Also ACI-SOU is one of GR's better performing routes.

XT

ACI-SOU
 

That's because its a monopoly route at extortionate fares.

£15m !!!
 

I am fully aware of the history of GR. My issue is that when then States of Guernsey decided to buy Aurigny the sole reason was to ensure that the GCI - LGW slots were kept and Guernsey kept the so called lifeline to London. Aurigny is still losing money every year mainly due to trying to run up to 6 flights a day on the Gatwick route. Many of you may have read my previous posts on this subject and feel that I am anti - Aurigny but I am not, I am anti "The States of Guernsey owning Aurigny". It's us poor tax payers who have to fund the Airline and deserve to see it run properly. Here is a pure example recently Flybe brought the Jet service back. How did Aurigny compete with this they lowered their prices on the Red Eye service and said on that service they would give a free hot breakfast. Yes that sounds a fair deal to compete but if you every fly on the Red Eye flights to LGW you will find both Flybe and GR are normally close to full anyway so it wont attract any more passengers as the flights are normally fully booked it's just giving money away. I cannot believe that Aurigny in their current financial situation think they can just borrow another £15m to spend on a/c for interisland / Southampton services and make the money to pay it back. Once again I state the reason the States purchased Aurigny was to secure the Gatwick slots. All of a sudden Aurigny seem to think they have an open cheque book to do what they like with. Next year the lease is up on the leased ATR they have so will it be £15M this year to replace the trilanders, and another god knows how many million next year to replace the ATR on top of the how ever many million still owed on the 2 current ATR's. Surely someone in the states needs to be thinking ahead small airlines are being squeezed out of Gatwick in a few years time if Aurigny are force out of LGW through high landing fees the States (IE Us tax payers) could end up with over £30m of debt 3 ATR's a few interisland A/c and no Gatwick link.

guern123, you'll note that GR borrowed about £24m in 2007 to pay for COBO and VZON. Total outstanding debt at September 2012 was £15.1m - so the money is being paid back. The reported annual losses are after loan repayments. Given that the repayments equate to about £1.8m per annum, if these are excluded Aurigny is in profit. There is no 'open cheque book'. Media also reporting that a jet is on the cards for the LGW - this would further ensure the security of the link.

I think your concerns are a little OTT. Mark Darby has his head firmly screwed on.

Aero, I'm a bit confused..... How would a jet ensure the security of the route?

Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL) gave its position on airlines operating <100 seat aircraft in the CAA document on the recent landing fee rises.

The CAA acknowledged that the landing fee changes (a 65% rise in summer fees) penalised operators of smaller aircraft but also noted that this was necessary to ensure optimum use of capacity at Gatwick. Furthermore, GAL has acknowledged that Aurigny would be the most proportionately affected operator. Fair 'nough, they want A380s instead of ATRs.

A hypothetical jet would maintain the security of the route by ensuring that a large enough aircraft is serving the route. Loads on LGW-GCI are pretty good; small aircraft are only used because of the runway length in Guernsey. Hence Flybe is using 88-seater E75s instead of DH8s on several flights. A larger aircraft will not be penalised by GAL's fee structure to the same extent as an AT7.

better stick that runway extension on whilst the boys are working on the airfield to allow A380 in ;)

It was interesting to hear recently that Aurigny suffer an annual loss of approximately £1m on the Alderney services alone.

It makes you wonder what would have happened if the States of Guernsey hadn't stepped in and purchased the airline?

I think saving the Gatwick slots was only half of the story.

Where did you hear that?

By the way, this little gem courtesy of an April Fool article in the islands some time ago.

Aero Mad

At a talk given by the now ex MD about a month ago.

So what are people's choices for the tri replacement? Would a runway extension be required at Alderney?

Airship, no runway needed?

What about a helicopter! You could use the Barckley brothers one. In my mind its down to three possible options 1) twoter already on UK register, 2) Dornier 228 again already on UK register - or - 3) You could down grade the capacity and use an Islander. Any of the above options will not require a runway extension. However there is still the potential issue of the lack of Jet A1 on Alderney.

Today's runway 08/26 at Alderney is 877 metre long (277 metre longer than Scilly Isles/St. Marys) and it's more than long enough for up to Dash-8-100 / 39 seat sized aircraft. The problem at ACI is the width of runway 08/26. The surface is a mix of asphalt and grass (UK AIP says total width 23 metres, 2.5 metres of outer sides are grass and then the alphalt width will only be 18 metres). St. Marys has 23 metre with asphalt and that qualifies for Dash-6 (Twotter) operation, but isn't enough for Dash-8-100 where you need 30 metre wide runways.

I think the taxiways (12 metre wide) and the apron too need to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft than the Trislander. The position of the taxiway Bravo may also have to be moved westward since the bend today is so close to the shrubs and other vegetation (at least it was so the last time I flew in to ACI).

In other words, ACI has to be upgraded to handle larger aircraft and in most cases it is more difficult to widen a runway than to lengthen it.

Is it not possible to fill up with A1 at GCI for the round trip? You wouldn't be weight restricted out of GCI on a STOL aircraft for a 15 minute flight.

It would be just in case fuel. Also not all flights are just inter island but also serve the SOU route as well. Another factor is the weather and the need to carry extra diversion fuel if its bad. I have sat in a Tris for 1hr 50 after departing from ACI after two attempts at GCI back to ACI one attempt there and then divert to SOU.

More than possible to operate without JetA1 on either the Twin Otter or Dornier 228 - both could comfortably round-trip fuel on GCI-ACI-SOU or vice versa. That should not be a constraint - and the enormous cost saving of JetA1 versus Avgas will transform the economics, even if a second pilot has to be added.

Forgive my ignorance as this isn't my area, but I've read comments before to the effect that when operating a relatively large number of very short sectors in a day, the cycle-based maintenance requirements of a turboprop tend to disadvantage it compared with a piston engine. Is there any truth in this?

Its more pressurisation cycles which kills the TP's.

Anything less than a 30-40 min sector tends to increase your capital usage cost for the flight above what it should be. Also there tend to be life'd items due number of landings on retractable gear.

The actual starting and stopping of the engines doesn't really come into it apart from an increase in the number of starter gens you go through and battery's if your not doing GPU starts. There is no record in the techlog of starts only of landings and airborne hours.

And there might not be an option on the tri's anyway because the report is out now for the one that blew an engine. And there are several safety items that need addressed in regards to the engine out performance.

Years ago Aurigny tried to replace the Trislanders with Twotters and it was exactly this which had them reverse the policy: the high cycle nature of the operation caned the PT6 and pushed costs up because on-wing time fell. The old 0540s on the Trislander may be noisy etc but their Shop Visit costs are a fraction of those of the PT6. It could be that the PT6 is more robust these days but I doubt that the situation has changed that much.

I thought AeroNormandy Engineering had bought the type certificate for the Trislander with a view to building new replacements in/with China. Whatever happened to that plan?

Also you need 2 crew for TP operation. PT6 engines and twotters are used for 20-40 sector days all over the world.

I can't see the engines being the whole problem. Multi crew, hot sections, twotter is a sort after aircraft so purchase value is quite high as well. They are worth more than a Jetstream. And an EU mod spec will be worth more again after you have fitted TCAS TWAS and all that other stuff.

Tri islanders very few want the things apart from 3rd world country's. They now have problems with them as well with avgas going out of fashion.

Oh and here is the AAIB report

Air Accidents Investigation: BN2A MK.III-2 Trislander, G-BDTO

So the "Trislander NG" could have new aviation diesels - bit more power and burn Jet A1 or recycled chip fat. Add new avionics - what's not to like?!

Chip fat tends to congeal when exposed to cold temperatures does it not?

Hmmm - probably have to have deep fat fryer elements in the fuel tanks, that should sort it . .

Tris
 

It's nice to have this quaint old thing around but I must say the noise over Southampton is outrageous whenever they come in or go out and as a result hopefully only another fleet choice is an option.

As others will be aware, Gatwick are squeezing airlines operating small aircraft through the landing fees. Talk suggests that Flybe are close to admitting Gatwick just isn't going to work for them in its current form. What keeps Aurigny at Gatwick instead of moving everything to Stanstead ?

I would guess the higher demand from having a larger catchment area and more onward connections, Flybe leaving LGW Could be very good for Aurigny as they are safe from EZY and BA in GCI. However regional routes elsewhere would suffer if Flybe pulled their whole LGW operation.

Move of GCI servicesto Stansted ?
 

Guernsey's economy relies on international banking and ready access to the island from Europe, Asia, Mid East and USA and City of London via a Hub airport. Gatwick is already seen as a poor alternative to Heathrow - Stansted as being "out in the sticks"- with the fear that international business community would put their trade elsewhere rather than waste time travelling up the M11.

I agree. If FlyBe were to pull out of Gatwick that would be good for Aurigny as EZY and BA can't fly into GCI. They might even axe the Stansted route, especially if FlyBe end up moving there.

BE withdrawing from LGW-GCI may put a LCY-GCI into the minds of BA CityFlyer, if they can put in a BE ERJ-175 into Guernsey, is there anything stopping a CFE ERJ-170?

Well hopefully the Twotter won't be high in price for much longer as Viking Air has the production rights and are now producing the DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400. Viking
Depends if Aurigny will want to make an investment of this sort :)

I think you will find that one of them is worth more than the whole of the tri fleet put together included spares and EFIS crap that they have just fitted.

Mind if tri's are all not all full of fuel you won't get a single twotter.

I guess the question is how much connecting traffic GCI generates on a daily basis. If there is a sufficient number of high yielding connecting pax (which I doubt), the airport should maybe push for focusing on LCY for all local London traffic and for using AMS or CDG instead of LGW for all connecting passengers. Would be a bit daft for passengers heading for final destinations in the UK and Ireland, but nowadays not a lot of them are served from LGW anyway (unless you count in self-built connections with the likes of Ryanair or easyjet) and some could be reached via LCY.

LCY
 

Isn't the ATR rated for LCY? Surely with a few mods/training GR could start LCY over being left with STN?

Indeed! It's the ATR42 that is on LCY-JER with SI and RE used the larger ATR72 to IOM.

I can see BA adding both JER & GCI ex LCY in the fairly near future


cs

The ATR72-500 is rated for LCY, whereas the -200 is not. Aer Arann got the -500 cleared for LCY for its IOM-LCY route, but IIRC an ATR42 was used when push came to shove.

As for BA adding GCI and JER from LCY, the question is whether there are decent slots available at LCY that would be required for a business oriented route. And of ocurse another question is whether BA would be willing to overnight planes at JER and GCI as otherwise the route would not be very attractive.

Don't BA still overnight a crew at JER for the LGW route ?


cs

LCY
 

In which case surely GR should get in there first and establish themselves? LGW is clearly hellbent on getting rid off the smaller aircraft so might as well jump before you are pushed.

Looks like it - ba.com says last flight in tonight arrives JER at 20.35, first flight out in the morning dep's at 07.05. The first BA arrival into JER from LGW is at 08.20.