MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 21st 2018 - 03:59 UTC

Falklands second commercial air link: “Flight route is done deal” believes Tim Miller

Saturday, February 24th 2018 - 08:10 UTC
Full article 9 comments
“There is of course only one economically viable and politically safe second flight route: Santiago-Falklands with a monthly landing en-route at say Neuquen” “There is of course only one economically viable and politically safe second flight route: Santiago-Falklands with a monthly landing en-route at say Neuquen”
“We do not even need the flight every midweek at the start. It’s only viable initially in summer and who would pay the airline to lose money all the rest of the time?” said Tim “We do not even need the flight every midweek at the start. It’s only viable initially in summer and who would pay the airline to lose money all the rest of the time?” said Tim
“Air freight trade with Brazil? Forget it, we are far too small, and who wants to deal with a cumbersome and corrupt bureaucratic system?”  “Air freight trade with Brazil? Forget it, we are far too small, and who wants to deal with a cumbersome and corrupt bureaucratic system?”

The following was published in the Penguin News, “Your Letters” section in response to the Falklands government last week’s release titled “Progress made towards establishing a second commercial Falkland Islands air link”

 One can assume from the press release wording, timing of release, and what was not said by an MLA in an interview on the topic recently, that the route has already been selected and is virtually a done deal. The FCO desired route being the one from Brazil and possibly with a Montevideo midpoint (already a daily flight route), initially with Mar del Plata as a monthly Argentine stopover.

If this is indeed so the following will then happen. Within a year the airline operating will come under pressure from the Argentine government to switch to a monthly landing in Buenos Aires instead, as a much more profitable route, and then a while later to landing in Buenos Aires every week, with perhaps some juicy profitable ‘prime-time’ slots at Buenos Aires airport for their other flights, as the bribe for the airline in exchange.

And hey presto, Argentina once again has the Falklands by the painful parts, because by heavy fare subsidy on their route they can quickly force LATAM to drop the existing Chile flight. It will not be so easy for some people here to then reject the second flight once it has been operating for a year or two and our economy is gaining a lot from it. It’s easier to say no at the start – not always so easy for some when you are profiting from it.
There’s no problem if a separate route could be started with Montevideo, so long as that was where it started and stopped.

There is of course only one economically viable and politically safe second flight route: Santiago-Falklands with a monthly landing en-route at say Neuquen; exactly as had been agreed with Argentina just before the Kirchner presidency killed it. We do not even need the flight every midweek at the start. It’s only viable initially in summer and who would pay the airline to lose money all the rest of the time? An additional connection with Chile – our existing airline trading partner and a country we can rely on – with daily flights to all continents and twice weekly non-stop to Heathrow.

Air freight trade with Brazil? Forget it – we are far too small for them, and who wants to deal with a cumbersome and corrupt bureaucratic system? Several have tried already.

I challenge our MLAs to come down off the fence and declare that there is only one politically acceptable route – the Chilean link. Unless of course they also favor the idea of an Argentine takeover of our Islands within the next 10-15 years as a result of the route from Brazil?

Tim Miller Stanley

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • The Voice

    None of your business Twinkle, you are irrelavent.

    Feb 24th, 2018 - 10:46 am +5
  • Swede

    If Buenos Aires (or any other Argentine city) is involved in this air link it must be under condition that the Argentines do not announce the route as a “domestic”, but as an “international” flight and that they do not use the fake name “Puerto Argentino” for Stanley.

    Feb 24th, 2018 - 11:50 am +5
  • Islander1

    Swede- you don't understand Argentina at all! No way could they accept such a flight as International - it would mean they admit the Islands are not their own Argentine territory
    as they try to tell the world.
    The name Puerto Argentino was one invented by their military dictatorship in 1982 and was to have stopped being used by Arg as part of the 1999 Agreement - but hell- when has an Argentine Govt ever kept its word after signing up to something?
    No Arg Govt could do that and expect to be alive or in office the next day - they have spent 70 years brainwashing the entire population that nasty Britain drove them out of their land in 1833!
    The main reason why their main airline could never fly to the Islands from anywhere is it would have to contact and make arrangements with the Dept of CivilAviation, Falkland Islands - a Govt they refuse to recognise the existence of in a country they claim is just full of a load of colonial implants. Hence the Next of Kin families charter flight on 26th will be another airline- not AA!

    Feb 25th, 2018 - 04:16 pm +4
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!