially one route seems excessive as it is.
Nevertheless, seems like poor performance from AUR
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny put out this statement about the cancellations last week.
It's not really true to say that the Dorniers 'always' have problems; there hasn't been any significant period of cancellations for three years. There has been a marked improvement in performance in recent years (see punctuality figures). Two aircraft for 70ish movements per week is the very minimum that may be required to provide sufficient service, and as has just been seen, even that was too few. The States of Guernsey's States' Trading Supervisory Board (STSB), which oversees Aurigny, had the option either to order three (instead of two) 228NGs, or to continue with three planes (2x NGs and 1x classic) to avoid situations such as the one which occurred last week, but rejected them as being too expensive.
As to the pros and cons of a runway extension at Alderney, best to review posts and comment on this thread: ALDERNEY
Disruption to Alderney Services
Aurigny would like to apologise to its customers and all others who have been inconvenienced by the cancellation of Alderney flights over the past few days. Aurigny has two Dornier aircraft dedicated to providing services to and from Alderney and over the past four days neither of them has been continuously available for service due to technical problems. This is highly unusual and has come about for the following reasons:
One of our two Dornier aircraft has been undergoing its mandatory annual maintenance for several weeks and it should have returned to regular service two weeks ago. However a small number of components needed to be replaced and unfortunately the manufacturer of the aircraft, General Atomics, did not have any of the required parts in stock and had to manufacture them. After waiting for the manufacturing, the parts were delivered to us at which point we realised that General Atomics had manufactured the wrong parts. We are now waiting for the correct parts to be manufactured and in the meantime the aircraft remains in our hangar in an unserviceable condition. When the correct parts are received the aircraft will quickly be returned to service which we expect to be on 28th April.
Last Wednesday our second Dornier aircraft developed a technical problem with one of its essential avionics systems. We identified the faulty component and checked to see if we could take the same component from the aircraft in the hangar and use that whilst we waited for the replacement part to arrive. Unfortunately, the component on the aircraft in the hangar was a different part number and General Atomics advised us that we could not use it on the other aircraft. General Atomics did not have the component we needed in stock, so we ordered one from the supplier in the USA. The part was shipped using FedEx as they were the only courier company that the part supplier would use. The part has arrived in the UK, but FedEx is now closed until Monday morning, the part will arrive with us on Monday afternoon. Last Thursday General Atomics changed their minds and advised us that we could use the component from our aircraft in the hangar, but that it would have to have a number of software settings changed to make it compatible. With the guidance of General Atomics, we made the required settings changes and fitted the component to the other aircraft, and it was taken on a test flight on Friday morning and declared serviceable. Due to the foggy conditions on Friday afternoon the aircraft was not used until Saturday morning when after operating the first flight of the day a similar technical problem returned. After further discussion with General Atomics we are making further changes to software settings and conducting further test flying to ensure that we can return the aircraft to passenger services at the earliest possible opportunity.
We have learned from these events. The avionics component that failed on the second aircraft has not failed previously on either of our aircraft in the 5 years we have been operating this variant of the Dornier 228. Given the $50,000 cost of this component and its history of good reliability it is not something that we would routinely stock in our parts inventory. However we could all but remove the impact of any future failure of this component or its equivalent on the other aircraft if we harmonised the systems on both aircraft. We will now work with General Atomics to explore that possibility. We will also discuss all of these events with General Atomics with a view to them providing a better level of support for our operations including access to a wider range of “off the shelf” components from their own stock inventory. It is important to note that there are very few Dornier aircraft of the type used for the Alderney commercial service elsewhere in the world. Regrettably this limits the availability of parts and the level of support from the manufacturer.
We know and understand that our customers rely on us to get them to and from Alderney. We will continue to work hard to ensure that our customers can travel. Over the past few days, we have tried to charter in alternative aircraft to replace our own but found there were none available, in part due to the limitations of the Alderney runway, we have tried to charter in ferries and also found there were none available. We have managed to charter a number of small boats of 12 seats or less and by using several of these we have managed to keep customers moving. We recognise that this is not the level of service expected of Aurigny and we apologise again for this.
Aurigny would like to apologise to its customers and all others who have been inconvenienced by the cancellation of Alderney flights over the past few days. Aurigny has two Dornier aircraft dedicated to providing services to and from Alderney and over the past four days neither of them has been continuously available for service due to technical problems. This is highly unusual and has come about for the following reasons:
One of our two Dornier aircraft has been undergoing its mandatory annual maintenance for several weeks and it should have returned to regular service two weeks ago. However a small number of components needed to be replaced and unfortunately the manufacturer of the aircraft, General Atomics, did not have any of the required parts in stock and had to manufacture them. After waiting for the manufacturing, the parts were delivered to us at which point we realised that General Atomics had manufactured the wrong parts. We are now waiting for the correct parts to be manufactured and in the meantime the aircraft remains in our hangar in an unserviceable condition. When the correct parts are received the aircraft will quickly be returned to service which we expect to be on 28th April.
Last Wednesday our second Dornier aircraft developed a technical problem with one of its essential avionics systems. We identified the faulty component and checked to see if we could take the same component from the aircraft in the hangar and use that whilst we waited for the replacement part to arrive. Unfortunately, the component on the aircraft in the hangar was a different part number and General Atomics advised us that we could not use it on the other aircraft. General Atomics did not have the component we needed in stock, so we ordered one from the supplier in the USA. The part was shipped using FedEx as they were the only courier company that the part supplier would use. The part has arrived in the UK, but FedEx is now closed until Monday morning, the part will arrive with us on Monday afternoon. Last Thursday General Atomics changed their minds and advised us that we could use the component from our aircraft in the hangar, but that it would have to have a number of software settings changed to make it compatible. With the guidance of General Atomics, we made the required settings changes and fitted the component to the other aircraft, and it was taken on a test flight on Friday morning and declared serviceable. Due to the foggy conditions on Friday afternoon the aircraft was not used until Saturday morning when after operating the first flight of the day a similar technical problem returned. After further discussion with General Atomics we are making further changes to software settings and conducting further test flying to ensure that we can return the aircraft to passenger services at the earliest possible opportunity.
We have learned from these events. The avionics component that failed on the second aircraft has not failed previously on either of our aircraft in the 5 years we have been operating this variant of the Dornier 228. Given the $50,000 cost of this component and its history of good reliability it is not something that we would routinely stock in our parts inventory. However we could all but remove the impact of any future failure of this component or its equivalent on the other aircraft if we harmonised the systems on both aircraft. We will now work with General Atomics to explore that possibility. We will also discuss all of these events with General Atomics with a view to them providing a better level of support for our operations including access to a wider range of “off the shelf” components from their own stock inventory. It is important to note that there are very few Dornier aircraft of the type used for the Alderney commercial service elsewhere in the world. Regrettably this limits the availability of parts and the level of support from the manufacturer.
We know and understand that our customers rely on us to get them to and from Alderney. We will continue to work hard to ensure that our customers can travel. Over the past few days, we have tried to charter in alternative aircraft to replace our own but found there were none available, in part due to the limitations of the Alderney runway, we have tried to charter in ferries and also found there were none available. We have managed to charter a number of small boats of 12 seats or less and by using several of these we have managed to keep customers moving. We recognise that this is not the level of service expected of Aurigny and we apologise again for this.
As to the pros and cons of a runway extension at Alderney, best to review posts and comment on this thread: ALDERNEY
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe either Aurigny or Blue Island are interested in Belfast as Aurigny said that if they did not get the licence for Dublin, they would stop. Dublin has the appeal of Ireland, Republic and North and the gateway to the USA with customs clearance before you fly
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survey gone out today asking which other London Airport would customers want access to twice per day to complement the Gatwick service.
Heathrow is not an option but the other 4 London Airports are all on there so presume their meeting with Gatwick Airport to try and get more slots hasn't been successful
Heathrow is not an option but the other 4 London Airports are all on there so presume their meeting with Gatwick Airport to try and get more slots hasn't been successful
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survey gone out today asking which other London Airport would customers want access to twice per day to complement the Gatwick service.
Heathrow is not an option but the other 4 London Airports are all on there so presume their meeting with Gatwick Airport to try and get more slots hasn't been successful
Heathrow is not an option but the other 4 London Airports are all on there so presume their meeting with Gatwick Airport to try and get more slots hasn't been successful
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the airport chaos, queues and crowds, Southend could be a great option and assuming the demand for such a service would originate in its home market, it might have a captive audience who could be educated about the ease of using SEN. Mightn't be easy to get slots at peak times at any other London Airport.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it were morning and evening it would probably do just fine at SEN although I’d have thought them returning to LCY would be more likely.
The previous midday SEN-GCI I think went OK certainly in the summer, and JER did well with EZY. It was their only London route for a while, and in 2020 there was supposed to be competition with BE joining in. The morning inbound/evening outbound would suit those heading into London and the reverse would suit Essex’s large army of leisure travellers.
The previous midday SEN-GCI I think went OK certainly in the summer, and JER did well with EZY. It was their only London route for a while, and in 2020 there was supposed to be competition with BE joining in. The morning inbound/evening outbound would suit those heading into London and the reverse would suit Essex’s large army of leisure travellers.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on slots STN or LCY make most sense in terms of restarting previous Aurigny routes that had a customer base... if the new interline agreement with BA includes BA CityFlyer then LCY seems the more obvious one as a continuation of the existing seasonal BA service.
SEN / STN probably have the least crossover in terms of taking passengers away from any other existing Aurigny route.
Apparently LHR is not totally shut down but would require government support (and slots).
Don't know if this would mean a cut to existing routes, greater use of the third ATR or an extra aircraft being brought in (if the Embraer stays it is likely it will be chartered out more and be used less on the LGW route according to what was in the local paper a while back - decision due over the summer).
SEN / STN probably have the least crossover in terms of taking passengers away from any other existing Aurigny route.
Apparently LHR is not totally shut down but would require government support (and slots).
Don't know if this would mean a cut to existing routes, greater use of the third ATR or an extra aircraft being brought in (if the Embraer stays it is likely it will be chartered out more and be used less on the LGW route according to what was in the local paper a while back - decision due over the summer).
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny Profit
Aurigny have announced a modest profit of £170,000, their first in 15 years and at the same time following their interlining agreement with BA at the start of the month, they have announced a similar one with Emirates.
https://www.islandfm.com/news/guerns...lwT2QO6f-dS9nI
https://guernseypress.com/news/trave...fit-in-decade/
At last the new management appear to be doing some good
https://www.islandfm.com/news/guerns...lwT2QO6f-dS9nI
https://guernseypress.com/news/trave...fit-in-decade/
At last the new management appear to be doing some good
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guernsey-Scotland flights to land at Glasgow not Edinburgh https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur...rnsey-62517319
Seems a curious arrangement for this short lived series of peak flights?
Seems a curious arrangement for this short lived series of peak flights?