Leasing planes has cost Aurigny £2m. so far
Bringing in extra planes to keep its schedules going has so far cost Aurigny ‘in the region of £2m.’, it has been revealed.
States’ Trading Supervisory Board vice-president Charles Parkinson told States members that this was the estimated gross cost of the ‘wet leasing’ arrangements that the airline had been forced to resort to, in an attempt to keep to its schedules.
The arrangements have involved hiring planes complete with flight crew.
However, Deputy Parkinson pointed out that the practice also ‘relieves Aurigny of some costs relating to its own planes’, meaning that the net cost would be lower.
He explained that these net figures would be made clear to STSB early next month, when accounts relating to April and May were due to be presented.
Standing in for STSB president Peter Roffey, Deputy Parkinson said the board had ‘made it clear to Aurigny that the ongoing disruption is unacceptable and that recovery plans need to be put in place now’.
He advised that Aurigny’s financial performance over the last two years had been successful enough to create a ‘strong cash position’, meaning that it would be unlikely that the airline would require financial assistance from the States to cover the costs of its recent problems.
Deputy Roffey met Aurigny CEO Nico Bezuidenhout on Friday and the airline had been told to prioritise passengers over financial performance in the short-term.
Deputy Parkinson said his view was that Aurigny’s plans for a transition away from the use of its Embraer jet had been ‘not sufficiently robust’, especially in light of its increased diversity of destinations.
He said the recent decision to cut services to and from Exeter, Liverpool and East Midlands were the right way to ensure stronger reliability on remaining routes.
Aurigny was obliged by aviation regulations to use its jet ‘sparingly’ between now and a scheduled service in June, he said, and disruption was likely to continue until August or September.
Deputy Parkinson concluded that Aurigny’s management had ‘questions to answer’ after having ‘allowed themselves to get into a very vulnerable position’.