Aurigny Air Services [Archive] - Page 5

matt56410

22nd Jan 2016, 08:41

Kcockayne, you haven't just touched a nerve with me, it's quite evident throughout PPRune that you touch people's nerves with unjustified, derogatory comments, I seem to remember you spouting off in other threads and intentionally derailing them for your own agendas!
Anyway, this forum is built for airing opionons I admit that, but I certainly do not come on here to make "personal attacks".

I was mearly stating what you post on here about Aurigny is darn right rude and out of context, I personally think airing your opionons without backing them up with facts is probably a little bit pointless....again that is my opinion.

Admittedly the Dornier operation hasn't been up to the scratch but if you were open eyed about things then you would've realised Aurigny have been operating the Dornier on regular services with the Trislander accompanying it too!
I do believe they haven't been operating the Dornier the last few days because of scheduled maintence.....?

Aurigny's schedule changes on a regular basis so I wouldn't bother stating your so called facts on FR24 data, again you're trying to base your attacks on Aurigny from a dodgy source.

We all know the media blow everything out of context and of course that is what they're paid to do, so yet again, just think about what you're going to write before blasting off!

In regards to "Bailing out Aurigny" with taxpayers money, I'm afraid in my opinion this is the only viable way to operate "lifeline" service/s to and from the islands.
Everyone knows that the Gatwick route is a massive asset to the island and the SoG definitely made the right choice in safeguarding the route in the purchase of Aurigny all those years ago.

I can't speak for the majority of Guernsey Tax payers as that would be completely unjust but as it stands, I am more than happy to "subsidise" an asset such as Aurigny to offer lifeline services to and from our islands and long may it continue.

I'm sorry I've clearly been ill-informed about the "bumblebee". I haven't actually been to Alderney in a number of years! (20 or so years!)

Feet on ground

22nd Jan 2016, 09:07

Have you looked at the Scilly Isles and compared them to Alderney?

There is demand from tourists to go to the significantly more attractive Scilly Isles!

Jerbourg

22nd Jan 2016, 09:51

Mattc - "I do believe they haven't been operating the Dornier the last few days because of scheduled maintence.....?"

Are all three 228's on maintenance at the same time then?

I overheard a conversation in the pub a few nights ago about the 228NG which went along the lines of ' it's got to be returned to RUAG due to a problem with the wing spa'. Can anyone add any light to this or did I mishear & need to rinse out my ear trumpet?

matt56410

22nd Jan 2016, 11:04

I saw the NG on FR24 heading towards Denmark the other day, I'm guessing for its paint!

I'm also guessing if it was to be repaired by RUAG it would head back to oberpfaffenhofen where they are based!

But I've not heard that rumour no....perhaps pub talk?

Good things come to whom wait....as they say! ;)

Aero Mad

22nd Jan 2016, 15:33

mattc56410, Jerbourg, and five zero by ortac, I think even Mark Darby would agree that the transition to Dorniers has been far less smooth than anyone would have wanted. Delays have been hugely talked up by the media and on-time performance in ACI remains at 85%+ (see CAA figs.), incl weather-related delays/canx (which continue to comprise the bulk of disruption). But clearly Alderney has not been able to *rely* on a good service in the last year, and that isn't good enough. It shouldn't have to wait for a good service. So, for instance, scrapping FTSE rather than sending her up to Cumbernauld for annual/overhaul on the assumption of the on-time arrival of CS-TGG and D-ILFM was (to my very basic understanding - happy to be corrected) a mistake.

But it's no fault of GR that BN2 spares have evaporated. Loganair has had some parts on order from Britten-Norman (some parts unavailable from other suppliers) for more than two years, and Skybus has experienced similar problems. UK police forces have had to ground their Islanders due to a lack of spares. So the big tech delays in Ald in November aren't because of some great negligence. (Incidentally, if you can't trust B-N to get you a spare pitot head then God knows how you can trust them to build you a 'new' Tris... ignoring the endless regulatory impossibilities of the idea under EASA OPS.)

Kcockayne, NewquayJacob, and Feet on ground, in the Scilly Isles, which have far higher volumes of traffic to pay fixed costs, air fares are roughly double to/from ACI (a basic rate of £160 return to/from Land's End, equivalent to the run to Guernsey, or closer to £300 return to/from Newquay/Exeter/Bristol). A delegation who came to Alderney to share their ideas/experiences of making small island life work last year went home with their tongues hanging out. Orkney and Shetland inter-island fares are only dirt-cheap (and, at that, only thus for residents) because the SNP is the beneficiary of a wonky Barnett formula which funds the Air Discount Scheme.

Kcockayne, I often enjoy your observations but you are quite, quite wrong to suggest that Aurigny is near bankruptcy or anything of the sort. It has just been recapitalised by the States and has been restructured by new management such that the core business is close to break-even (besides fleet acquisition and route development costs, which create huge value beyond the firm itself). So we won't be seeing £25m of debts on the books again; and besides, even if we did it would make a great deal of sense for it to be on the States'; firstly, it's taxpayers' money and basic principles of good governance dictate that they should thus be allowed to vote on how it's spent. Secondly, the interest rate for States borrowing is almost by definition superior to any private facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland (which until recently was Aurigny's main means of short-term liquidity), so because it's in the interest of the airline, the States and the taxpayer to get the lowest rate it should – much like Network Rail in the UK – find its debts on government books.

Three things will improve the situation. The arrival of G-OAUR, now in its final stages of acceptance, will inevitably transform the resilience of the Alderney services. The agreement with Lydd Air to provide short-term tech cover with two Piper Navajos, although obviously not a long-term solution, should save the island from the sort of delays which have bugged the service this year. Finally, the MoU and – eventually – PSO which will enshrine the basis and remit of Aurigny's Alderney service in law is going to change things a lot. Why? Because it will stop them from having to serve two masters: the people of Alderney and the profit motive.

When one simple notion is enshrined in law – the idea that this airline's value exists far beyond that of its bank balance – we will start to see progress.

matt56410

22nd Jan 2016, 16:47

Buy that man a drink......nice post Aero Mad :ok:

JetJamie

22nd Jan 2016, 17:12

WoW! That escalated rather quickly. I think the nub of the matter is down to one thing from which all decisions must be made.

Is GR there to make a profit or to serve the public? Economical or social benefit? It can't do both.

I believe that they do rather well in serving the public. The choice of routes is spectacular for a 'small' island of 65k. However, it will never make a profit in its current guise, under its current instructions and management.

They just received another bailout of £20m to pay off existing debt and a further £5.5m to cover expected losses for the next 1-2 years, which reinforces that. Alderney will never be profitable. It needs a PSO and the states to just accept it'll cost approx £4m to run over say a 3 year period. Whether GR is the right operator for that PSO is another matter. The Do intro has been a disaster and ACI residents are quite rightly up in arms. A number of flights to SOU have been cancelled this week and all ACI customers re-routed through GCI to/from SOU all because (apparently) they don't have a serviceable a/c that can fly in icing conditions.

The States cannot keep bemoaning the reduction of pax/tourist numbers. They have made a rod for their own back with the closed skies policy. It works to protect GR but will never work to increase competition, which will bring more footfall. I feel sorry for their MD trying to keep both the public and his political masters happy. It's a no-win.

Guidance needs to come from the politicians. Accept it's going to cost £x per taxpayer to continue to fund the choice of flights whilst making big losses or decide to turn it into profit. They cannot do both.

Just a personal perspective by the way!

JetJamie

22nd Jan 2016, 17:17

Forgot to add that I agree with most of what Mad said apart from the Do will 'inevitably' improve the ACI service. We've been hearing this for the last 2 years. How on earth can you make that call now?!

Aero Mad

22nd Jan 2016, 21:18

JetJamie, fair points you make. I don't think the Dornier intro has been 'disastrous' for ACI, even if it has been trailed as such in the press – but it certainly hasn't been good enough. Gavin St Pier well on the way to carving out the framework by which GR will operate, and although I'm also at a loss as to why the PSO has taken so long this is at least clearly the right end to pursue.

You're quite right; of course one can't foretell what'll happen with 100% certainty but I referred to G-OAUR's introduction having a likely substantial positive impact on the ACI service on the basis that it takes the devoted ACI fleet of two second-hand Dorniers and adds a brand new aircraft which is fully equipped to deal with icing, with a higher MTOW than both others; the NG's in-service record elsewhere being pretty strong. The reason we've kept hearing it for two years is because of promised start dates being pushed back and further due to delays at Aero VIP. One big difference now; the aircraft have arrived not merely in the islands, but onto GR's AOC.

What were the alternatives? Hard to consider a counterfactual but the Tris is hemmed in by a shortage of parts, an abundance of new EASA regulations (note the newly fitted 'emergency exit' lighting above your head when you get in...), astronomical operating costs (somewhere around £470 per hour; similar to the ATR), and a perpetual threat to the Avgas supply in ACI. So it had to go. The new Twotter has a huge tail, an inferior xwind limit, and a longer order backlog. The Dornier is faster than both, with similar unit and marginally cheaper operating costs to the latter, and could be acquired faster when time was of the essence. So a no-win? Absolutely. But they're on the road now.

kcockayne

22nd Jan 2016, 22:20

AeroMad

Nice to get an informed, informative, substantiated & well-mannered reply - so different to some that I've received !
I am not suggesting that AUR are near bankruptcy; indeed, it probably isn't because SoG are subsidizing it. I'm simply relaying the facts (as reported by the airline itself - as well as the media) & wondering what the future holds & pointing out contradictions & valid arguments.
In my opinion, the future holds more of the same, although I agree that the situation should improve somewhat. However, I would point out that AUR was bought by The States SOLELY (or so they said) to protect the Gatwick slots. Again, in my opinion, a sound & apparently sensible decision. But, it did open up a whole can of worms with reference to even handed airline policies & possible favouritism towards their wholly owned airline etc.
However, it did not stop there, did it ? AUR's finances meant that SoG had to bail it out, or lose it (&, as mattc56410 says, the value of the airline to the island lies not just in its Gatwick operation, or in its financial performance). That meant that the Guernsey taxpayers are now subsidizing AUR, whether they like it , or not - all of this landed on them without their approval by The States, who had not seen fit to warn the public that this would be the case.
To my mind, the Guernsey electorate need to be directly asked the question as to whether they understand the importance of "their airline" to their welfare & economy; & then be asked if it supports the SoG decision to bail it out both now & in the future. I have no objection to The States ensuring the future of its airline in this democratic way & would, being "left leaning" politically, support such an action & policy IF it were approved by the island's taxpayers & electorate.
I hope that you are right about the Dornier. So far, the whole affair has been an unmitigated disaster. Surely, no one disagrees with that statement ?
As far as Alderney is concerned, I feel that, on the face of it, it could be said that the Alderney residents appear to be unreasonable in their demands for the level of service, & the price they want to pay for it. It is a very small population which CANNOT support or sustain such a level, or price, of service. But, look closer, & realise that theirs' is an extremely small community with no other effective way on & off of the island - notwithstanding Bumblebee (which is a very small launch that only operates twice per week Apr.-Oct. & NOT AT ALL in the Winter !). The nature of Alderney is such that without accessible & reasonably priced air travel, the whole future viability of their community IS under severe threat.
The only way out of this would be for Guernsey States to acknowledge Alderney's unique problems & to provide a "reasonably priced" & efficient/effective air service as a Public Service Obligation. After all, they should have no fundamental objection to doing this, as they have already bought AUR & have bailed it out - & are continuing to bail it out for the foreseeable future (mainly to Guernsey's benefit)! Could they not do the same for Alderney ?
By the way, in these days of European intervention/interference in competitive, commercial & social matters, could the SoG expect to be able to continue to treat this ONE airline in this way without being accused of indulging in unfair & discriminatory business legislation etc ?
Just a question, matcc - not an accusation, or a dig, or mud throwing.

mattc56410

Thank you for your reply, although it falls short of actually providing any plausible or supportable & coherent answers as to why I should have angered you so much on this subject; or why, in your original post, you made such unfounded assumptions about my opinions. I guess that I will just have to accept your animosity & that you just don't like me or my argument style. At least it will save me on the Christmas card & the cost of a postage stamp - & you too, come to think of it. So, this situation is not a total loss !
But, I would counsel you on taking good care of your blood pressure, if this is how you react to someone that you do not agree with !
Albeit, without the necessary level of civility, I don't think that there is any further need to prolong our exchanges.

kcockayne

22nd Jan 2016, 22:41

AeroMad

Just seen your latest post. Factual & correct.
I would argue that "disaster" is the right term to use ref. the Dornier - because of the length of time that it has taken to get it into service. I know all about the unfortunate Directives on the Tri, & the spares situation - but AUR have had an inordinately long period of grace to come to terms with many of the issues.
Well before I retired from Jersey ATC (2007) the Directives began to appear on the Tri. The word was that the a/c would shortly be taken out of service, even so long ago. They weren't.
There was talk, even 8 years ago, of Dorniers. Some time later action was taken to obtain one &, notwithstanding the problems caused by relations with the Portuguese operator, AUR have had many years to decide upon & introduce a Tri. replacement. For goodness sake, AUR have had Dorniers sitting around for many months. I would say that an efficient operator would have taken action well before now to get the a/c into service - & to keep it there. Other airlines don't usually take as long to get new a/c into service !
Be that as it may, let us hope that the problems are now, & will continue to be, over.

matt56410

23rd Jan 2016, 00:23

Oh, what a shame!

I was looking forward to receiving your Christmas card this coming year.....darnnnnnn it ;)

Matt

kcockayne

23rd Jan 2016, 07:13

No, I've thought better of it.

dcp2608

23rd Jan 2016, 15:41

Perhaps when the new chairman for Aurigny is announced next week all things might change

Aero Mad

23rd Jan 2016, 17:28

kcockayne, Guernsey is not an EU member state and is thus not subjected to EU competition or state aid rules. But Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) specifically protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art 106 (often cited by those who claim that EU law bans nationalisation) doesn't ban it; it simply regulates how nationalised firms can behave with regard to competition (although the ECJ has recently been interpreting this rather more aggressively). Nationalised rail and electricity networks persist in Europe; so even if Guernsey's relationship with the EU was to change, Aurigny would probably be safe.

You say Aurigny was too slow to get on with the business of Tri replacement. But remember that the ancien régime, so to speak, saw no need for it. Mark Darby arrived in Sept 2013, and by Nov CS-TGG was on trial on ACI-SOU. With a shortage of adequate aircraft (both types and airframes), with 20 year old aircraft, with no manufacturer support (for the first two aircraft), with four days of sim training (in Germany, near Braunschweig) at a cool 25,000 EUR per pilot... I think you get the idea.

kcockayne

23rd Jan 2016, 20:21

Aero Mad
Yes, the CI are only associate members of the EU, but that does not seem to stop it getting its tentacles into every one of our nooks & crannies. In fact, it's worse than that. EU citizens seem to be free to come, go & work here, whilst CI citizens are not allowed to reside or work in the EU. So, I am afraid that I have no great faith in the islands being willing to oppose any interference from it - whether such interference is allowed, or not! Consequently, it would seem to me that "what the EU says, goes".
Anyway, I hope that your reassurances on the airline etc. front would prove to be correct - though I have no faith that they would be.
I accept your observations with reference to the Tri. replacement, but I feel that it is of no great importance as to which individuals were involved, it is the airline itself, collectively, which bares the responsibility for the inaction on this front. That may be a little unfair on those who have really tried to get something done; but the fact remains - that the impression is that very little effective action has been taken.
What is your reaction to these points ?

JetJamie

24th Jan 2016, 01:08

Mad, sorry, but you cannot defend the tris replacement program at GR. Everyone knew at least five to six years ago that the tris would never meet EASA requirements, without massive amounts of work and probably more importantly, constructor help and support. It's been mismanaged for way too long.

Sure, Mr Darby has done his best since he arrived but the previous management stuck their heads in the sand. BI got rid of theirs in 2011 and publicly stated that the main reason was that they were never going to be compliant with the new Europe wide requirements. Utter madness not to have sorted this years ago.

Feet on ground

24th Jan 2016, 07:24

Given that the Trislanders are continuing to operate in the Aurigny fleet, what EASA requirements does the aircraft fail to meet or have exemptions from?

kcockayne

24th Jan 2016, 09:10

Yes, very good question.
AeroMad
I detect a skilled diplomat trying to keep both sides at the table !
Or, rather, a character witness or probation officer in court trying to mitigate the defendant's actions. You do it very well, but, as prosecuting officer, it doesn't quite wash with me !
Anyway, I enjoy the process - keep going.

Aero Mad

25th Jan 2016, 17:03

JetJamie, absolutely agree. Of course Tri replacement should have been started earlier. It was clear by 2010 (when EASA released draft Part-CAT rules for EU OPS) that it would eventually be on the losing side of a battle against a shortage of spare parts and the growing regulatory burden. My point was simply that it's foolish to blame current management for the failures of a previous regime; draw your own conclusions from the fact that new metal was on trial on the ACI routes within eight weeks of Mark Darby's arrival.

Feet on ground, to my knowledge the most obstructive new regs concerned TAWS (see CAT.IDE.A.150), ACAS (CAT.IDE.A.155), ELTs (CAT.IDE.A.280) and increasingly stringent miscellaneous requirements (crow bars, crash axes, emergency exit lighting etc.) which are collectively expensive and inconvenient to implement. From memory these went over and above JAR OPS requirements for aircraft with a max seating capacity >9.

kcockayne, like yours my posts are only my own views; I'm not some sort of 'diplomat' or spokesman and I have no interest in 'keeping both sides at the table'. See above re your point about responsibility. Clearly the delay in getting started has had unsatisfactory consequences on the resilience of the ACI services. Scapegoating current management, who have worked their socks off to try and make the best of a bad lot, probably ain't gonna do much. Re the EU and Aurigny's funding, state aid rules to not apply in the CI. Even if they did, nationalised entities are de facto exempt. If the ECJ was to pick a fight on this, it would surely target the German rail network or the French electricity grid a millennium before it set to with a regional airline from Guernsey. Should precedent demand a change, funding could continue through a wider use of PSOs.

kcockayne

25th Jan 2016, 21:47

Comprehensive answers - can't say that I have too much disagreement with you. I totally take your point about the current management, but that does not dispel the complete disappointment with "the airline".
I was being light hearted about the "diplomat" tag, bought on, I suppose, by your accommodating fairness towards the "defendants"!
Thank you for your comments.

Jerbourg

29th Jan 2016, 18:31

A peak (school summer holiday?) season GCI-BCN route is soon to be announced.

Council Van

29th Jan 2016, 21:15

I find it hard to believe the DO228 type rating, a ten hour course, cost 25k euro per pilot.

Having been to Simtec loads in a previouse position I do not imagine they were charging that much.

Just 60 miles to the North of the Channel Island's Cobham would have been a good company to contact to quickly get the 228's in the air.

Just to put the 25k euro price tag in context, my 757 type rating left me with a 20k bond and that included 40 hrs in the sim and 3 weeks ground school.

Still miss flying the good old Dornier, great pilots aircraft.

Aero Mad

29th Jan 2016, 22:13

It's what I'd heard but don't know the numbers precisely; you may well be right. However, by any measure it don't come cheap.

Do 228 Pilot Training « Aero Bildung (http://www.aero-bildung.de/typetraining/do-228-pilot-training)

Hermite

30th Jan 2016, 10:07

It looks as though G-OAUR is on its way back from Denmark. I wonder when it will enter service.

kcockayne

30th Jan 2016, 12:21

I'll venture the guess that you're not holding your breath !

Council Van

30th Jan 2016, 13:41

The DO228 rating costs are mighty expensive these days. I think when I did the rating on the aircraft with FR Aviation back in 2001, 10hrs, the bond was £10k.

Aero Bildung appear to charge about 3k euroes an hour on the aircraft. :mad:

Looking at the costs by the time they have paid for flights, hotels, meals etc as well as the training the 25k euroes might not be far of.

kcockayne

3rd Feb 2016, 07:49

I see that Do 228 G-LGIS is operating the Alderney - Southampton service today. Let's hope that this marks the end of the "Dornier Saga". if so, congratulations !

Hermite

3rd Feb 2016, 12:46

G-LGIS has been operating quite a few services during the last week - out every day. Hopefully G-OAUR will be operational soon now that it is back from Denmark.

gkmeech

3rd Feb 2016, 13:05

G-OAUR was crew training yesterday as AUR 4000. Did an approach and go-around at SOU.

cobopete

3rd Feb 2016, 13:53

G-OAUR crew training yesterday routed GCI - Berry Head - Exeter (overfly) - North Devon - BRS (low pass) - SOU (as previous post) - ACI (low pass) -GCI (assume return to Anglo-Normandy)

Pete

kcockayne

3rd Feb 2016, 16:21

Everything going well, then ?!

Ethiopia

5th Feb 2016, 11:34

Interview with Aurigny Air Services CEO, Mr. Mark Darby (http://aviationtribune.com/aurigny-ceo-interview)

cobopete

5th Feb 2016, 13:19

I note mention is made of Jerbourg's summer sun route to Spain by the E195 on a limited number of Summer Sats, stating it to be under investigation.

Matt7504

5th Feb 2016, 13:53

Palma, Embraer

macuser

7th Feb 2016, 00:08

Certain media reports state that Alderney's runway is "crumbling", anyone know any more about this? Any ATC comments?

cobopete

8th Feb 2016, 18:54

Details now on booking site, 3 rotations planned Sats 23 July, 6 and 13 Aug -
Dep GCI 1815 arr Barca 2100
Dep Barca 2140 arr GCI 2225
Pete

Ayline

8th Feb 2016, 19:59

Actually 4 trips to Barcelona if you include the 30th July.

Jerbourg

9th Feb 2016, 15:46

Application made to fly GCI-LTN in todays Guernsey Press.

JetJamie

9th Feb 2016, 19:36

Application made to fly GCI-LTN in todays Guernsey Press.

What?? So GR are going to fly to gatwick, city, stansted and Luton. Why not go full hog and heathrow as well?! Just mad!

AirUK

10th Feb 2016, 06:45

I'm sure they'd love to fly into Heathrow if they could.
Don't be fooled by the seemingly close proximity of STN and LTN - they both exist for a reason and have completely different catchment areas both of which are close to one of the most densely populated and largest capital cities in Europe. As the crow flies, the distance is akin to LHR-LGW. To drive between the two airports means a trip down the M11, along the M25 and back up the M1. Trains require a similarly awkward routing via two London terminals.

LTNman

10th Feb 2016, 07:16

While to the general north and the eastern side of Stansted and the western side of Luton the catchment areas are different much of it is actually the same so some passengers would be lost to Luton if both routes operated simultaneously.

virginblue

10th Feb 2016, 07:42

Well, if they feel that there is sufficient demand for additional frequencies serving the leisure market from LON, instead of adding frequencies at STN or LGW they can just as well add those at a new gateway which is more convenient for some of the customers currently using LGW or STN and probably is also cheapter to operate to because of new route incentives/discounts. So I don't think we are really looking at a cannibalization, but rather directing existing and hitherto unmet demand.

AirportPlanner1

10th Feb 2016, 08:54

To correct Air UK's road knowledge, I personally would travel STN-LTN via Harlow and Welwyn. It's not that far and traffic rarely too bad.

bricquebec

10th Feb 2016, 08:54

Perhaps they are looking to connect into the fast growing Wizz network - amongst other Luton airlines.

five zero by ortac

10th Feb 2016, 12:33

Ahhh, all these new routes. Its a shame they can't operate a decent reliable service to Alderney !

22/04

10th Feb 2016, 12:38

Thread drift I know but A120/A10/A414/M1 is pretty good STN-LTN too - better than Air UK's route

Hermite

10th Feb 2016, 14:30

How much of the problem with the Alderney flights are the aircraft and how much the condition of the runway and the associated 20 knot crosswind limitation?

Buster the Bear

10th Feb 2016, 15:21

Flybe currently hold the Route Licence from Guernsey to Luton, but do not operate it.

http://theoldsite.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=97295&p=0

JetJamie

10th Feb 2016, 17:22

If they don't use the licence within first six months, or haven't used it for three, they love se it buster. I don't think they've met either requirement since it was awarded

cobopete

10th Feb 2016, 19:29

I only have access to the on-line Edn of the GEP and can't find any mention of the AUR Appln for Luton, does anyone have more info or can supply link or info re planned frequency, a/c etc? Typing "Luton" into States web site yields nothing .....Thanks Pete

kcockayne

10th Feb 2016, 20:35

This reminds me of the "parallel" services operated out of Bournemouth & Southampton by BEE. I can't see that there will be sufficient demand from both Stansted & Luton to Guernsey to justify even a daily service from each airport.
What are the planned schedules for these two routes ?
The C.I. are simply not attractive enough these days (especially Guernsey) to imagine that multiple services from 4 London airports will be successful, in my opinion. Time will tell.

Ayline

11th Feb 2016, 02:45

If you go to the appropriate page of the gov.gg website the most recent notice relates to the Liverpool application. Nothing about Luton yet.

Powerjet1

11th Feb 2016, 09:18

The Luton application appears on the website now, for a start date of 26 March 2017, three or four times a week, for the summer season.

LTNman

11th Feb 2016, 10:42

I guess we will have to wait and see if it's as well as Stansted or instead of Stansted? The fact that it is being launched next year I am thinking it will replace Stansted as Stansted is already on sale for this year but that is just an uneducated guess. Luton is best avoided anyway this year due to building work.

22/04

11th Feb 2016, 11:43

What are the terms of the licence? If they operated 2-3 times a week would they be deemed to have used it?

I think there is demand for a service April-Sept sold in conjunction with perhaps a group of small local travel agents irrespective of Stansted

Buster the Bear

11th Feb 2016, 11:54

Reduction in service from Gatwick due fees?

LGS6753

11th Feb 2016, 14:22

... not just fees. If they can sell their slots, they will be quids in.

cobopete

11th Feb 2016, 14:25

Buster......The islanders would riot if Aurigny tried to cut the Gatwick service and replace it with any airport except LHR, but there are no slots there!

LTNMan ....I'm sure they see the 3X weekly service in addition to their Stansted service, which rises to 8X weekly during summer school hols and operates year round. The application is just for the summer period for one year so I guess they will see how well it is supported. An arrangement with a Travel agent is possible (as per Norwich)

Pete

five zero by ortac

12th Feb 2016, 12:39

Alderney States Members to lodge a vote of no confidence in Aurigny's Management following two years of poor service to/from Alderney.

cobopete

12th Feb 2016, 18:27

If I managed an airline serving a pop of 2000 clinging to a rock in the eastern Atlantic spending most their time in the Divers I think I would sell off my aging aircraft, get rid of costly replacements and concentrate on routes that might get into profit, after all they can always go by Boat on Bumblebee.......ah might be a problem there! Get real, the airline is not responsible for the crumbling inadequate airstrip and you certainly couldn't afford IOS prices, for the limited traffic the service is vfm. Just do the costing of basing an air ambulance on island.

kcockayne

12th Feb 2016, 19:06

All very much to the point, Pete. But, we should not forget that AUR were originally set up solely to provide air links to & from Alderney , in 1968 when Jersey Airlines withdrew their service ( they couldn't make it pay, either !).
It would be a pity to see them lose their Alderney connection; particularly as the airline's name is the French for Alderney - as you know.

Aero Mad

12th Feb 2016, 22:25

Alderney States Members to lodge a vote of no confidence in Aurigny's Management following two years of poor service to/from Alderney.

It would be a pity to see them lose their Alderney connection; particularly as the airline's name is the French for Alderney - as you know.
The requête represents an attempt to launch a(nother) debate in Guernsey over the standard of Aurigny's service, rather than an outright endeavour to remove its ability to operate or to force a replacement of its management. So the prospect of it no longer operating to Alderney is no less remote than heretofore. Aurigny's response (http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-02-12/five-politicians-ask-for-vote-of-no-confidence-in-aurigny/) contains facts pertaining to the resilience of its services. I must admit that I find it extremely disappointing that the very people who should be engaging with Aurigny and T&R in getting a PSO moving are busier signing bits of paper which by their own admission (!) relate to grievances dating back years.

Their complaints may be well-founded, but surely they should not expect to see them given a great deal of time or respect in Guernsey if they refuse (in perpetuating with mere anecdote what the numbers simply don't bear out) to tackle the specific reasons for the problems they bemoan. If they really cared more for action than words (the pledge of every States candidate since the year dot, and more or less the very platform on which Steve Roberts himself stood), they'd be complaining about delays to the PSO. Why? Three simple reasons.

1) when the process comes to bear, it would give them a legitimate legal framework which would permit the removal of Aurigny's de facto right to operate (the routes being only able to support one carrier, and GR having no commercial incentive to provide) if they can prove that its service has been poor enough. If the contents of their requête are sincerely meant, surely this should be their holy grail.
2) even if they failed to dislodge Aurigny's position, it would give them a proper document to which it could be held accountable, and a minimum service level as previously discussed on this forum. Consequences, as above, would follow if it failed.
3) a PSO's economic benefits for the island they represent, in keeping service levels above those affordable to the airline alone but well within the means of Bailiwick taxpayers collectively (as has occurred this year through SoA subsidy), and its ability to formalise the financial relationship between all parties, are obvious.

Yet rather than actually fashioning for themselves a perfectly good (and extremely useful) stick with which to thwhack Aurigny, they have gone to war with mealy mouths and meaningless missives. In failing to even try to engage with any of the specifics of the problem, to anyone with a shred of education or good sense I'm afraid their requête is made to smell and to look like the decomposing contents of a two-week-old dustbin. They will get precisely nowhere for as long as they act as angry parishioners instead of elected policymakers.

As States members they should absolutely hold Aurigny to account. This will often involve voicing dissatisfaction. Yet in failing to rebut Aurigny's claims directly, which seem perfectly reasonable, they are wasting their breath and fueling disillusionment based on conjecture alone – without a clear plan to solve the problems which they outline. A sound complaint would constitute (for instance) an evidenced rebuttal of Aurigny's justifications, and a realistic plan to rectify the situation (worth noting that this process should probably occur before any vote of no confidence. It hasn't). Yet they propose nothing (not even a new Tri!). Perhaps this reluctance to deal with crucial details is because weather delays are boring, or – for instance – because scrapping G-FTSE (arguably) too early was by itself not quite a sackable offence. But if you want to reinforce the States' sorry reputation as a talking shop for the self-obsessed, rather than actually working to achieve good outcomes for the islands, carry right on boys.

The fact remains that you could scrap and replace the entire management team, and Alderney would still be in exactly the same position. You could go back to flying in the Tris, and you'd have more delays and higher costs. You could have gone for the Twotter and had a lower xwind limit. In complaining on the one hand whilst failing to propose any alternative whatsoever on the other, they do their electors a very grave disservice.

Hermite

13th Feb 2016, 11:25

It looks as though there are 2 Dorniers in service today. G-LGIS did the first GCI-ACI-SOU-ACI-GCI run and now G-OAUR has just done GCI-ACI. I think this may have been G-OAUR's first passenger service run. G-SAYE is also in the air today, presumably pilot training (GR4001).

gkmeech

13th Feb 2016, 14:26

G-OAUR operating as AUR4000 crew training this afternoon out of Alderney

Hermite

13th Feb 2016, 15:15

gkmeech - I think that G-OAUR is displaying the incorrect flight number. The timing of the flight, which ran from ACI to SOU matched GR555, and it is now returning from SOU, again displaying AUR4000 but is probably GR556.

cobopete

15th Feb 2016, 18:46

Aeromad....Thankyou for your thoughtful, reasoned and powerful response......it's a shame that the politicians are unlikely to see it, have you thought of sending in a version for the GEP letter page?

PS How long before you stand as an Alderney Deputy on the States?

Pete

Hermite
GOAUR did GCI - ACI - SOU -ACI - GCI rotation again this evening.......those still wanting to fly on a Tri had better hurry up and be careful on the flight they book!

Aero Mad

16th Feb 2016, 23:36

Cheers Pete, just my thoughts. Given that I'm only 19 (a tad young to be starting a political career, espc by Alderney standards) and am not a resident of that island, I can't see it happening. Much easier to snipe from the sidelines anyway ;) But I do care a great deal about Ald, and it's v disappointing when the people it elects so obviously fall short by wasting their (and States') time on grandstanding.

Good to see the Dorniers flying the bulk of the schedule. It's been a long time coming.

dcp2608

24th Feb 2016, 19:56

Does anyone know the result of the 'no confidence in Aurigny' vote which was happening tonight in Alderney
'

Ayline

24th Feb 2016, 20:20

Channel TV are reporting that it has been withdrawn

dcp2608

24th Feb 2016, 20:45

Thankyou Ayline

Aero Mad

24th Feb 2016, 21:40

Alderney States have rejected a vote of no confidence in Aurigny. More just before 11.

https://twitter.com/itvchanneltv/status/702622472596803584

five zero by ortac

25th Feb 2016, 06:53

The requette failed to get enough support, but a very good debate was had. Basically States Members thought it was the wrong time to do this and if passed would halt meaningful discussions with Aurigny. Clearly nobody was happy with Aurigny, but this was not the method to say that. Some that voted against said the message to Aurigny was that this was a ‘yellow card’ and if things didn’t improve they would support a requette at a later date, October was mentioned.

kcockayne

25th Feb 2016, 07:42

The States of Alderney have really got AUR "over a barrel", haven't they !? Just think about it, 1200 or so people on a totally insignificant island, where it is impossible for any airline to make a profit, making next to impossible demands on frequency, pricing & service levels on an airline which has far "bigger fish to fry" . I bet AUR are quaking in their boots !
The only thing in the States of Alderney's favour is the political relationship with Guernsey & the importance that this might have on the States of Guernsey's thinking on what they do with their "national airline" !

Aero Mad

29th Feb 2016, 22:10

The completed MoU has been signed and published (http://www.alderney.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=100877&p=0). It seems strongest in establishing a framework for the States and Aurigny to communicate far more effectively; weakest as a service level agreement (targets for which come with all manner of caveats). It is explicitly not legally binding. Some of the targets seem totally pie-in-the-sky (39% of ACI-SOU one-way sales to be in the £117-£145 bracket, for instance); on the whole it does a jolly good job of enshrining the status quo into one document. The Alderney operation is formally exempted from the wider break-even objective, although the document does really very little to clarify further where financial obligations end and social obligations begin. This will remain a matter of urgency for reasons previously discussed in this forum.

Hermite

4th Mar 2016, 18:35

I wonder why G-COBO diverted to East Midlands on the way back from Manchester this morning. Only just left EMA (19:13).

Balair

4th Mar 2016, 18:45

Reported a pitch control problem apparently.

Balair

cobopete

6th Mar 2016, 18:17

Guernsey Evening Press reported an icing problem but did not specify surface(s) affected.
Pete

Hermite

14th Mar 2016, 13:49

G-COBO diverted to LGW this morning on its way to GCI from LCY. I wonder what happened this time.

Jerbourg

14th Mar 2016, 17:36

More tech problems again today – the only serviceable ATR's were VZON and COBO – this morning I noticed the 0830 GCILGW left at 0930 and routed GCI-LYC-LGW-GCI, with a long turnaround at LCY, I bet LGW pax were well cheesed off! This afternoons 1630 ATR rotation to LGW has also been cancelled.

JetJamie

18th Mar 2016, 07:41

Did something happen yesterday in GCI with the corniest shutting down on the taxiway? All the interislands were late

dcp2608

18th Mar 2016, 08:40

A Dornier evacuated at end of runway 09 due to a warning light coming on - airport was shut for about 30mins apparently

Hermite

23rd Mar 2016, 22:10

I'm curious as to why G-SAYE is on the UK register as a Dornier 228-200 but internet searches of its previous registration D-ILFM show it as a 228-202K. I did wonder if the 228-200 on the UK register was in some way a mistake, but the Aurigny in-flight magazine also has it as this type. Has it been downgraded for some reason? If so, I'm guessing that this would have required some changes to the a/c.

Council Van

24th Mar 2016, 07:12

The K I recall stands for keel, they are positioned on the bottom corner of either side of the part of the fuselage that slopes up towards the tail.

It is a long time since I flew the 228k but I believe with the keel you get an increase in take off weight.

Looking at pictures of G-SAYE the keel's are not present, google G-MAFI and you will be able to compare with an aircraft that has them fitted.

They may have removed the keel as they do not need the aircraft to operate at the increased weight and having a lower take off weight might bring reduced landing and navigation charges

xtypeman

24th Mar 2016, 10:16

The 202K has the ventral strakes the 200 does not. Air Wales had to have them fitted to G-RGDT before it was accepted on the UK registered to comply with CAA regs. However now aircraft have to comply with EASA regs so the 202k requirement may now not apply.

Council Van

24th Mar 2016, 16:59

ventral strakes

Of course, that's what they are called,

five zero by ortac

24th Mar 2016, 17:35

G-SAYE was built as a -200 and converted at some stage to a -202k.
However, for reasons unknown, on re-registering with a G- it was unacceptable as a -202k and therefore downgraded to a -200, with the lower MTOW.
Hence, on the very occasional times that it has flown, its payload is rubbish.

Hermite

24th Mar 2016, 22:10

Looking at pictures of D-IFLM on the internet, it didn't have the ventral strakes when operating for Manx2, but was presumably thought of as a 202K at the time. So it doesn't look as though Aurigny had them removed. What is the function of the ventral strakes?

xtypeman

25th Mar 2016, 09:09

Firstly I am not a pilot or engineer but I believe that the strakes where added to increase longitudinal stability in flight. Much the same as happened to allow the Beechcraft 1900 D to be registered in Europe.

Johnm

31st Mar 2016, 06:38

Aurigny was founded by Sir Derek Bailey after yet another airline had failed in trying to provide services into the islands. It succeeded for close to 40 years because Bailey understood that the conventional airline model doesn't work in the islands. He set Aurigny up as a flexible "bush flying" operation with minimal overheads. The rot set in when Guernsey States started to push towards being an airline because they wanted it to safeguard their Gatwick route. The inevitable result was that Aurigny went down the pan like all the other conventional airlines and Guernsey nationalised it. The current management openly state that their primary objective is to safeguard the Gatwick route and nothing else really matters. However they have not learned from history and their conventional airline approach is working just as well as all those that have gone before!

five zero by ortac

31st Mar 2016, 06:51

Well said Johnm. Absolutely correct. We need to go back to the original concept that worked.

Aero Mad

31st Mar 2016, 13:02

The current management openly state that their primary objective is to safeguard the Gatwick route and nothing else really matters.
Johnm, Aurigny does not have a 'primary objective' and the objectives that it does have are set by its shareholder, the States of Guernsey; not by its management. You will find the full list of shareholder objectives in Schedule 1 of the MoU signed between the islands' governments and Aurigny here (http://www.alderney.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=100877&p=0).

The rot set in when Guernsey States started to push towards being an airline because they wanted it to safeguard their Gatwick route. The inevitable result was that Aurigny went down the pan like all the other conventional airlines and Guernsey nationalised it.
You seem to have your history terribly mixed up. Aurigny did not operate the Gatwick route before nationalisation, and the States of Guernsey did not buy Aurigny because it was going 'down the pan'. It did so because it did not wish to depend on a sole operator for an air route that was of strategic importance with regard to its main industry.

However they have not learned from history
Aurigny has changed a great deal since 1968. Most airlines have. Back then the word 'compliance' was an insult, rather than an operational necessity. I can only recommend you try setting up a 'flexible "bush-flying" operation with minimal overheads' under EU OPS and see how far you get.

To be quite frank I'm not sure who it should fall to to pronounce on Sir Derrick Bailey's historic objectives but I'm fairly certain you'd have a greater entitlement to do so if you could even spell the man's name.

Jerbourg

31st Mar 2016, 15:33

I was told today that two leased AT7's are due later this year to replace COBO & VZON as they both come up for a major check. I wonder leased models will actually replace the BO & ON or just cover for maintenance?

Johnm

31st Mar 2016, 16:28

Apologies to Sir Derrick's shade for the inadvertent misspelling.

However I sat in a public meeting where the Directors of Aurigny specifically stated that their primary objective was the security of the Gatwick Guernsey "lifeline route" and that nothing much else mattered as far as they were concerned, unless it contributed to that goal.

It remains a fact that the rot set in when Aurigny began to behave like an airline instead of a bush flying operation. Citywing run a successful operation following the correct model with LET410 and I see it every day at Gloucestershire airport.

RexBanner

31st Mar 2016, 20:20

Aurigny also changed overnight with the 9/11 attacks. Tucked away in its own little corner of the airport in Jersey with no security screening (the bags were never screened either!) and an intimate service almost akin to a bus route. The very next morning after 9/11 (I remember it well) that area ceased to exist and the operation was shunted up to the western end of the pier at Gates 6 &7 with passengers and bags subjected to full screening (in case Al Qaeda wanted to take out a beach hut with a trislander). I'm not suggesting that has led to the airline's downfall but it certainly didn't help with the level of inter island traffic and a small contribution at least.

kcockayne

31st Mar 2016, 20:31

A bit harsh there, Aero Mad. You may well be correct with your version of "the facts" , but it is also a fact that AUR were a very small scale airline & that they are not profitable now that they have expanded beyond the Inter Island service ; & have the "dead hand" of The States of Guernsey in control.

Johnm

1st Apr 2016, 06:27

Rexbanner, 9/11 affected all air services ops of course but as it happens small scale operations don't have to follow the full monty under EASA rules provided they have a robust, risk assessed and proportionate operation. Again we see this in action with Citywing at Gloucestershire.

RexBanner

1st Apr 2016, 06:37

Johnm, with respect, I don't think you know or understand the situation at Jersey Airport at the time (and currently). There are no common sense procedures. Aurigny were forced to move lock, stock and barrel. Nobody in the company voluntarily asked to be stuck out in Gates 6&7 with no air conditioning, having to fax load and trim sheets back and forward between check in and the departure gates and having to clear security to go down to the cargo apron and pick up a fully screened box of strawberries going up to Alderney. The passengers suddenly went from being able to walk through the airport door, turn right and be in the departure lounge to being subjected to full security, then the longest possible walk in Jersey airport. This was not a situation of the company's choosing and, had they the opportunity, I'm sure they would have tirelessly worked to exploit any alleviation they could have possibly found.

Johnm

1st Apr 2016, 10:01

I do understand Rexbanner and I accept that Aurigny's difficulties were undoubtedly exacerbated by unsympathetic management at Jersey and more especially at Guernsey Airports who seem incapable of giving Aurigny's local small scale ops the simple facilities required under the rules, instead subjecting them to the full (costly) monty. Basically the problem can summed up in a sentence. Aurigny management with delusions of BA and airport management with delusions of Gatwick!

V12

1st Apr 2016, 21:47

Personally I doubted the decision to acquire the 228s from the outset; surely the Cessna 208 EX Grands would make much more sense: you get 3 news ones for the price of 1x228; lowest operating cost; least number of empty seats flown in low season, but able to operate high frequencies in high season. The passengers would take to them instantly and the Pratt engine is bulletproof, as the CAA recognise, and EASA is about to.
I think entry into service would be much easier too.
Maybe that's what you actually mean by bush flying operations, Johnm?

AirportPlanner1

1st Apr 2016, 22:11

At some point in the mid to late 90s (1997?) GR were flying 3 or 4x daily to STN with a Saab. I recall they were also going to AMS and MAN? So they were a 'proper airline' some time before LGW came on the scene.

Is that version correct?

V12

1st Apr 2016, 22:17

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that single-engine IFR operations in the public transport category are not permitted under EASA-OPS.

The best a/c for the route is the Twotter, IOS Skybus use them on high frequency, short sectors.

CAA have signed off on SET-IFR on public transport and have been positive about it for some time. They would permit it for the right carrier with the right approach.
EASA are almost there; sign off expected in less than a year.
DHC6 is still 3x the cost of the 208 for less than twice the seats, and too big for low season, resulting in heavy losses when flown < half full; at that level 208 is still profitable. I would guess it would break even with 6 on board.

Johnm

2nd Apr 2016, 06:54

The choice of aircraft was limited by the runway at Alderney. Viable options on performance were Dornier 228, Twotter, LET410 and Trislander.

The most flexible for a mix of passengers, medevac and freight is the Trislander which has been doing the job for 40 years.

Dornier chosen partly because when cross wind performance looked at it appears Aurigny management can't tell the difference between demonstrated and actual performance limit.

Trislander ruled out because it doesn't look like an airliner, despite the fact they could have bought 5 brand new ones for the price of a Dornier and B-N were willing to build them on that basis. Moreover it has taken longer to get the Dorniers into service than it would have to build the Trislanders.

HWY4A

2nd Apr 2016, 09:51

Johnm

2nd Apr 2016, 11:20

You'd have to ask Aurigny why they fastened on the Dornier, it's mystery to everybody else.

I suspect they were naïve when looking around on the second hand market.

Most of the issues in operating a Dornier instead of the Trislanders seem to have come as a surprise, which is why it has taken upwards of two years and counting to start getting them into service.

kcockayne

2nd Apr 2016, 12:45

Johnm

Don't go starting that argument again, just when everyone has started to cool down !

five zero by ortac

9th Apr 2016, 11:19

Anyone know where G-SAYE is ??

Hermite

9th Apr 2016, 17:37

G-SAYE went to Denmark a few weeks ago. I was wondering where G-BWDB is - not been seen for a few weeks now.

Jerbourg

9th Apr 2016, 18:19

I believe that DB is/was suffering some corrosion issues.

ATR 72 LY-MCA is expected at GCI Sunday evening as flight GR101P, could this be to cover for the 'sick' DB?

xtypeman

9th Apr 2016, 19:10

With SAYE going to Denmark one wonders if its being changed back to 202K. Or is it being prepared for disposal as there are some 212K's coming available.

Hermite

9th Apr 2016, 19:40

Aurigny have a second 212NG on order. I haven't seen any estimates of the delivery date though. My guess would be that G-SAYE will be disposed of after delivery of the new a/c, assuming that they still intend to operate with three Dorniers.

Hermite

10th Apr 2016, 09:58

ATR 72 LY-MCA is expected at GCI Sunday evening as flight GR001P, could this be to cover for the 'sick' DB?

I wonder how 'sick' DB is.

bmaviscount

10th Apr 2016, 19:41

Just checking flight radar and was wondering why the LCY was routing via the south coast snd not crossing the channel at Rye adding 30 mins to the flight time

cobopete

10th Apr 2016, 20:28

LCY flight shown on Flight Info screen as diverted to SOU........anyone with more info?

PS MCA has arrived at GCI see pic on Guernsey Airport Photograhy on Flickr.com

Hermite

10th Apr 2016, 20:31

Just checking flight radar and was wondering why the LCY was routing via the south coast snd not crossing the channel at Rye adding 30 mins to the flight time

The flight is showing on Guernsey arrivals as having diverted to Southampton.

It looks as though the arrival in GCI of LY-MCA yesterday evening was rather timely. G-HUET is only just returning from SOU after diverting there.

Geo73

11th Apr 2016, 18:18

Titan Airways A320 G-POWM is operating for Aurigny today.

cobopete

11th Apr 2016, 20:14

GNSEY on routine mtce see airport web site and photos on Guernsey Airport Photgraphy GNSEY back on stand now (2130) and Airbus gone!

Pete

Hermite

14th Apr 2016, 10:37

It looks as though G-SAYE is on its way back from Denmark - currently over the Netherlands (11:36).

On the ground at GCI, approx 14:00.

And is now in service (15/4 GR238). I wonder what work was done in Denmark.

Hermite

6th May 2016, 15:04

G-OAUR has just gone to Oberpfaffenhofen - back to RUAG for some work I assume.

Jerbourg

6th May 2016, 20:11

G-OAUR suffered damage to the nose section in a ground handling incident in ACI, so I expect its return to RUAG is something to do with that.

Rivet Joint

8th May 2016, 21:30

Where is G-LGIS? Honestly, is there a more badly run airline than GR? Can't all be just bad luck surely. After the delays in introducing a tri replacement (many many years) they now have 3 of the bloody things yet the tri is still flying the SOU route.

Hermite

20th May 2016, 17:30

G-OAUR arrived back from Oberpfaffenhofen today, and went straight into service. G-LGIS was also out for the first time in several weeks.

Aero Mad

21st May 2016, 19:05

Aurigny has ordered a second new-build Dornier 228 from RUAG for delivery in Q3 2017.

RUAG: Second new-production Dornier 228 aircraft for Aurigny Air Services (http://www.ruag.com/space/media/media-releases/news/second-new-production-dornier-228-aircraft-for-aurigny-air-services/8791c13fd0831822039143363ca955d7/)

Hermite

27th May 2016, 20:12

It looks as though Aurigny are having problems with G-SAYE - Airline baggage issue ?putting people off visiting Alderney? « Guernsey Press (http://guernseypress.com/news/2016/05/27/airline-baggage-issue-putting-people-off-visiting-alderney/). I wonder if this arises as G-SAYE is on the UK register as a Do228-200 whereas it appears it was a Do228-202K when they bought it as D-IFLM. Did the conversion of this aircraft in its earlier days satisfty the German authorities but not the CAA? Maybe this is why the Trislanders are still running, but does leave the question as to why G-LGIS isn't being used with G-SAYE in reserve.

xtypeman

28th May 2016, 10:01

The question of -200 or -202K is strange. This may be down to changes caused by EASA. When Air Wales got there first 228 (G-RGDT) it was a -200 but the CAA would not allow it on the register until it was upgraded to a -202K. The visual clues are the rear horizontal strakes. At the same time Sukling had also had to upgrade there fleet as well.

Hermite

28th May 2016, 10:18

G-SAYE definitely doesn't have the strakes so it is difficult to see how it could have been classified as a -202K when it was registered in Germany. I wonder if Aurigny paid for what they thought was a -202K and ended up with a -200 with its significantly lower MTOW.

xtypeman

29th May 2016, 09:32

Hermite I have to agree she was never fitted with the strakes therefore it must have always been a -200. It is shown on G-INFO as a -200. Maybe she is the interim ship and will be the first to be replaced as that loss of 500kgs is very significant. Again it maybe a cost issue maybe the conversion is too expensive to do on this aircraft.

Hermite

10th Jun 2016, 07:09

I think that I spotted G-SAYE being refuelled a couple of times at ACI on the webcam. If I'm correct in this and Jet-A1 is now available, I wonder if this has solved the problem of having to offload luggage to get the weight down (see the link in my post of 27 May).

five zero by ortac

10th Jun 2016, 12:34

Yes, JetA1 is available as of yesterday. Currently limited to Aurigny use only until everyone's trained. Paperwork has taken ages.
No, it wont' solve G-SAYE's payload problems, but it will help a bit.

bmaviscount

18th Jun 2016, 14:39

So has Aurigny pulled out of Jersey completely? Seems a travesty that the Jersey Guernsey route is now operated by 'flybe'

kcockayne

18th Jun 2016, 14:59

You've got it in one, viscount. No more AUR in Jersey !

hapzim

19th Jun 2016, 08:02

Fly Be / Blue Island SOU prices have also gone up now with the code share, just as well we have Aurigny with options to lots of other UK destinations. Bring back an early/late Amsterdam service on the ATR please.

Hermite

29th Jul 2016, 20:17

Just curious, but are Aurigny still bouncing passengers' luggage off the SOU - ACI flights?

Buster the Bear

30th Jul 2016, 09:47

Aurigny charters boat to ferry Guernsey passengers during Alderney Week | Channel - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-07-30/aurigny-charters-boat-to-ferry-guernsey-passengers-during-alderney-week/?)

Jerbourg

30th Jul 2016, 11:24

G-LGIS last flew 8 July & is now out of action with corrosion issues.
The Dornier shambles continues..

HWY4A

6th Aug 2016, 07:39

Aurignys Norwich service declaring an emergency and looks like diverting Stansted

NickBarnes

6th Aug 2016, 10:57

Looks like pax on the NWI-GCI are being rebooked onto services from East Midlands and Gatwick later in the day according to the website

Jerbourg

6th Aug 2016, 11:29

There's not many weeks go by where the AT4 doesn't have an issue of one sort or another.

Hermite

6th Aug 2016, 17:32

I wonder what the emergency was. The a/c seems to be still in Stansted according to FR24.

Jerbourg

7th Aug 2016, 08:34

The aircraft is indeed still at STN & is in need of an engine change (again), I assume it will be there for a few days.

Jerbourg

9th Aug 2016, 16:17

Aurigny ?UK?s third-worst short haul airline for delays? « Guernsey Press (http://guernseypress.com/news/2016/08/09/aurigny-uks-third-worst-short-haul-airline-for-delays/)

Allegedly ramp staff refused to stay late to cover the BCN flight last weekend, so the flight had to be unloaded by pax staff... Is this true or has the GCI grapevine got this wrong does anyone know?

five zero by ortac

9th Aug 2016, 16:22

Does anyone know what the situation is with Tris G-BDTO ?
Its not flown since the end of June.

Hermite

20th Aug 2016, 09:20

It looks from FR24 that G-BWDB is still at EMA after yesterdays flight (G-COBO had to go to the rescue). I wonder what happened.

Jerbourg

21st Aug 2016, 13:25

DB arrived back into GCI at approx. 2100 yesterday & is back in service today.

cobopete

23rd Aug 2016, 16:27

GBDTO flew GCI to ACI this pm. You may be able to track next leg on FR24 if you're quick. Noticed since 2 other tris on ramp at GCI.(via aurigny webcam - aurignycam.com).
Now back on Stand 1 GCI at 1730.

Pete

Jerbourg

26th Aug 2016, 17:07

ATR G-BWDB is due to leave the Aurigny fleet in the next few weeks & be converted into freighter config. Has anyone heard what will be it's replacement?

GCILover

26th Aug 2016, 17:20

Do they need a replacement?. I'm not sure if they have all 4 ATR's flying at the same time. Maybe during peak season when they increase the weekend flying to the UK but not sure about other times.

BOHEuropean

26th Aug 2016, 22:25

Where has the information on G-BWDB come from? Its owned by Aurigny so that would mean it's been sold? Hasn't it just had major maintenance and a repaint?

Also, any word yet on a return to service for G-LGIS??

Jerbourg

27th Aug 2016, 07:06

The fourth ATR is used on schedules but is often kept as a 'spare' & due to frequent tech issues gets well utilised. However the 68 seat DB not ideal for covering full loads on BO & ON as they are 72 seat & none of the ATR's are useful in covering full loads when the Embraer goes tech - this under capacity cover often leaves pax stranded.

BOHEuropean - I had the info from a good source who is usually spot on with his information.

five zero by ortac

27th Aug 2016, 11:46

BWDB is not owned by Aurigny, it is leased. COBO & VZON were purchased.

BOHEuropean

27th Aug 2016, 13:02

@Jerbourg, thanks for the update! Appreciate the response.

@five zero by ortac, according to the CAA it is owned by Aurigny - see below - it would be listed as "Chartered" if it was leased.

Ownership Status: Owned
Registered Owners: AURIGNY AIR SERVICES LTD
STATES AIRPORT, PLANQUE LANE
FOREST
GUERNSEY
GY8 0DT

Aircraft operated by AOC Holder: AURIGNY AIR SERVICES LTD

Hermite

27th Aug 2016, 16:39

@BOHEuropean: I spotted G-LGIS on the webcam a couple of days ago - looked to be returning to the hangar area down the taxiway. It didn't show up as having flown anywhere on FR24, but maybe a quick flight didn't get captured for some reason.

Jerbourg

28th Aug 2016, 08:17

Confirmed - another 72 will be joining the fleet after DB departs, when however is another matter.

Hermite

3rd Sep 2016, 09:43

G-LGIS flew to Oberpfaffenhofen yesterday, presumably as part of the corrosion related maintenance. Maybe this will see IS back in service before too long.

Hermite

14th Sep 2016, 22:16

I keep reading comments elsewhere that Aurigny's flights to Alderney are expensive (they vary between £46 and £61 for a one way journey), and started to wonder whether this really was the case or whether the prices that the large lccs manage to charge, presumably with subsidies, just make it seem that the prices are way too high. I have no inside information to help me with this, but managed to find some of the costs that the airline will have to pay when running the service on the internet.

Assuming 12 passengers per flight GCI/ACI:

ACI short haul landing / taking off £6 per tonne or part thereof .... £42 .... per passenger £3.50
ACI per passenger £2.30.
ACI per passenger security £2.19
ACI parking £27.67 .... per passenger ... £2.30

GCI short haul landing / taking off £5.16 per tonne or part thereof .... £36.12 .... per passenger £3.01
GCI per passenger £0.90.
GCI per passenger security £2.5
GCI parking £28.16 .... per passenger ... £2.34

Pilots: Assume 4 pilots per Dornier @£55k p.a., and 10 flights per day .... £60 per flight ... £5 per passenger (a guess)
Similar amount for ground handling .... £5 per passenger (a guess)

Insurance - £40,000 pa ... £1 per person / flight

Fuel .... £22.50 ... £1.87 per passenger

Total so far .... £31.01 per passenger per flight.

Maintenance ????

Depreciation of aircraft ????

Ticketing, office costs, etc ????

Any thoughts and/or additions to my rough figures?

Feet on ground

15th Sep 2016, 08:24

It will take more than 4 pilots to run an aircraft 7 days a week, it would take four pilots (2 people in each crew, 1 crew for the morning, one for the afternoon) flying each day and they can probably only work 5 days a week, then there is standby cover in case of sickness, then training and annual leave. Probably 8-10 pilots per aircraft. Say 8 at average £45k salary = £360k annually or £1000 per day, if each aircraft does 10 flights a day then the crew for each flight costs about £100, or each or £8.33 per passenger.

Just guesses, but I think closer to reality than £5.

Aircraft cost 7m euros @ 8% interest = 560,000 euros per year plus depreciation of 10% makes 700,000 per year. So interest and depreciation 1,260,000 euros per year convert to £ =1, 070,000 divided by 365 = £2931 per day, or £293 per flight, or £8.42 per passenger.

Your fuel cost looks very low.

Ticket office costs: No idea

Travel agent costs?

Booking system costs?

Compensation and hotels etc during fog?

Airline overheads

Navigation costs

More cost info here

http://compair.aviationresearch.com/pdf.aspx?action=print_aircraft_report&id=408&document_id=3

cobopete

17th Sep 2016, 07:58

Guernsey Airport Photography has pic of GBWDB replacement at GCI.

Hermite

17th Sep 2016, 10:18

I can't see a pic of OY-RUB but there is a pic of G-BWDB with its new registration of HB-ALQ. I wonder when a proper replacement will arrive - the chartered a/c is older than the one they have just sold.

cobopete

18th Sep 2016, 19:07

I'd not considered the possibility that it was WDB reregistered on her way out...............we'll just have to wait and see what the replacement is.........a tad newer I hope!

Hermite

1st Oct 2016, 17:05

All of the Aurigny a/c (including G-JOEY) are showing on GINFO as having a potential change of registered ownership in progress. I wonder what is going on.

Jerbourg

2nd Oct 2016, 13:36

Maybe they are being 'sold' to a holding/leasing company & being leased back to GR?

ATR equipment is being used on the GCI-BCN next year I hear...

hapzim

3rd Oct 2016, 01:36

2 reg AOC ?

Jerbourg

3rd Oct 2016, 06:23

I don't think 2 reg allows commercial airline ops.

Hermite

3rd Oct 2016, 07:05

And in any case wouldn't involve a change in ownership.

kar42

3rd Oct 2016, 08:48

Might be something to do with the £300m States of Guernsey Bond issue - refinancing of Goverment owned assets such as Aurigny?

hapzim

3rd Oct 2016, 15:40

2 reg now good for AOC's

radiosutch

4th Oct 2016, 21:23

Are there any Aurigny staff here on PPRuNe ?
I heard something about an email today to staff. Anything of interest ?
Maybe nothing.
Related to the huge losses reported today?

HeartyMeatballs

4th Oct 2016, 21:59

You mean the £4,600,000 losses?

Hermite

16th Oct 2016, 10:09

It is reported in the Guernsey Press that a composite a/c is to be made up from the two second hand Aurigny Dorniers (G-SAYE and G-LGIS). I wonder what is behind this? G-LGIS went to Oberpfaffenhofen on 3 September and hasn't returned and G-SAYE hasn't been in service since I think 4 September. G-SAYE isn't really suitable for Aurigny as it can't take a full passenger load with their luggage as a Do228-200 (500 kg lower MTOW than G-LGIS and 700 kg lower than G-OAUR), so maybe it does make sense to use the best bits of both a/c to make a single one. If they are doing this, I'm surprised that G-SAYE hasn't also gone to Oberpfaffenhofen.

SWBKCB

16th Oct 2016, 10:30

Unless they were bought with this in mind, doesn't say a lot for the original purchase decision?

kar42

21st Oct 2016, 11:25

Island FM -joey-officially-de-registered/ (http://www.islandfm.com/joey-officially-de-registered/)

Looking at the G-INFO data for all of Aurigny's aircraft the pending change of ownership details appears to have been little more than tidying up the spacing in the address.

toscana24

21st Oct 2016, 19:25

At least the other 3 Trislanders are still going strong. The Do228 NG flew GCI/ACI this evening - first Dornier service for a week. I hope it enjoyed its week off - G-SAYE is still on its extended vacation (must be nearing 2 months). I dread to think what the true cost per seat mile for the Dornier fleet is!

Hermite

22nd Oct 2016, 11:44

They don't seem to keep all possible a/c in service at the same time - perhaps it was G-OAUR's turn for a week off. As to G-SAYE - that is the one that can't carry the load as it is a -200 rather than a -202K (G-LGIS) so perhaps they have admitted defeat with it. I don't suppose they paid too much for either of the old Dorniers in any case. When will G-LGIS be back from Germany I wonder, or is there some truth in the rumour that G-LGIS and G-SAYE are to be combined in some way (there are loads of odd rumours floating around, but this one found its way into the Guernsey Press)?

Jerbourg

30th Oct 2016, 07:24

In yesterdays Guernsey Press there was a report about fuelling facilities in ACI & in it Aurigny's Dornier 228's were mentioned, of particular interest was the line ' the now retired G-SAYE'. I wonder how many flying hours this airframe clocked up in total in it's limited time with Aurigny?

I suppose it can now join the Trislander at the proposed G-JOEY museum!

Hermite

30th Oct 2016, 18:54

Interesting, but perhaps not too surprising, that G-SAYE has been retired from the Aurigny fleet. Curious as to how much you would have to pay to buy a 30 year old Dornier 228.

cobopete

3rd Nov 2016, 14:24

Hermite;9561674]Interesting, but perhaps not too surprising, that G-SAYE has been retired from the Aurigny fleet. Curious as to how much you would have to pay to buy a 30 year old Dornier 228.

SAYE currently on stand outside AngloNormandy hangar........on its way out?

Pete

Hermite

3rd Nov 2016, 16:08

I'm still intrigued as to how this a/c successfully operated serving the Isle of Man whilst operating for Manx2 as D-IFLM. Or haven't I pick up on earlier problems?

kcockayne

3rd Nov 2016, 16:41

How many flights did this a/c manage to make with AUR during its time with them ?

Jamp

3rd Nov 2016, 17:11

Good question re its time at Manx2. Presumably it didn't have to tanker any fuel then, but IOM-GLO is a fair old sector compared to ACI-SOU.

Hermite

3rd Nov 2016, 17:21

@Jamp - the problems on the SOU-ACI route weren't solved when fuel became available in Alderney.

Hermite

3rd Nov 2016, 19:01

@cobopete - I don't think that G-SAYE is going anywhere at the moment. Unless I am very much mistaken, its tailplane is missing.

cobopete

3rd Nov 2016, 19:20

Hermite - you're right! It'll take some replacement work before she goes anywhere, what do u think is the reason they have wheeled her out? Is it for engine checks? She has disappeared from time to time, perhaps for engine runs.
Pete

Hermite

3rd Nov 2016, 19:22

@cobopete - They wheeled G-NSEY in there earlier this afternoon, so maybe to make room for that. I wonder though why they have removed the tailplane.

Hermite

4th Nov 2016, 16:16

@cobopete - G-SAYE seems from the webcam to be out again, and the engines appeared to be running.

Rivet Joint

5th Nov 2016, 15:56

Anyone know when the next new Dornier is due? I read somewhere that it's not until 3rd quarter next year. Seems a long time away. Are those horrible trislanders ever going to go away? Bloody nuisance.

cobopete

6th Nov 2016, 17:25

As far as I can work out, the Tris are due to be retired next spring (April/May?) and the new Dornier is due for delivery late summer 3 D228, 2 new and 1 old as back up will then fly the GCI-ACI - SOU services, but what is supposed to happen May to Sept I just don't know.
Pete

Skipness One Echo

6th Nov 2016, 20:39

Genuine question, why is the Trislander "horrible" and a "nuisance". Flew both this summer and the Dornier was cramped and loud IMHO with the Tris having amazing vis.

Rivet Joint

6th Nov 2016, 22:17

If you lived in Southampton, Alderney or Guernsey you would understand. The horrible little thing has plagued all our lives for nearly 40 years and it still won't go away. The Dornier is pretty quiet when flying over, it's actually quieter than a q400. I'm stunned that you say it is cramped compared to the tris, at least it has walkway.

Skipness One Echo

6th Nov 2016, 22:21

You find the external noise of a Trislander to be a plague on everyone? Ok that's interesting..... thanks.

adfly

6th Nov 2016, 22:44

I've always found them quite characterful, yes they do make a bit of a racket but for the most part they only do about 3 flights per day, not to mention they are usually at pretty sociable times...

Tech Guy

7th Nov 2016, 11:34

Definitely a unique sound, but not excessively noisy to me.
2 miles from runway end.

Gurnard

7th Nov 2016, 14:30

Recently I flew in both Dornier and Trislander on the same day. The "new" Dornier (G-OAUR) is comfortable but equally as noisy as the Trislander - at take-off and in the cruise. When it comes to landing, the Trislander is actually much quieter and gentler. The Do228 has to apply much more "brake" on landing in ALD.

The sound of A Tri is also very nostalgic. By no means "horrible Trislander"!

If it wasn't for the 3 Trislanders, Aurigny would be in an utter mess. Even this afternoon G-OAUR has gone tech and the GUR-DIN flight has been cancelled after an aborted t/o.

Gurnard

8th Nov 2016, 07:34

Skipness One Echo
I endorse your comment as I also flew on both the Do.228 and Trislander recently. Although more roomy, the Dornier IS a noisy little beast. If anything the Trislander is quieter inside. Certainly the landing is quieter in a Trislander.

FR24 shows that yesterday G-OAUR (operating GR124 to Dinard) returned to stand from r/w 09. Shortly afterwards it went into the hangar leaving Aurigny with no serviceable Dorniers. Trislander G-BDTO started out from Guernsey on GR565 but then returned. Another tech aircraft? If so, not a good day for Aurigny...

EK77WNCL

8th Nov 2016, 10:25

So... What routes do the Trislanders operate? Do they operate a regular schedule?

I'd love to try and bag one before the Spring

Gurnard

8th Nov 2016, 13:43

Trislanders are only used on Guernsey-Dinard, Guernsey-Alderney and Alderney-Southampton routes. But Do.228s are ALSO used, so you really never know which it will be till the day. I've spoken to Aurigny reservations before booking, and invariably they will tell you "Dornier" when you ask which aircraft will operate a specified flight. Most recently I could see that SOME flights would need to be operated by Trislander as the one serviceable Dornier can't do the lot. The person at reservations recognized this when told but admitted that they are "in the dark" just as much as anyone else when it comes to knowing what is actually going on with the Dornier fiasco - two aircraft being out of service long-term.
Recently it was suggested that Trislanders will continue for another five months - so you'll need to get on board before the end of March. However it's anyone's guess as the Trislanders were scheduled for retirement in April 2016 - or even earlier!:ok:

Hermite

8th Nov 2016, 18:54

G-LGIS has been in Oberpfaffenhofen for just over 2 months now. Does anyone know what was actually wrong with this a/c and when it is likely to be back?

EK77WNCL

8th Nov 2016, 20:43

So... Are you telling me to get to Guernsey, arrange to be there 3/4 days, book a flexi fare that I could transfer (if they exist) and wait until the day and hop on whichever one reservations tell me is being operated by the Tri, on that day... Hahaha :P

Gurnard

8th Nov 2016, 21:16

EK77WNCL
Yes, that's about right. Fares to Guernsey aren't cheap so you'll have to dig deep. Aurigny reservations would advise you to purchase a flexi-type ticket (i.e the most expensive) which means if you find your booked flight is on the Dornier you can change without loss to yourself and rebook on a flight operated by a Trislander. Pretty simple, isn't it? You'll just need time and money. :ooh:

Hermite
Even Aurigny aircrew don't know what is happening with the two elderly Dorniers. I spoke to some recently and asked if there is any truth in the suggestion that a composite aircraft might be built out of G-LGIS and G-SAYE (unlikely in my opinion). They could only admit that there are various ideas but nothing seems concrete. As for G-SAYE, it was seen taxiing around a few days ago without its tailplane! Perhaps the engineers were a little short of work..... ;)

kcockayne

9th Nov 2016, 07:29

Gurnard

9th Nov 2016, 17:29

KindaUnstuck

12th Nov 2016, 22:33

Driving past the airport today I noticed Aurigny's replacement for G-BWDB has arrived and was sitting outside Anglo Normandy. According to Flight Radar it landed from Billund yesterday evening.

Current reg appears to be OY-YBO, 7 years old, frame number 891, previously flown for Azul.

Hermite

13th Nov 2016, 03:16

Quote:
Originally posted by Hermite
G-LGIS has been in Oberpfaffenhofen for just over 2 months now. Does anyone know what was actually wrong with this a/c and when it is likely to be back?

I read that the aircraft had at some time in the past been repaired with car-body filler. Might be a bit complicated undoing that, hence the trip to Oberpfaffenhofen.

I suspect that the car body filler story might be one of the many stories floating around about the Dorniers that are somewhat imaginative. These include (for the various a/c) the aircraft are too heavy to take off with passengers, the engines are too heavy for the wings, the wings are the wrong size so the a/c had to return to the factory, the floor has been reinforced with steel so there is no weight capacity left for the passengers, etc.

As for the story about combining the two older a/c, on the face of it this sounds quite a major activity if it is extensive. One story was that G-LGIS was suffering corrosion problems, but presumably this isn't everywhere. G-SAYE has lost its tail plane so maybe that has gone to be fitted to G-LGIS (corrosion in the tail maybe). G-SAYE has -10 variant engines that are higher spec than G-LGIS's -5 variants, so maybe these could be swapped. All complete guesswork on my part, but would fit with the story about a composite a/c being produced, but not such drastic work that it would make it unlikely.

Gurnard

17th Nov 2016, 08:20

ATR72 G-COBO

Returned to Guernsey yesterday evening while operating GR608 Guernsey-Gatwick. The crew reported "computer problems" and were instructed by Ops not to continue to LGW. The return track from overhead the Isle of Wight took the aircraft near to the French coast and on to a very long final for r/w 27 at Guernsey. After a normal landing most of the pax were transferred to GR610 operated by EMB195 G-NSEY.

dcp2608

17th Nov 2016, 17:48

And GR656 G-HUET turned back tonight - was just passed ACI - What is going on?

Gurnard

17th Nov 2016, 19:11

I noticed that too. Is there some kind of software problem causing this? Yesterday's flight (according to the crew) could have continued to LGW but Ops wanted G-COBO back in Guernsey rather than having a u/s aircraft in Gatwick overnight. I recall over the course of the year seeing a number of Aurigny ATR flights on radar turn back to Guernsey. Can anyone enlighten?

BOHEuropean

17th Nov 2016, 20:25

How many seats does the latest ATR have? I believe Aurigny seat 72Y but Azul had 68Y. Will they be operating this one with 4 less seats?

Gurnard

18th Nov 2016, 07:48

New ATR
How many seats does the latest ATR have? I believe Aurigny seat 72Y but Azul had 68Y. Will they be operating this one with 4 less seats?

G-LERE has 72 seats - just like G-COBO & G-VZON. The only difference is that G-LERE has all seats forward facing whereas the front rows on both -BO and -ON are rear-facing.

BOHEuropean

18th Nov 2016, 14:24

Thanks @Gurnard, appreciated!

Gurnard

18th Nov 2016, 16:13

re: G-LERE
Thanks @Gurnard, appreciated!

You're welcome!

Gurnard

21st Nov 2016, 13:25

Do.228 G-SAYE

This aircraft has been seen this afternoon outside the hangar with its tailplane fitted once again. Does that mean it might be about to fly?

Meanwhile G-OAUR hasn't flown since last Monday (14th). Have the engineers taken its tail apart to see how to get SAYE fixed?

While the Dornier fiasco continues, the Trislanders have kept the Alderney, Southampton and Dinard services going. Perhaps Aurigny would have done better to scour the globe for another Trislander and forget about the Dornier deal.:hmm:

Gurnard

21st Nov 2016, 15:38

And GR656 G-HUET turned back tonight - was just passed ACI - What is going on?

Further to dcp2608's post last week, another abandoned flight to report... This time Aurigny's latest ATR72 acquisition G-LERE, operating GR626 from Guernsey to Stansted, returned to Guernsey shortly after passing Alderney. The replacement flight, GR1626, is being operated by G-VZON. Indeed, what is going on??

Hermite

21st Nov 2016, 15:42

"Meanwhile G-OAUR hasn't flown since last Monday (14th). Have the engineers taken its tail apart to see how to get SAYE fixed?"

I don't think that you should necessarily assume that G-OAUR is out of service with a fault. They seem to roster the a/c for the ACI routes with at least one out of service at any one time - you can see that if you look back at the Trislander activity. It may just be that it is UR's turn for a week off. Crew rostering may also affect which a/c are operational at a given time.

As for G-SAYE - it is interesting to see all this activity with the a/c as it has been reported to have been WFU. Are they preparing it for disposal I wonder.

Gurnard

21st Nov 2016, 15:54

If G-OAUR is not flying, what are all the Dornier captains and first officers doing? A whole week and no Dornier in the air? Are ALL the crew members on leave?? :bored: G-OAUR only had a week off for maintenance in mid-October.

Where has it been reported that G-SAYE has been WFU? G-info gives no indication of this.

Hermite

21st Nov 2016, 16:22

G-SAYE is reported as WFU at Aurigny Air Services Fleet List (http://www.jethros.org.uk/fleets/fleet_listings/aurigny_air_services.htm). It was also reported in the Guernsey Press. Bearing in mind that G-SAYE is a Do228-200 rather than a higher spec a/c and consequently has a lower MTOW (by 500kg compared with G-LGIS and 700kg compared with G-AOUR), this is not perhaps surprising. The interesting question is did it have a higher allowed MTOW when on the German register as D-IFLM and operating to the Isle of Man? There are -201 and -202 versions that have a higher MTOW, and a -200 can be converted to one of those. Maybe (and I'm guessing) a conversion was accepted by the German authorities but not the UK ones.

As to G-OAUR - maybe some of the crews operate both types of a/c and the rostering simply means that the Trislanders were all operating last week. This isn't necessarily implying a fault with the a/c.

Gurnard

21st Nov 2016, 17:05

Not sure how "official" Jethro's listing is. I suspect it is assisted by snippets of information. As for the Guernsey Press, one wonders sometimes where their stories come from. I would therefore be cautious in assuming that G-SAYE is WFU - especially when it has been seen in a more airworthy state today than it was last week.

Jerbourg

21st Nov 2016, 17:55

The Guernsey Press report mentioned above was actually an interview with a member of the management team, so I would assume the info reported re G-SAYE is correct.

Hermite

21st Nov 2016, 18:03

WFU may mean withdrawn from the Aurigny fleet, but the a/c may still be sold on for a more appropriate use for a -200 variant. It certainly doesn't look as though they are scrapping the a/c - as Gurnard notes it has had its tail plane reinstalled, and they were also running the engines outside the hangar on at least a couple of occasions earlier in the month.

Gurnard

21st Nov 2016, 18:34

Thanks, Jerbourg. If it was a member of Aurigny's management team, one would assume it is a correct statement. (Cynics, of course, would point out that there's a lot of evidence that some folk at the top don't really have much of a clue what they are doing.) Let's hope Hermite's hypothesis is correct. The sooner Aurigny part company with G-SAYE, the better. It's hardly paid its way! :ouch:

Gurnard

22nd Nov 2016, 08:32

G-SAYE

As I write G-SAYE is actually in the air, visible on FR24 heading south from Guernsey.

Presumably it was an airtest as the callsign was GR400T. Landed after 2hrs 15mins aloft.

xtypeman

22nd Nov 2016, 10:58

It could be that SAYE is going to flown out to a suitable facility to be parted out to act as a Christmas tree for spares. I believe it has higher rated engines than LGIS so there are two major parts.

Xtype

Gurnard

22nd Nov 2016, 14:39

G-SAYE

After a second airtest this afternoon G-SAYE has operated GR261 Alderney-Guernsey. Back in service?? :eek:

cobopete

22nd Nov 2016, 17:30

[QUOTE=Gurnard;9586353]G-SAYE

"After a second airtest this afternoon G-SAYE has operated GR261 Alderney-Guernsey. Back in service?? "

1828.......on finals at GCI on return leg, looks like in service.

Gurnard

22nd Nov 2016, 19:58

G-SAYE

Thanks, cobopete. After no flying since the 7th September when we understood on good authority that this machine was WFU, all who have speculated about its future seem to have been proved wrong. Extensive airtests today have been followed by it operating GR261, GR282 and GR287. Thoughts of disposal or a composite aircraft being built may need to be forgotten. Does anyone know if this is a genuine "return to service" or a short-term exercise to prove that the aircraft is good for someone else to buy?

kcockayne

22nd Nov 2016, 22:25

I have said it before, & I will say it again; the whole Dornier fiasco has been a complete farce. How long has it taken AUR to get this aeroplane into part time service ? And, still the BN3 soldiers on !

Gurnard

23rd Nov 2016, 07:48

Fiasco is the word. Aurigny staff (aircrew, ground handlers, reservations) don't know what is going on. Evidently the management don't either. :ugh: According to an earlier post it was someone from Aurigny's management who stated in the Guernsey Press that G-SAYE was WFU. If the Press did report correctly, why has this aircraft that has been plagued with problems returned to service? Also, why is G-OAUR not flying again? Finally, there's been no news of G-LGIS since its one way trip to Germany on the 2nd September. Is it being worked on or simply being parked (an Aurigny speciality)?

kcockayne

23rd Nov 2016, 07:59

Yes, any airline can have problems introducing a new type to service. But, it has taken an inordinate amount of time to get these a/c into regular service; & to replace the BN3 - both of which have not happened yet. Then, there are the continuing stories about the various Doernier a/c - not all of which can be totally untrue. Has anyone forgotten the saga of the original lease of the Portuguese a/c ? - which also seemed to go on forever, without much, if any, explanation.
Is there any chance of a definitive answer to all the questions ? Probably not; at least, not from AUR !

Gurnard

23rd Nov 2016, 08:10

Correct. Being "States-owned" (i.e. nationalized) seems to allow the management to hide from reality. They seem to lurch from one project to another.
The Portugese a/c you mention is G-LGIS. I have been told by someone who has flown it that it was not in good shape and hadn't been looked after in its earlier life. Yet Aurigny (blindly or in desperation?) bought it. All this beggars belief.

Harry Wayfarers

23rd Nov 2016, 10:26

kcockayne

23rd Nov 2016, 10:28

Well, Gurnard, we seem to be pretty much in agreement about AUR, it's management & the States ownership - which in some respects was a "good idea" when it originally happened i.e. protect the Gatwick slots. But, it has evolved into a situation where the AUR management seem to be pretty much divorced , & cushioned from, reality. I warned of this potential development when the States bought the airline. Although the States don't own Condor, there appear to be parallels there ! It seems to me that both companies are somewhat "playing at being transport companies" without facing up to their responsibilities. Certainly, some very bad mistakes have been made &, although Condor have been forced to face up to reality, AUR still seems to live in "cloud cuckoo land" !

kcockayne

23rd Nov 2016, 11:45

Over the past months I have enjoyed, somewhat immensely, the sagas of AUR and the Do228's ... I hasten to add that in a previous life I worked with DHC6's and by comparison the Do228 is a 'sports' model.

Incompetences, mistakes, have been going on since aviation, indeed, life, began, the only difference now being, in the 21st century, that we have the world wide web whereas armchair enthusiasts believe they have a right to demand airline directors to become answerable on such a rumour network as PPRuNe.

As I've said I've enjoyed immensely the sagas of, particularly, the Do228 but may I respectfully suggest that if any of you have a genuine, fare paying, grievance to grind with AUR then you perform it through AUR's recognised grievance procedure(s) and, by all means, feel free to post the outcome of your complaint(s) here. :)
I don't think that I have any such rights, Harry. However, if I was a Guernsey taxpayer I would very much believe that I did have that right. But, I am a Guernseyman with a lifelong interest & professional employment within the air transport industry. As such, I would very much like to know the answers to all these questions. I do believe that I have a right to ask them & to question AUR's actions, & inactions, on this forum. If not, what on earth is the reason for its existence ?