MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, May 29th 2022 - 02:10 UTC
Only Brazilian or Chilean airlines need apply for a second flight to the Falkland Islands from South America it was indicated in a press briefing given in Stanley at the end of December, after MLAs returned from talks in London. Read full article
Only Brazilian or Chilean airlines need apply for a second flight to the Falkland Islands from South America
What happened with the Open Sky policy them Kelpers always whine about?
Why not Uruguayan airlines...? Or Paraguayan... Or, even better, Bolivian...?
The Falkland Islands Government might support the arrangement for a couple of years, but it must be commercially viable said MLAs.
This can easily end being the most expensive per capita travel subsidy in the world...
No commercial viability for a second route to some windblown islands at the end of the world with a stagnant population...
(By the way... Whe are the official results of the 2016 Census due...? How long can it take to count some 2700 souls... that have already been counted a number of times...?)
”It was emphasized that Latam (Saturday weekly flights) was comfortable with the arrangement because it enhanced their business rather than jeopardizing it.
This is utter horse manure...
LATAM is as comfortable” with this as I would be climbing the Hudson volcano in a pair of UK size 8 boots...
Any new connection will canibalize the profit from LATAM's Punta Arenas -Monte Placentero route...
It's called 'competition'. Tends to lower prices. That may be a new concept with you, but it works very well in the real world.
The Islanders get to decide what is acceptable. Not the UK and certainly not Argentina. If you want open skies then go for it Think - you may be drowned out by the competition.
Just shows how much you know El Think. Aren't you the same visionary who has persistently forecast no oil in the Falkland Islands and, and when that was wrong no possibility of production.
So much wishful thinking, so little reality.
Think, It would be pretty logical that the best placed airline to come forward would be Latam with a Wed service SCL-MPN-SCL - exactly as they were all set to start back in 2001/2002 until the overflights permits scrapped by the incoming Kirscheners. Known route with clearly identifiable demand and Int connections etc.
Whatever route it is its nothing to do with whining Argie trolls. You lot are still persona non grata..
Poor Gauchito Drink is shocked, simply shocked, that an unrelentingly hostile country's air companies have been ruled out of the running for access to the Falklands air space. Really? ¡Qué borracho!
Argentine airlines not in the running
once they ever get it, they would probably use it as either blackmail or a sign of sovereignty.
Who on earth would fly in an Argentine plane unless they had a death wish?
If it's such a dead end with little or no returns, why are you so jealous and put out that Argentina is not included?
Canibalize is the right word... Specially, as Mr. Islander1 rightly suggest, when LATAM seems to be the only viable alternative...
You are wrong...
I have discussed the Malvinas oil issue in lenght on these pages and I have always said the same thing..:
1) We all know, since Shell found some oil during the nineties, that there is some oil down there..
2) That oil is as commercially viable today as it was during the nineties...= 0
3) Just open your eyes and look around you... Besides Bog Monster and some of his pub pals..., how many Oil men are around Puerto Estanley as we speak...
You are a bussinessman..., ain't you...?
You know perfectly that there is not enough customer base to mantain two profitable weekly flights from Malvinas...
No way... That's why the FIG(leaf) has already introduced the subsidy angle...
That would be very expensivo chay...
Providing this excellent new Argentine Govt keeps on pushing the extremists to the margins these new agreements and understandings will lead to the inevitable and Argentina will withdraw its claim to sovereignty.
Subsidised because there is not enough traffic = not enough money?
And you still feel it is unfair Argentina is not allowed.
Why would that be, apart from jealousy?
Think- Why do you think Lan were keen to start it 14 yrs ago? Current route profitable over the year - has been ever since a year after starting. 2nd and direct flight aimed also at a new market as well as augmenting current one in summer.
Namely FI-Europe link longhaul nonstop. Current MOD route is at capacity for us civilians and numbers grow. Growing demand for a Business Class type (and economy) commercial link to UK and elsewhere nonstop without all the overnight airport hassles etc etc/Latam/BA are in OneWorld so logical answer.
both operated by Latam means summer profits from both available to offset winter losses. Or - worst case scenario - one of them gets dropped midwinter - Latam like all airlines do drop route frequencies in off season.
But if the route end up via Brazil - yes agree- outlook probable collapse of one or both!
Fourteen years ago, SCL-MPN-SCL was considered...
Fourteen years ago, PUQ-MPN-PUQ was not even thought over...
If SCL-MPN-SCL were to open today..., PUQ-MPN-PUQ would suffer immensely...
Remember that you are just 2,700 Pax... ~ 50% senior... Very senior...
Think- Incorrect. The SCL-PUQ-MPN weekly route started commercially back in 1996 with Lan - 20 years ago, with a hiccup in 1999 for a few months. It had an initial financial subsidy backup available- that apart from perhaps a few weeks in winter of year one was never even asked for by the airline.
The flight has always Commenced and Ended in SCL- not PUQ! Its an internal flight(one of several a day) down to PUQ and then changes to International there - very convenient arrangement to all.
By 2002 and the start of the K Dynasty it had added 20 commercial charter flights every summer and agreement was in place for a mid week direct flight SCL-MPN-SCL, stopped by old Nestor K refusing the overflight permit request when it was applied for by Lan.
The only reason a larger airframe is not on the route now is size limitations on passenger turnarounds at MPN - due to be resolved on next year.
3000 plus of us including MPA civilians - and many military families also take hols in Chile etc, plus fishermen crews changing, tourists, business folks etc .
Latam are not daft -that why they are looking at the route and would like to expand it if the politics will allow it.
I am very skeptical about the fact that 2,700 people in the islands is a negative factor in demand of air services. LATAM seems to have a better understand that making a profit is the way to a sustainable future. Something I believe Argentine airlines still need to work on. As an illustrative example LATAM made a loss of $110million on a $12billion turnover (2014), where Aerolinas Argentinas made a $251million loss on a $1.2billion turnover(2013), and British Airways made a profit of about $1 billion on a $17billion turnover(2014). So I suggest Mr Think that you need to be a lot more circumspect before taking this negative view of business demand - it might be more productive for you to focus on what your country needs to do to improve the life for its own citizens and its own economic performance rather than focussing its energy on 2,700 people who want to govern themselves and are doing a good job. Also regarding your view of the demographics of the population on the 2012 census 455 people in the Falkland Islands were 0-14, 1,703 were 15-64 and 298 were 65+. Does that not make the very senior population about 12%? But that aside, are you not being entirely ageist by implying that older people cannot economically, socially or culturally contribute to the success of the Islands? Judging by how well the Islands are performing without any help from Argentina surely that is evidence of the success of the Islands as a whole. Why cannot Argentina just cannot move on and join the real world? More importantly why cannot it focus more time on dealing with the challenges of improving the lives of its own people?
PS - I regularly holiday on an Island with a resident population of 184, no rail, or plane access, and only part time road access. Nevertheless, it attracts 650,000 tourists a year so be very careful about casting aspersions about the ability of small communities to be successful.
See last picture in Argentine publication.
Poor ol Think, Just go to Rockhopper website to see the truth. just type in Rockhopper Oil and then search for RNS Number 6657L 13th January 2016. Main substance is Resources commercialised 220 million barrels. Peak production approx 60,000 to 80,000 barrels per day ( US barrels which are smaller than UK barrels )
Field life 15 to 20 years. Estimate pre-first oil capex requirement US$ 1.8bn equivalant to approx US$ 8 per barrel.( Commercial I think so )
What do you say to that Think? Also why on earth would you need hundreds of oil workers on the FALKLANDS when they are constructing the FEED ( Front End Engineering and Design ) to submit to the FALKLANDERS for approval.
The ape man hasn't even figured out that capacity is required for those visiting, not just those living here.
Just too desperate to be negative. Just afraid of reality.
Rockflopper website..., huhhhhh...?
I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale too...
Any Anglo Turnip takers for that magnificent offer...?
Think Turnip, a jealous and self-confessed anti-British Troll with a history of lying, is far more biased than Rockhopper.
Send me details of your bridge for sale. Where would I find a website referring to the bridge. As Kanye stated above I would prefer to trust Rockhopper Oil than Think turnip.Don't just poopoo it google it and you will see I am telling the truth. They ( Rockhopper ) say it is break-even up to US$ 45
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!