Hopefully this incident will finally make the authorities take note and close down this sham of an operation. Crazy that it's been allowed to continue after the Manx2 crash.

And which Regulation are you going to use to close them down?

Citywing are not an airline so I can't see how they'll ever operate J41s. The L410 is sturdy and in a good operator's hands will provide a safe, reliable service. It's ideally suited for flying around the Irish Sea. The only time we could see this is if they get Eastern to do some flying in the same wad that Cityflyer sub some flying to T3.

Citywing is not an airline so they will never operate anything!

Citywing
 

It's good to see the CAA taking decisive action by effectively grounding Van Air. I cannot understand how a 'virtual' airline can continue to sell tickets. If, god forbid there had been an accident yesterday, would those affected have been able to go to Citywing? Of course not! They would have been referred to Van Air in Brno - have you seen their website? You would have thought after the Manx2 debacle, a regulation would have been imposed such that it would be impossible to sell flights/tickets as an airline without an AOC. As the relatives of those tragically killed in Cork know only too well, there is a glaring regulatory loophole here and its high time is was closed. BTW, who is liable for EU261 payments for today's disrupted passengers? Good luck with that one.

As is so often the case, this statement raises more questions than answers. The incident described above is nothing unusual, so what prompted the CAA's interest?

Maybe there is more about this they are not telling us

I never said operate, I said use, in the same way they currently use V9 L410s. Would be some rare positive news for Eastern.

This is exactly what I mean.

*SPECULATION* I would guess the CAA are concerned because the V9 captain made the decision to take off in weather conditions dangerous enough to warrant cancellation of the flight.

The J41s are over 19 seats so would move Citywing out of the current non-ATOL category in which they comfortably reside. Unless they block most of the cabin, as the test is 'seats available to passengers'. Alternatively they could arrange transport by hot-air balloon or airship, without any seating restrictions...

The whole point of this business model is that the ticket seller requires neither an Operating Licence or an ATOL. If they want to charter aircraft with greater capacity than 19 seats then they need one or the other.

I think there is a reason why Citywings cooperates with a Czech outfit operating the LET410 and not someone more home-grown/swanky..... I can see all the complaints here as soon as Citywing signs a different partner airlines and as a result doubles the fares...

While I can understand that many on the rock would like to see a true Manx airline operating services, I have some difficulties understanding the hostility towards Citywing/Van Air. As I see it we have a foreign airline operating services from IOM using the Citywing brand for marketing purposes. It is not really a new concept and as long as the airline meets the regulatory standards, so be it.

Sorry El Bunto, you had covered that point.

virginblue, if the reality is what you describe then it would be acceptable. However the reality is someone setting up an airline who stated that they didn't want to be regulated. That lack of financial/operational oversight can kill passengers.

The 'hostility' towards Citywing exists because it exploits a loophole in regulation. They have to satisfy none of the rules that apply to Eastern et al in regards respect of an AOC. They avoid ATOL rules because of aircraft size. I remember on the Manx2 website, they boasted they could operate in weather conditions that bigger aircraft couldn't. It was precisely that 'have a go' approach that contributed to the accident in Cork, and yesterday's incident has worryingly similar features.

@Virginblue. No hostility towards Van Air whatsoever. They are a legitimate company operating planes in accordance with their license as governed by the Bulgarian CAA.

What people have an issue with is the set up employed by Manx2/Citywing, whereby they pretend to be an airline to anyone who will buy tickets with them until something goes wrong (i.e. Cork crash) where suddenly it was nothing to do with them and everything needed to be referred to Flightline - the airline that actually operated the service. They are just a ticket seller and nothing else. It's akin to buying a ticket from expedia/onthebeach/trivago or whoever but the aircraft also turning up in their colours and everything branded as though they were a legitimate AOC holder.

Incidentally, as far as I know, this exact set up (Virtual Airline) is banned by the UK CAA due to the exact issues which people have raised on this thread which is why they are only able to operate out of the Isle of Man.

Edit: Sorry Toon22 we were obviously typing the same at the same time!

They chartered a Titan 737 to operate flights today.

Does that now require an ATOL ??

lfc, that is the exact thought that was going through my mind.

However, they were very careful to say that Van Air had chartered it and not them.

Planedrive. Indeed we were! You make an interesting point about operations from the Isle of Man. I assume the CAA were able to intervene because the flight in question was destined for a U.K. airport.

That's presumably because Van Air are paying (or should be!)

Can Van Air really afford to charter in a Titan 737 on what Citywing are paying them?

Sure, I see your point. If there are shortcomings in Van Air's operation, I would be the first to demand their grounding. But most arguments I have read here do not relate to their operation, but to the regulatory framework they operate in (and which was not created by them, but by someone else).

My understanding is that they simply invoke the same rights, for example, bmi regional invokes to operate domestic flights in Germany or Eastern to offer domestic flights in France. I appreciate that they are an Eastern European outfit, but this certainly should be no reason to discredit them per se.

If rules for 19seaters are different from those for larger aircraft, that certainly is something to blame the regulator for - if these rules pose a risk (out of interest - I presume that Loganair operates the DHC6 under the same set of rules?).

As for misleading the public - that happens all the time with large airlines having flights operated by regional affiliates or with other airlines franchising their brand. As soon as something goes wrong, they refer the customer to the small print and insist that while all the branding says airline "A", it indeed is airline "B". It is annoying, but not something Citywing has invented.

Re the "Virtual Airline" aspect - it appears to me that this comes down to a lack of enforcement or regulation, for whatever reason, by Tynwald. The T&C explicitly state that...

...so apparently in Wales they do not get away with it.

Let's put it this way. For the IOM services Citywing sells the tickets and contracts an air carrier, for the Cardiff/Anglesey service Van Air is the carrier contracted by the Welsh Government and Van Air then contract Citywing to sell the tickets.

...so apparently in Wales they do not get away with it.

Interesting point, by the way. As they are also selling tickets in England and Scotland for their departure airports there, one has to wonder why the rules are different just for Wales. I suppose that for EU wide PSO-tenders, only airlines can apply which rules Citywing out as the holder of the PSO contract.

Are you sure this is correct ? I thought Citywing were in contract with the WG, with Citywing choosing to adopt Van Air for the route.

The contract specified European air carriers, Citywing is not a European air carrier.

virginblue, you are correct, it is the PSO contract that makes the difference. For their other routes in the U.K. unfortunately they can still operate as a virtual airline.

To divert back to their departure airport (IOM) where the wind was 42kts gusting 56kts 40 degrees off a wet runway I dread to imagine what the wind was like at their destination airport that caused them to divert back and what the **** were they thinking of even flying in such weather conditions!

Somewhat amusing that IOM needed to declare the runway closed after they landed ... You mean there were other idiots flying in this weather? :)

The issue with this operation is whether the crews come under pressure from the ticket seller to fly when they shouldn't.

L410 OK-UBA did the run down from Glasgow this afternoon. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a.../okuba#c8f0a30 No movement of OK-LAZ though.

It's called "Commercial Pressure" and it doesn't necessarily exist between a paper airline and an aircraft operator, during my airline career I worked for some 11 aircraft operators and, whilst illegal, commercial pressure is pretty much commonplace.

Often it will be from the commercial department, after all their primary concern is to sell flights with bums on seats, and often they don't like to hear of operational problems such as a kaput weather radar and en-route thunderstorms and the fact that the commercial department, in this instance, may be merely a ticket seller doesn't change that it is commercial putting pressure upon the crew and particularly with regards to exercising commander's discretion.

That said, and particularly in this day and age whereas an increased degree of commercial decision making has been placed upon the aircraft commander, in lieu of professional trained and qualified staff in an operations/dispatch department, often commercial pressure is self inflicted by the crew member(s) when, perhaps, they may see writing on the wall whilst they need to feed their spouse and kids, pay the mortgage etc.

The point here is not to blame it upon a paper airline scenario, commercial pressure is commonplace and if it does exist in Citywing then it is not unique to their style of operation.

Harry Wayfarers quoted 'Somewhat amusing that IOM needed to declare the runway closed after they landed ... You mean there were other idiots flying in this weather?'

The CAA issued an Immediate Stop, therefore the aircraft was not permitted to taxi to the terminal, passengers disembarked on the runway. The authorities were hardly going to leave the runway open.

'The issue with this operation is whether the crews come under pressure from the ticket seller to fly when they shouldn't. '

That is the sixtyfour thousand dollar question and one would need to see the contract between Citywing and Van Air. So the question is - in the event of a diversion, who picks up the tab?

RW35 at BFS was available as was RW31 at PIK - the captain elected to return to IOM in the face of deteriorating weather (specifically wind) where he would have known that the wind was outside xwind limits for landing and taxiing limits for his aircraft.

When two companies have an ongoing commercial relationship and termination would mean severe problems for at least one of the companies, then what is written on paper doesn't always reflect the true position between the two companies; an off-the-record verbal understanding may differ markedly from what is written on paper

Not in court.

And RWY29 at Machrihanish (depending upon the time of day).

One might speculate that the crew may have been going out of hours thus couldn't remain on duty if diverting away from a crew base, I worked for one operator where, quite literally, putting crew in (other than scheduled) hotel accommodation was a "no, no", perhaps the crew wanted to be at home rather than stuck away somewhere but the one point that interests me ... Why did they ever depart IOM in the first instance?

Van Air still grounded:



25 February 2017

FLIGHTS UPDATES FOR 26 FEBRUARY 2017 ONWARDS update 25/02/17 14:30

Citywing are now able to confirm flights details for Sunday 26 February and Monday 27 February.

Sunday 26 February.
Sunday 26 February - Belfast
For Belfast there will be a Stansted-based Titan Airways Boeing 737 to operate one flight for all Sunday’s Belfast-bound passengers, departing the Isle of Man at 1450, arriving in Belfast at 1520. This aircraft is planned to depart Belfast at 1550 and will be for all Isle of Man-bound passengers, arriving at 1620. All passengers affected will be transferred onto these flights and Citywing will endeavour to contact all passengers.

Sunday 26 February - Glasgow / Newcastle
The Titan Airways aircraft will also operate a combined flight for the Isle of Man passengers booked to fly to Glasgow and Newcastle, which will route via both airports. The flight is planned to depart the Isle of Man at 1700, arriving in Glasgow at 1745. It will then depart Glasgow at 1825, arriving Newcastle at 1905. It will depart from Newcastle at 1940, arriving in the Isle of Man at 2015.

Sunday 26 February - Gloucester
Unfortunately there are no options for a Gloucester flight, instead, Isle of Man passengers will be transferred to a flight to Cardiff operated by North Flying, departing the Isle of Man at 1820 arriving at 1915. There will be road transport available to Gloucester. For the Gloucester to Isle of Man passengers unfortunately we will not have any options on Sunday but can offer the alternative of flying from Liverpool to the Isle of Man on Monday.

Sunday 26 February – Blackpool
Blackpool flights will be according to schedule and will be operated by North Flying.

Monday 27 February
Monday 27 February - Belfast
For Belfast there will be a Stansted-based Titan Airways Boeing 737 to operate one flight for all Monday’s Belfast-bound passengers, departing the Isle of Man at 1110, arriving in Belfast at 1140. This aircraft is planned to depart Belfast at 1220 and will be for all Isle of Man-bound passengers, arriving at 1250. All passengers will be transferred onto these flights and Citywing will endeavour to contact all passengers.

Monday 27 February – Blackpool / Glasgow / Gloucester
Unfortunately there are fewer aircraft options for Monday so we have had to work out a way to accommodate passengers travelling to and from the Isle of Man as best as possible. With this in mind we have planned one flight from the Isle of Man to Liverpool using the Titan Airways Boeing 737 aircraft. This flight is for all Blackpool, Glasgow and Gloucester passengers and is planned to depart the Isle of Man at 1330, arriving in Liverpool at 1410. Surface transport to the various destinations will be arranged. For all passengers from Blackpool, Glasgow and Gloucester, surface transport will be arranged to Liverpool to catch the flight to the Isle of Man which is scheduled to depart at 1450, arriving in the Isle of Man at 1530.

On another forum it is reported that OK-LAZ will depart to Liège at 0930 on Sunday 26/2/17 as VAA930P

So loganair operating 37 years old dash 6 on the beach in scotland is ok but l410 is not just because of.. ??


2011 metro crash in southern ireland had nothing to do with vanair.

I don't think anyone ever suggested there was a problem with the aircraft, rather a problem with the operator? I feel suspicious of the reaction though. If a Ryanair pilot did something stupid would they have grounded Ryanair? Of course they wouldn't have...

If things don't go Van Air's way I wonder who the new operator will be? There's not a huge number of options. Transaviabaltika? (Suggested only half in jest...)