Coates pulls Plan B and says: ‘I no longer trust Aurigny MD’
Friday 30th July 2010, 11:30AM BST.
BLUE ISLANDS owner Derek Coates yesterday withdrew his informal Plan B option to explore co-operative working with Aurigny Air Services to find economies for both airlines rather than a full takeover of the loss-making States-owned carrier.
Blue Islands owner Derek Coates. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 0998977)
Irritated by what he sees as leaks about his alternative offer to work with the Aurigny boss to help ensure his ‘no stone unturned option B’ was at least examined, he said he had always believed that the formal Plan A proposal, a straight acquisition, was best but was prepared to look at every alternative to give Aurigny a chance of saving itself.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Derek
Great PR mate, are you using the same firm as the Barclays?
Report abuse
He doesn’t trust the aurigny md? Secretly negotiating to buy the company for months and the resultant airline will result in many job losses at aurigny. Why should the aurigny md give coates any reason to trust him when coates hasn’t extended him the same courtesy?
Report abuse
I wonder what Mr Hart thinks of Mr Coates? Oh, that’s right – he can’t tell us, because he’s been gagged by Treasury. Meanwhile Mr Coates can run around denigrating Aurigny management and performance. I wonder what a professional airline manager would have to say about how Blue Islands has been run? Five types of aircraft in a fleet of 8? Ryanair has a fleet of 248……all the same type. Aurigny has two types….but five????
Report abuse
Don’t trust the MD of an airline, trust the snake oil salesman.
Report abuse
Guernsey is known as the “thinking mans’” Island.
Stands to reason then, doesn’t it, for Coates and his coterie to retrieve their toys asap and take a one way flight to Jersey.
Report abuse
FlyingScot. BI doesn’t have 5 ‘types’. Jetstream 31/32 are near identical for crew and maintenance. Trislander/Islander near identical for crew and maintenance and then the ATR42-300. Under the same classification you were using Aurigny would 3 Types, Trislander, ATR72-500 and ATR72-300. As for comparing two small regional airlines to Ryanair?!
Report abuse
This has got to stop. T&R cannot allow their airline and its management to be discredited, and the morale of its 280 staff sapped and destroyed over the next three months by the very man they hail as its saviour. It absolutely stinks. We cannot wait until the States debate in October for action. T&R know full well there is not the political support for a Blue Islands takeover. They should do the honourable thing and immediately cancel the due diligence process and allow Aurigny’s MD the freedom to speak up for himself, his company and his staff. They should then publish the report on the rationalisation of Bailiwick airlines and bring a States report about alternative ways forward. The process so far has been politically inept and doomed to failure.
Report abuse
I guess this type of nonsense was always a danger when electing a one dimensional politician like CP.
Report abuse
@Ben Green – fair enough – but three types on a much smaller business than Aurigny – which has two types? And hotels as well? Remind me why Blue Islands is so much better run than Aurigny? Yet (reportedly) loses as much money, on a much smaller business…..
@Richard Willmott – agree entirely – this has been poorly handled from the start – time to draw a line under it as you suggest.
While ‘Governments don’t run airlines’ they do need to control strategic infrastructure – which the Gatwick slots clearly are. And as the GP points out today plenty of small islands do run airlines – for the same reasons Guernsey needs to think VERY carefully before relinquishing control of Aurigny.
Report abuse
I agree with Richard, I can tell T&R this much if we go to the States in October with Aurigny management still gagged this deal will be DOA, dead on arrival.
Report abuse
I agree with Richard – this is an absolute mess of T+R’s own making, and all negotiations should be stopped. Instead of Aurigny, you would think T+R were trying to unload an old banger to the nearest scrap yard.
Aurigny was bought for very good reasons, which still exist. The emphasis should be on making Aurigny more efficient and profitable, not giving it away.
Report abuse
I have what I hope is a healthy scepticism about privatising Aurigny. Were the debate to take place tomorrow, on balance, I would probably vote the same way as Alderney Representative Willmott and Deputy Jones – against. But surely it is unwise to box oneself into a corner by committing to oppose whatever deal is put before the States at a time when so little information is known.
It seems to me that T&R are attracted to a deal essentially for two reasons – first, they believe that government shouldn’t own airlines; second, they believe it may be possible to guarantee the security of the islands’ ‘lifeline links’ while transferring Aurigny into the private sector in order to eliminate the annual taxpayers’ subsidy of the company. The first of these reasons is dogmatic, ideological nonsense, but I can understand that the second is worthy of being explored further.
T&R’s mandate includes the following: “To be responsible for the shareholders’ functions and duties in respect of the States Trading Companies and other States-owned entities.” Therefore, the Department has the authority to explore whether changes of policy, including disposing of some or all of the shareholding, may be appropriate in respect of a States-owned entity such as Aurigny. Of course, it would be improper for T&R to sell any part of the company without referring such proposals to the States of Deliberation, but they have already committed to doing that if they reach the stage where there are proposals to debate. While they are only exploring options, I think it is premature to excoriate them.
I find it particularly odd that Deputy Jones has been so vehement in his criticism of T&R for operating within its mandate and exploring future options in respect of the ownership of Aurigny when yesterday he was going to great lengths to defend another department which is in material breach of a States Resolution.
When Alderney Representative Willmott comments that T&R has allowed Aurigny’s management to be discredited, I am inclined to say that it comes as no great surprise. Only last month they allowed the same to happen to States departments by releasing information about staff numbers which was demonstrably misleading – and which still is yet to be corrected publicly.
I know that some people are concerned that T&R’s proposals may be presented to the States as a ‘done deal’. Personally, I do not have that fear. Many times departments have presented major policy proposals which the States has then rejected or amended considerably, for example: Education’s proposals to close two primary schools and T&R’s proposals to borrow externally £175m to pay for capital projects. I am sure the Aurigny-Blue Islands ‘deal’ will lose, too, if it is not in the best long-term interests of the islands.
Perhaps those members who most staunchly oppose the sale of Aurigny should spend the next two months developing a comprehensive case against the deal. That could then be put to the States as an alternative policy direction to that put by T&R. I would welcome that. It would assist the public and political debate considerably. The final paragraph of Rees Bryant’s post of 9.16am is probably a good basis upon which to establish any such alternative proposals.
Report abuse
Matt my reason for supporting the Environment department is because I see the beginnings of another witch hunt. The modest increase in bus fares is necessary to keep pace with costs and they should be congratulated for doing that. Not threatened that because they did not agree with you and your band of merry folk, that their heads were on the chopping block, you are a good friend of mine and on most things we work very well together but I have to say with your preference for government by letter with threats of “votes of no confidence” in those who incur your wrath, you are starting to look like a latter day Witch finder General. This is not a falling on your sword matter it is a matter for arguing the rights and wrongs of in the States and yes we can all take a purist view that they have broken the rules but life goes on, politics is about the art of the achievable.
As for Aurigny I am not boxing myself in, I just want a fair and open contest with both management teams on a platform putting forward their business plans for the airline, I know what T&R thinks, so lets hear from the people who actually run the airline. That’s it for me. Looking forward to the Grande Prix tomorrow.
Report abuse
Dave and Matt.
Handbags? May the Lord save us!
It would appear that we (you) can’t run a government so what chance an airline?
None methinks.
Report abuse
Gilthead
This is normal debate for deputies, there are always two sides to every issue.
Report abuse
@ Dave & Matt
Relieved to see that you finally got to the point of this issue, my wrist is positively painful, due to such a lot of scrolling down to finally find your points of view, on this post.
Whilst your type of diatribes is the norm for some current deputies – should this not be reserved for “when we are sitting” and, as such, aired on your political platforms, rather than on this forum,
I appreciate that you have now “broken up for the summer”, and may be having draw back feelings, but in my view,just leaving all your points until September would be a good idea.
Report abuse
Regarding the lengthy but informative and well considered post by Matt Fallaize:
The are a number of problems with the whole deal, as far as the general public see it, they are;
1) Lifeline links to Gatwick, all well and good having agreements and promises from a private company operating these links but if that company goes bust or hit financial difficulties what then?
2) Why has the Aurigny MD been gagged…this stinks of underhand dealing by T&R
3) As Matt says, a few projects have been rejected by the States in the past and his examples are recent issues. However, I feel there is a general public mistrust in the States and their ability to make any decisions that are truly in the long term interests of Guersney.
The whole issue is a mess and is certainly not in anybodys interests least of all the employees of Aurigny who will be wondering what their future holds. Not a nice place to be, T&R need to get this mess sorted.
Report abuse
On 31 July Matt Fallaise said “I have what I hope is a healthy scepticism about privatising Aurigny”
Sorry Matt, this is not privatising Aurigny but giving it away.
Report abuse
Well I no longer trust Aurigny or Blue Islands’ MD. Neither has the experience of running an airline profitably so the inevitable outcome of a merger is: bigger company = bigger loss. Let Blue Islands stew in their own juice and let the States replace Hart.
And just how much are the States throwing away on the ‘due diligence’ process which has no public sanction whatsoever? £££ hundreds of thousands would be my guess, does anybody at the States even know or care?
Report abuse
The big difference between Aurigny and Blue Islands is that Aurigny loses money through market conditions, whilst Blue Islands loses money through choice. Blue Islands use old, expensive planes to Jersey, offer a bus and a lounge and don’t charge enough to pay for it all. A merged airline must be able to make cuts and savings but please, under Aurigny’s management, at least they try to make money.
Report abuse