GB Airways to be no more
PaulusAr
airlines in the world, is to be no more. I guess someone made some
money on the sale and now the rest of Gibraltar will be poorer for the
loss. Easyjet will only be interested in profit and Gibraltar's
interests will not even come into the picture.
One step backwards for Gibraltar.
Jim Watt
wrote:
Yes its a pity, but I expect BA will run the service in their
name in future as its profitable.
GB rather lost it as a 'national carrier' when they
dropped the i to concentrate on other markets.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:8842i3tpei8kpe0k6...@4ax.com...
A number of things.
Easyjet has previously stated it's not interested in coming to Gib,
citing -as usual - high landing charges. However these are now the
responsibility of GoG, not MOD, so they can be as high or low as GoG wants
them to be. Carriers often cite high landing charges, esp compared to
Malaga, for not flying to Gib. NONSENSE! Given the Gib flight fill levels,
it remains more prfitable to fly to Gib than to Malaga, the difference i
landing fees seen to by just 2 or 3 more seats occupied.
I SUSPECT that Sp may have words in the ears of carriers telling them that
their slots elsewhere in Sp are at risk if they fly to Gib.
I HAVE A SOLUTION!! First, GoG should make landing charges in Gib ZERO.
No-one can undercut us, and it would be interesting to see what excuse
airlines can come up with for not coming to Gib. Second, Gib should have its
own publicily funded airline set up as a private enterprise. FOR ONCE Gib
woud be serviced by an airline whose prime concern would be to serve the
needs of Gib - leisure and busiess - rather than rely on flights to Gib by
carriers who have no interest in the place, only coming when it suits their
(short term) needs. Already we've seen many come and go, and others pull out
of routes that should have remained (Monarch, Manchester being the latest)
If none of this happens, the airport will remain unused. Why then have a new
terminal building, new roads, and what ever would the Cordoba agreement have
been for? Gib would suffer as the trip from malaga is not pleasant,
convenient, or politically sustainable.
K
zii kell
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2198642,00.html
"BA said it would start services on some of the routes operated under
the franchise, including Heathrow to Faro and Malaga and from Gatwick to
Faro, Gibraltar, Ibiza, Malaga, Palma and Tunis."
Ken
"zii kell" <huj22ml...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote in message
news:ffs7nf$fvf$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Yes indeed - and I read in today's Chronicle that Easyjet may also be flying
to Gib as from next March or thereabouts - and everyone flies to London, the
furthest north being Luton which is the home of Monarch AND Easyjet.
Will none of these 3 look again at Manchester, where all 3 already have ops?
I still think a Gib-based (and owned) airline is the best way to ensure the
connectivity that GIB needs, rather than get the intermittent connectivity
which others find intermittently profitable.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Will none of these 3 look again at Manchester
Thats north of Watford. It would become
viable should civilisation spread that far
and human settlements established.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:03:27 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Will none of these 3 look again at Manchester
>
> Thats north of Watford. It would become
> viable should civilisation spread that far
> and human settlements established.
Indeed. Living up here, earlier on today, whereas most folk in the UK (i.e.
within the M25 or SE of it) would have gone to the shops I instead waded in
a stream up to my knees trying to tickle some trout out ofthe water. I
collected a few berries from some bushes, and clubbed some small mammals. At
least tonight we'll have something to eat, as we huddle under our skins
cooking our meager repast over the log fire.
K
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ffram...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> I HAVE A SOLUTION!! First, GoG should make landing charges in Gib ZERO.
> No-one can undercut us, and it would be interesting to see what excuse
> airlines can come up with for not coming to Gib.
No landing charges? What economic model are you basing your suggestion on?
> Second, Gib should have its own publicily funded airline set up as a
> private enterprise. FOR ONCE Gib woud be serviced by an airline whose
> prime concern would be to serve the needs of Gib - leisure and busiess -
> rather than rely on flights to Gib by carriers who have no interest in the
> place, only coming when it suits their (short term) needs. Already we've
> seen many come and go, and others pull out of routes that should have
> remained (Monarch, Manchester being the latest)
In an average western developed society, half the population is made up of
elderly and the underage. The other half being employable, half of which are
productive, the remaining half lives from "el cuento". So practically 25% of
the population carries everybody else. The point is this, how could a
population of some 17,000 - 20,000 people ever afford to operate a Gov owned
airline?
> If none of this happens, the airport will remain unused. Why then have a
> new terminal building, new roads, and what ever would the Cordoba
> agreement have been for? Gib would suffer as the trip from Malaga is not
> pleasant, convenient, or politically sustainable.
The Tripartite goes, I would imagine, well beyond the emotional spectrum of
what Gib, Spain and the UK became to each other through the course of the
last 300 years. Therefore I would like to suggest that Gib Airport, still
being the only airport in the vicinity, has a tremendous future. The airline
passenger load is expected to go through another boom (pardon the
expression), Gib airport, in no small thank to Spain's huge tourist
industry, may well become a Mecca for future travellers.
Put your thinking cap on Kenneth!
Ken
"Lynx" <Ly...@broad.com> wrote in message
news:nFwUi.5723$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ffram...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I HAVE A SOLUTION!! First, GoG should make landing charges in Gib ZERO.
>> No-one can undercut us, and it would be interesting to see what excuse
>> airlines can come up with for not coming to Gib.
>
> No landing charges? What economic model are you basing your suggestion on?
Exactly.
I understand (though prefere not to pay) for car parking in town centres. It
acts as a disincentiuve for people to park and in effect block a space all
day, whereas by parking they are encouraged to park for less time, releasing
the space for others. It also raises revenue- but I wonder if it's enough to
pay for the meters, ticket machines, and the army of people who police the
affair.
Why though charge an airline for landing a 'plane? Malaga carges around £80
and Gib around £300 (I'm led to believe) for landing a 737. Why bother to
charge? Let them land for free. More will come, more will buy fuel, more
passengers will pay passenger departure tax and more will be sold in the
airport shops. The loss of £300 poer plane is more than made up by these,
and makes us more attractive to an airline whose costs are kept lower if
they come to us.
>
>
>> Second, Gib should have its own publicily funded airline set up as a
>> private enterprise. FOR ONCE Gib woud be serviced by an airline whose
>> prime concern would be to serve the needs of Gib - leisure and busiess -
>> rather than rely on flights to Gib by carriers who have no interest in
>> the place, only coming when it suits their (short term) needs. Already
>> we've seen many come and go, and others pull out of routes that should
>> have remained (Monarch, Manchester being the latest)
>
> In an average western developed society, half the population is made up of
> elderly and the underage. The other half being employable, half of which
> are productive, the remaining half lives from "el cuento". So practically
> 25% of the population carries everybody else. The point is this, how could
> a population of some 17,000 - 20,000 people ever afford to operate a Gov
> owned airline?
Because Gib is making a mint from other sources - THAT would fund the
airline to an extent. Gib buses, for exmple, operate at a loss. They are NOT
run as a busines - they are run as a SERVICE to the public. Like the GHA and
St Bernard's Hospital - not there to make a profit, there to provide a
SERVICE. An airline, like a bus service but unlike the hospital, would make
a charge for each use.
>> If none of this happens, the airport will remain unused. Why then have a
>> new terminal building, new roads, and what ever would the Cordoba
>> agreement have been for? Gib would suffer as the trip from Malaga is not
>> pleasant, convenient, or politically sustainable.
>
> The Tripartite goes, I would imagine, well beyond the emotional spectrum
> of what Gib, Spain and the UK became to each other through the course of
> the last 300 years. Therefore I would like to suggest that Gib Airport,
> still being the only airport in the vicinity, has a tremendous future.
The airtport at Malaga uis far bigger than Gib can ever be and is just 80
miles away. At somewhat greater distance but within 2-3 hrs drive are the
airports of Jerez and Seville. Remember that Monarch took its Manchester
flights from gib and transposed these - same dates, same flying times - to
Jerez. There has been intermittent talk of an airport at Jimena. All of
these can pohysically be far larger than GIB. If we wantto maintain an
airport at Gib, we need to be very cereative about it. Ifwe don't, it will
have nothing but small 'planes carrying 30 at a time to these other airports
I've mentioned in a shuttle capacity.
> The airline passenger load is expected to go through another boom (pardon
> the expression), Gib airport, in no small thank to Spain's huge tourist
> industry, may well become a Mecca for future travellers.
> Put your thinking cap on Kenneth!
Perhaps in Oz. In the Uk there are many pressure groups trying to get people
off 'planes and onto bicycles and cart horses on the grounds of
environmentalism. Strange though. It appears never to have occurred to these
folk that the last time NO-ONE had a "carbon footprint" and we all had
plenty of exercise, all ate nothing but organic food and we all lived in
harmony with nature, no-one lived much beyond 35.
K
Lynx
>
> Why though charge an airline for landing a 'plane? Malaga carges around
> £80 and Gib around £300 (I'm led to believe) for landing a 737. Why bother
> to charge? Let them land for free. More will come, more will buy fuel,
> more passengers will pay passenger departure tax and more will be sold in
> the airport shops. The loss of £300 poer plane is more than made up by
> these, and makes us more attractive to an airline whose costs are kept
> lower if they come to us.
Malaga's most probably serving a higher capacity of travellers, hence it can
charge lower fees.
> Because Gib is making a mint from other sources - THAT would fund the
> airline to an extent. Gib buses, for exmple, operate at a loss. They are
> NOT run as a busines - they are run as a SERVICE to the public. Like the
> GHA and St Bernard's Hospital - not there to make a profit, there to
> provide a SERVICE. An airline, like a bus service but unlike the hospital,
> would make a charge for each use.
You keep saying that. Who benefits from this "mint" and whose resources are
they?
> The airtport at Malaga uis far bigger than Gib can ever be and is just 80
> miles away. At somewhat greater distance but within 2-3 hrs drive are the
> airports of Jerez and Seville. Remember that Monarch took its Manchester
> flights from gib and transposed these - same dates, same flying times - to
> Jerez. There has been intermittent talk of an airport at Jimena. All of
> these can pohysically be far larger than GIB. If we wantto maintain an
> airport at Gib, we need to be very cereative about it. Ifwe don't, it will
> have nothing but small 'planes carrying 30 at a time to these other
> airports I've mentioned in a shuttle capacity.
Safe Gib airport being nothing more than a military instalation, it is the
TriPartite which will give it a promising future. Everything else is
hot-gassing.
Airports viability's measured by the volume of passengers it can service.
> Perhaps in Oz. In the Uk there are many pressure groups trying to get
> people off 'planes and onto bicycles and cart horses on the grounds of
> environmentalism. Strange though. It appears never to have occurred to
> these folk that the last time NO-ONE had a "carbon footprint" and we all
> had plenty of exercise, all ate nothing but organic food and we all lived
> in harmony with nature, no-one lived much beyond 35.
Not surprising, with the UK's inflated currency value, locals must find
other countries cheap on the go. Then again, this very travel industry could
be a drain on the balance of payment.
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ffvna...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Why though charge an airline for landing a 'plane? Malaga carges around
>> £80 and Gib around £300 (I'm led to believe) for landing a 737. Why
>> bother to charge? Let them land for free. More will come, more will buy
>> fuel, more passengers will pay passenger departure tax and more will be
>> sold in the airport shops. The loss of £300 poer plane is more than made
>> up by these, and makes us more attractive to an airline whose costs are
>> kept lower if they come to us.
>
> Malaga's most probably serving a higher capacity of travellers, hence it
> can charge lower fees.
Doesn't mean to say Gib can't drop its fees to zero if it so wished.
>
>> Because Gib is making a mint from other sources - THAT would fund the
>> airline to an extent. Gib buses, for exmple, operate at a loss. They are
>> NOT run as a busines - they are run as a SERVICE to the public. Like the
>> GHA and St Bernard's Hospital - not there to make a profit, there to
>> provide a SERVICE. An airline, like a bus service but unlike the
>> hospital, would make a charge for each use.
>
> You keep saying that. Who benefits from this "mint" and whose resources
> are they?
All of Gib benefits from all of Gib's resources.
>
>> The airtport at Malaga uis far bigger than Gib can ever be and is just 80
>> miles away. At somewhat greater distance but within 2-3 hrs drive are the
>> airports of Jerez and Seville. Remember that Monarch took its Manchester
>> flights from gib and transposed these - same dates, same flying times -
>> to Jerez. There has been intermittent talk of an airport at Jimena. All
>> of these can pohysically be far larger than GIB. If we wantto maintain an
>> airport at Gib, we need to be very cereative about it. Ifwe don't, it
>> will have nothing but small 'planes carrying 30 at a time to these other
>> airports I've mentioned in a shuttle capacity.
>
> Safe Gib airport being nothing more than a military instalation, it is the
> TriPartite which will give it a promising future. Everything else is
> hot-gassing.
> Airports viability's measured by the volume of passengers it can service.
Drop the handling fees, more will come. Volume up, viability greater.
K