Seems like good sense to me - 3 Do to serve ACI, DNR and Sou and an end to paying Blue for empty seats to and from JER. Good luck to
Blue if they can make it pay now that FlyBe have had restrictions on PAX numbers lifted and the ability to undercut fares opened up. Good move by AUR to drop loss making route, and need for more a/c and to concentrate on those routes that can make a profit with existing fleet.

The question is, Pete; which routes are those ?

Keith......your guess is as good as mine,most routes must be running at a loss over the winter months but the reverse of that at Easter and during the summer quarter, my guess is that overall a profit is made on GWK and Man with break even or a small profit on BRS STN EMA and SOU to ACI. Others routes under development and probably loss making at the moment. They could put up fares but I think Guernsey tourist industry would suffer and overall tourist spend on the island lost....they have been set up so it is very difficult not to make a loss and are not able to compete with the LCC (numbers not there) so that the overall Guernsey Hotel Industry and tourist economy can make a profit and the Bankers can do their business and get home at night.

I'm no financial analyst, Pete, but all you ever hear from the local news media is that AUR keep on racking up the losses !

From the little that I can gather, they purchased the under powered Embraer, so with our runway length it cannot take off fully laden?! If that doesn't fit the bill for a white elephant I don't know what does.
We just seem to have management who don't understand the nature of the business, and now the Government want us to provide a contingency for an inter island service that may or may not take off! (Excuse the pun) And that is with the aircraft (Dornier 228) that were meant to appear 12 months ago or so.
If we don't have the aircraft to fly GUR-ALD-SOU how are we going to provide a contingency???!!!

Wakeup, to be fair the Embraer only does Guernsey-Gatwick. Even at MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Weight), with the weight of the fuel they are legally required to carry with some additional thinking time (not knowing the Embraer's fuel burn but I would guess at an absolute (normal) max of 3.5 tonnes if they were carrying some holding fuel) I doubt they ever come close to performance regulated MTOW.

The Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) isn't perhaps as limiting as you would imagine as it includes not only the physical runway length but also the obstacle free clearway. So in this instance, if they're just going to use the aircraft on this one route, and I don't see them ever starting a Guernsey-Corfu (or anything like that) it's actually a reasonable business decision. Whether they actually thought about all this though is debatable and I suspect they just went for the cheapest option.

I'd be interested to know, however, if anyone has any concrete information about flights that have had to dump payload for performance. Obviously I've dismissed it but am more than willing to be proved wrong.

RexBanner, I've been on 3 GCI-LGW flights where they have offloaded the catering due, they said, to x/winds and weight limitations.

Which flights were these?

If we are talking landing performance (i.e. landing distance) then that's got very little (read nothing) to do with the max rated thrust of the engines, unless we are talking about the go around gradient for the missed approach which I very much doubt would be an issue at Guernsey even at high weights due the the very evident lack of terrain/obstacles.

Crosswind doesn't really affect landing distance unless the flight crew have gone ultra conservative in calculating their landing distance and factored in a tailwind as a worst case scenario to compensate for the potential backing of the wind into a bit of a tailwind component.

Wet runway, now that's a different story and I would imagine that's the real killer at high weights. But as I said earlier an aircraft with the full rated thrust on the engines would have exactly the same issues. So even if Aurigny had purchased the full spec version I'd imagine you'd have been hearing the same story at the time.

Happy to be corrected on any of this by someone who flies the Embraer 195 for Aurigny (all this is coming from an A320 pilot).

Thanks Rex very informative.

No worries Wakeup, as stated I actually agree with your point that the States had the potential to score a massive own goal by purchasing the model that they did but (by luck rather than judgement I suspect) they have probably got away with it due to the GCI-LGW sector length.

Rex / Wakeup

Please enlighten me. I hadn't realised that the Embraer was available as a lower powered version. What are the differences between the one they have and the full spec version?

Thanks for the very informative info but, how are AUR going to make any money with it ? Because, they apparently haven't done so yet.

I believe GR are looking at using the Embraer on some sunshine flights to Spanish destinations, presumably this will be in cooperation with a tour operator?

Kcockayne The airline as a whole is unprofitable but, how on earth do you know that the Gatwick route isn't?

I don't. I was replying to the comment about AUR possibly going bust, or the Guernsey tax payer continuing to bail them out. I would think that AUR should be able to make money on the Gatwick run but, if they have to restrict loads, that would make it harder for them to do so. My main concern is their overall profitability & the need for them to make a substantial return on their main investment - in order to make up the difference (which is causing them an operating loss) on the rest of their routes.
Until they do so, keep paying your income tax, because AUR are going to need a handout from the States !

Last year I was interviewed for the quality Manager position, thankfully I was not selected. Thanks Amanda:D

Kcockayne, you love ranting and having a dig at Aurigny on here, it's laughable and quite frankly boring!

I often don't feel the need to comment on PPRUNE but reading your comments and constant mud throwing at AUR's direction is rather frustrating!

What you and a lot of people forget is AUR's main purpose is to supply a rather robust and reliable service to the Bailiwick of Guernsey!

My opinion of such is actually they do a pretty good job of it!
For an island community with only a population of around 65K we are spoilt for choice in which destinations we can fly too!

Without the lifeline services AUR operate (profit or no profit) the island's would suffer grately!

You need to see the bigger picture.
Just because the airline isn't making money, the services it provides the islands as a whole is a massisive benefit!

Without the direct services to almost every major city in the UK, I'd dread to think how the business and leisure industries would cope.

In my opinion as a GSY tax payer, I'm pretty happy to subsidise an airline that serves the islands well.
I have no doubt that AUR have the publics interest at heart!
They've provided lifeline services for almost 50 years.....

Some people will disagree with me and I expect that....but just think about the commercial benefits of the services AUR offer before ranting and raving and shouting the odds on here.

Basically, stop stoking the fire without thinking about what you are saying!

And yes, I am qualified to comment on here before you start asking what my background is!

mattc56410, I wouldn't disagree with you, except, there is no way in the world that you can say the services to/from Alderney are robust and reliable !!!

AUR
 

mattc

Well, that's certainly put me in my place !; or, have my comments touched a (very) sore nerve ?
I have made detrimental comments about AUR here; but, are you really saying that the comments are untrue , pompous or extravagant ? (definition of "Bombastic"). If you are, please tell me what was untrue about AUR making constant losses, or not operating the Dornier regularly (if at all) despite having possession of them for coming up to two years.
I wasn't aware that I was slinging mud at AUR. Rather, just pointing out the truth. That is if what the BBC, CTV, Guernsey Evening Press & Jersey Evening Post report IS true. And, it must be, because AUR's own figures bare it out - don't they ?
The Airline operates at a loss &, as far as I am aware, is not operating the Dornier & has taken an extremely long time to get it into service. Is this not the truth ? Where am I being pompous, untrue & bombastic ?
The whole point of my comments has been to draw attention to the truth. None of it has been untrue; as you, yourself testify in your post !
I would actually agree with you when you claim that AUR "do a pretty good job of it"; in that they DO keep those essential services going; but, can you describe "doing a pretty good job of it" as providing the service at a massive loss? And, I agree, if not for them, who else would supply these services ? - as you intimate. But, the point that I make is that they do so to the cost of the Guernsey taxpayer &, maybe, there are some of those who resent having to pay a proportion of their taxes to bail the airline out ! Especially as the States bought the airline with the sole intention of protecting the Gatwick slots ( a laudable sentiment, in itself). They did not tell the Island public that they were going to bail the Airline out year after year in the process.
Maybe some Islanders don't think that having to pay to keep the airline going is an example of AUR "providing the island with a massive benefit", as you claim.
If you don't agree with my points, that is your affair & you are entitled to say so, but it does not mean that I am being bombastic, pompous or lying in pointing this out.
IF you DO speak for the Guernsey Taxpayer, I am happy to withdraw my comments & say that I was wrong. Please provide the evidence.