I think two crews stop overnight. The lunchtime arrival crew do the next day red-eye whilst the last crew in at night depart the following lunchtime.

so the point im making is that BA have things in place at JER, the LGW crews nightstop at JER

they have ground handling, lounge, check-in etc all in place

all they would need would be the LCY slots, and also if BE do exit the JER-LON route, demand I would of thought would be there


cs

..er, and aircraft, and crew? :hmm:

Blue Islands are already on LCY-JER, I suspect an ERJ-170 might be a little too much aircraft for the Channel Islands from LCY, as they pulled the jet from IOM in favour of a leased Saab 2000 from Eastern. (additional cost I would have thought!)
Aurigny may be a good fit for GCI-LCY but I suspect it would indeed need to be at the expense of Gatters who are now doing a LHR and becoming size queens and still shafting a long standing customer like flybe. Airports can sometimes do damaging things in their own interests, LCY lost a NCL link with T3 as the cost of operating a J41 was made prohibitive by the airport operator.

Also LCY have a policy of pricing to push out smaller capacity as well. How about the following idea. Aurigny could replace the 72 with a 170/195 using the existing slots to increase capacity maybe add one or two further rotations. This may give them better reliability. Or will we see BI try there hand on LGW.

I think at 68 seats, the ATR72 is ok for LCY management - the E170 does not offer a lot more capacity and LCY is still full of 50 seaters. What LCY wants to get rid of is the 30seater stuff like the Jetstream 41 or Dornier 328 (which is of course still around).

You lot seem to think if you want slots you get them.

The slot will effect the loads.

Having pish slots will just mean you run empty aircraft how ever nice they are be it J41 or a EJet.

Unless they can get decent slots the route just won't work.

I could actually see the Airbus trans-atlantic BA route working from jersey The first crew getting it to ireland from jersey via city then the second getting it across the pond.

But what do I know I am only a pilot.

You'd never carry enough people to cover the costs as the seat price would need to be set so high due to the low density seating.

As in JER-LCY-SNN-JFK?? The Island would have imploded into its own black hole before that ever happens.

BA NY
 

What an UNBELIEVABLE idea of suggesting a Jersey to NY link whatever next a link to Dubai, dream on :bored:

Don't know if the price is right it might work. Also as well as its departing from Jersey you wouldn't have to pay any departure tax which is a fair wack for a biz class seat from the UK trans-atlantic more than paying to go with BCI retrun to Jersey. Would have the advantage of clearing customs in Ireland.

Depends on the banks I am sure if a few of them got together and had set days they wanted to go with it maybe possible. Depends how many of them currently use it but position in.

A Shannon link might work as well on certain days of the week during the summer again dodging the UK departure tax and clearing customs/immigration before departing.

Although this is now totally irrelevant to Aurginy I will give this a go. There are a lot of problems with your proposition and hence why people see it as fantasy!

- The customer will still be liable to pay APD even as a connecting passenger. This would be equal according to HMRC to £137

- With your suggestion have you considered the crew do not start their duty in LCY? They start their duty in LHR as they are mainline crew, therefore operate the equivalent of two sectors to Shannon (LHR-LCY-SNN). Your suggestion would only work if the crew had another overnight in JER...ie. LHR-LCY-JER (o/n) JER-LCY-SNN (o/n) SNN-JFK (o/n) - JFK-LCY-LHR. To overnight another crew in JER for such a marginal route is lunacy. Let alone the flight duty limitations headache.

- Aircraft maintenance. One A318 lands at 10, departs at 4...so i'm guessing we are going to squeeze in a JER rotation inbetween much needeed maintenance, cleaning etc?

- Weather...are BA going to put at risk their flag ship route by operating the aircraft first to an airport known for diversions and been shut for days on end. How will the highly paying pax get to JFK if your ac is stuck diverting from JER. Remember they only have 2xA318, both are used on a weekday.

I honestly think you are looking at a very limited market. Look at the airlines over the years that have pulled off JER-LCY while using cheap, high density seated props. To run a 40 odd seater jet....crazy...let alone to connect to JFK...good luck

Maybe it's time to get back to Aurigny.... :ugh:

LCY
 

Gulf Juliet Papa

Thanks for that reply and hopefully we can resume this as an Aurigny post and leave the fantasists to go elsewhere :)

Its the fog that would kill it more than anything.

Its a bloody shame the flag ship route was once concorde and is now an Airbus without any peasants onboard.

Whats the latest thinking down there (sensible not crazie NY plans) to deal with the lGW prob. Up here on Fraggle we dont own an airline and our politicians havent a clue. Are GR going to buy bigger planes or just more slots?:)

I see Aurigny is now officially looking for a CEO.

Actually it's not as stupid as it sounds. A friend of mine was involved a few years ago in offering JER-USA via STN. The market as it existed at the time with BA offering JER-LGW ground transfer to LHR and onwards to the States was huge. However, the difference is that the LCY USA service is a high revenue premium product and it is unlikely that there is sufficient demand for such a high quality and expensive service out of the islands.

JER-USA
 

GAMPY

YES it is as stupid as it sounds regardless of what you say.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Aurigny
 

It would seem that some of you think it rather poor that over the last few years GR has run at a loss.

Please remember the following points:

GR HAVE TO fly some routes at a loss as they are the state airline owned by the people of Guernsey to serve Guernsey ALL YEAR ROUND! not just the summer.

GR are EXTREMELY UNDERFUNDED, and very understaffed. With so few planes and so many costs it would be hard to show a profit unless everything went their way. Managers often have to make reactionary decisions which can have a bad effect on many things. Also we must consider the economic conditions lately have been dire.

The States of Guernsey expect to make a loss on the island bus service of about £1m pa and this is something much bigger we are talking about!

Flybe have tried for years to buy, slur, beat GR with no success and this is largely due to the people who work for GR and better more consistent service. Flybe have bled customers to GR for years and even putting on a jet did not reverse this and that is the real reason for them pulling out.

So how about showing them some respect? :ugh:

I used to run an airline before retirement and know how tough it is, whatever else you say about Aurigny they have survived for more years than hundreds of their competitors and all credit for that.

Many years since I flew with them but such airlines are what our aviation heritage is created from so the best of luck for the future and when you start flying to Newquay Aurigny, let me know, I will round up a few passengers!!

What if Aurigny offered a BA codeshare and covered JER ad GCI LGW with E jets?

They are hardly going to get a codeshare to JER in competition with BA, are they, or did you just mean GCI?

It would seem that, after years of slugging it out, there ought to be a good opportunity for FlyBe and Aurigny to work together, with a brace of shiny new FlyBe E-jets contract flying between LGW and both JER and GCI in Aurigny colours. After all, a big chunk of BE's recovery plan is based around contract flying and their investor presentation suggest that they seem to be struggling to utilise what aircraft they have, post LGW

Would Aurigny have enough LGW slots to make this work?

I actually meant operate the JER route on behalf of BA and also a new GCI route which would be under the BA brand

Why would BA with 6 daily 150seater flights be interested in having GR operating the route with smaller aircraft that would have to accommodate all the capacity BA offers + the lost Flybe capacity?

As for GCI, why should GR pay BA lots of money for using the BA brand if they have a monopoly on GCI-LON on their plate as of March 2014?

crewing
 

Small point, Golf Juliet, Bravo - the BA crew on LCY - JFK are Gatwick based, but your point still stands.

Much coverage in Guernsey of Aurigny getting loans/guarantees for a new aircraft purchase/lease to maintain capacity on the Gatwick run:

BBC News - Aurigny Guernsey-Gatwick route 'needs new plane'

Dosh
 

Initial OK from the States for AUR to get wizzy jet? Interesting times!

MayBE the lease of the aircraft is already lined up...

MayBE?
 

Some knackered old crate from them? But you would not want just one of whatever, otherwise what do you do when its tech / on maintenance / wx delays?

SUPPORT
 

As if to prove a point the Cello RJ will be in operation today as back-up. Ok to back up an ATR but less easy to find equipment to cover E-jet or whatever considering GCI restricted runway.

I don't think this is anywhere near as complicated as you make it sound.

IF BE (or anyone else) were contracted to fly to LGW and back x times a day, at specified times, then any mx cover etc, for the regular (liveried?) aircraft would come from the main BE fleet. It would be in the contract.

It's what happens with the current BE/Brussels Airlines contract.
It's what happens with the arrangement between T3 and BA on IOM-LCY.
It's what happens with contract flying, the World over, every day.
It's effectively what happens now with the current BE GCI based E175.

Lease operations
 

That depends if it is a wet / damp lease. If it is a dry lease or purchase then it is unlikely that back-up aircraft would be included.

Complicating Factor
 

Don't forget that ATR72 WDB is due to be returned at end of lease at the beginning of next year....another factor to be taken into account.

DB
 

Would you need it? If they get a bigger aircraft for LGW (don't think they would go down the path of getting more slots?) then what are the ATR's going to be used for? MAN / STN / BRS / EMA - would you actually need 3? Unless they are going to give Flybe a run for their money on SOU????

Yak97. The type of operation I was referring to would not be a lease. It would be Contract Flying. i.e. airline A operates certain rotations on behalf of airline B. Simples!

If you check out FlyBe's accounts, this is a significant part of their business.

Flybe for AUR
 

Don't think it would be politically viable for AUR to be seen to be contracting Flybe (who have just let the Island down by withdrawing their service - notwithstanding the reasons) for the flagship route. And would a E175 be capable of taking the loads if it was the only aircraft? Think AUR would want to have more control over the operation than that. However, as they also need to upgrade from the Trislanders and have, possibly, a new MD in the offing, who knows which way it will go. Maybe they take the quick option of a contract for a period to keep running while they get their ducks in a row. March is not that far away to introduce a new type, which to AUR will represent a big change from the ATR's they have currently been operating.

Aurigny ops
 

Agree, can't see a decedent of Intra, Jersey European, BE, FlyBE being touched with a barge pole given current situation on the island.

Denim operates 3 E-jets as well :E

Ownership
 

Yes there are operators around with equipment, but I feel that because of the situation regarding the ownership of AUR, if they (the States) put money up or guaranteed loans etc, they will be looking to purchase/lease their "own" aircraft, rather than just pay an operator to supply a service.

I think the Flybe situation regarding the LGW service has been a wake-up call for those people who queried why the States would want to own an airline. Living on a rock in the Channel is all very well so long as you can get off it easily (and to somewhere with some decent onwards connections)!!

Also the IOM situation, where choice is being taken out of the market because of the actions of a LCC to whom the IOM is not a core market but just somewhere to go, has concentrated minds.