logo
States of Jersey may act if Blue Islands airline delays continue

States of Jersey may act if Blue Islands airline delays continue

BBC News29-05-2025
The Jersey government says it could take action against a regional airline if its services do not improve.Passengers in Jersey have faced cancelled or delayed Blue Islands flights - with one aircraft having to return back to Birmingham on Sunday due to an engine failure. The company also announced a cut to 28 of its flights in the summer schedule due to one aircraft being damaged and another new addition to its fleet being delayed. Ministers said they had contacted Blue Islands with their concerns - especially about flights for medical patients.Blue Islands has been contacted for comment.
The government added: "Delayed and cancelled flights can cause a great deal of stress, particularly for people travelling for hospital appointments and other important engagements. "Blue Islands provided crucial lifeline services for Jersey throughout the pandemic and continues to contribute to our growing network through flights to a range of European and UK destinations. "We know that Blue Islands takes their responsibilities seriously and we expect them to achieve more effective operations as soon as possible."The government said it remained in "constant contact" with the company and that it would "continue to monitor the situation and consider further potential action where necessary".
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan
Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan

The Independent

time27 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump claims he's made a ‘massive' trade deal with Japan

President Donald Trump boasted Tuesday that he had made a 'massive' deal with Japan that would generate 'thousands of jobs' and billions of dollars for the U.S. The president announced the trade framework – 'perhaps the largest Deal ever made' – in a Truth Social post Tuesday, revealing that a 15 percent tax on goods imported from Japan had been agreed. In the post Trump said Japan would invest 'at my direction' $550 billion into the U.S. and would 'open' its economy to American-made vehicles as well as 'rice' and 'other things.' But further details remained scant. The 15 percent tax on imported Japanese goods is a significant drop from the 25 percent rate that Trump, in a recent letter to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said would be levied starting on August 1. 'This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it,' the president posted on Truth Social, adding that the United States 'will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.' 'This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Early Wednesday in Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shigera Ishiba confirmed the new trade agreement, saying it would benefit both sides and help them work together. 'The government was determined to protect national interests,' Ishiba told reporters, per the Wall Street Journal. Trump's announcement appeared to excite investors, with the benchmark Nikkei – the Tokyo stock market – climbing 2.6 percent to its highest in a year, with shares of automakers also surging. Toyota grew by more than 11 percent, with Honda and Nissan both up more than 8 percent. But American automakers were less buoyed with the deal, with concerns raised over low import levies from Japan, compared to tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico remaining at 25 percent. Matt Blunt, head of the American Automotive Policy Council, said, "Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers.'

Government and opposition alike must do much better
Government and opposition alike must do much better

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Government and opposition alike must do much better

Out of the three parties that matter most, only one will be looking forward to autumn. When parliament packed up for the summer recess this time last year, the new Labour administration had a stonking majority, a sense of confidence and a clear plan of action. Twelve months on, morale has collapsed. Rarely have a government's fortunes declined so far, so fast. This is not the consequence of world events or the vagaries of the global economy: Sir Keir Starmer is to blame. He came into power with the stated aim of boosting the economy's performance to improve public services. But prioritising growth demanded a degree of discipline that he has signally failed to demonstrate. Although the government has chalked up a few achievements — for instance, in reforming the planning system — too often other considerations have taken precedence over growth. Workers' rights have been strengthened to the detriment of companies. Taxes on employers have been raised with the consequence that firms are hiring fewer people. Higher pay for public servants has contributed to the deterioration of public finances. The government's big effort to rein in spending centred on its planned reform of the welfare system, but Labour backbenchers rebelled against it. Instead of facing up to the rebels by making the issue a vote of confidence, the prime minister backed down. Predictably, this cave-in has encouraged further dissent. The prime minister's problem is that he is a conciliator rather than a leader. That is why he has proved to be an effective diplomat in his dealings with foreign leaders. With his low-key style, he has succeeded in improving Britain's relationship with Europe, in encouraging European leaders to co-operate over defence and in establishing a good working relationship with Donald Trump, despite the two men's glaring ideological differences. These external successes cannot compensate for Sir Keir's domestic failures, however. They have cost him credibility and the economy momentum. In the past two months, national output has shrunk while public debt continues to mount. In June, the government borrowed £20.7 billion. That is £6.6 billion more than in June last year and £3.6 billion more than expected. As Sir Keir has lost focus on the economy, concentrating on averting short-term difficulties rather than pursuing a coherent agenda, he has come to look like a tactical politician rather than a strategic one. Both MPs and voters are increasingly unclear about what his government is for. Labour is divided between pragmatists who want order in the public finances and leftwingers who want to spend more. The autumn budget, in which Rachel Reeves will have to reconcile the conflicting demands of the bond markets and Labour MPs' desire to protect social spending, will be a pivotal moment in the government's life. Sir Keir's greatest boon has been the state of the Conservative Party. Despite a welcome recent attempt to reassert the party's commitment to fiscal rectitude in the wake of the government's welfare debacle, Kemi Badenoch has failed to establish a clear identity around which her party can coalesce. At 23.7 per cent, its share of the vote in the last election was the lowest yet; it has declined further in polling since then, to 17 per cent. This week's reshuffle will not by itself reverse the Tories' decline: changes in personnel cannot compensate for the lack of a compelling story. The one party that has succeeded in devising one in the past year is Reform. Nigel Farage has capitalised on the loss of direction in both main parties to seize a commanding lead in the polls. Sir Keir and Ms Badenoch need to develop better ways of countering Mr Farage over the summer, or he will make short work of them in the coming year. For both, it is a case of 'must do better'.

Striking doctors claiming to care about patients? It's a sick joke
Striking doctors claiming to care about patients? It's a sick joke

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Striking doctors claiming to care about patients? It's a sick joke

The British Medical Association confirmed that a five-day NHS strike would go ahead from Friday VUK VALCIC/SOPA IMAGES/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES W hen hospital doctors strike they routinely trot out the claim that they are doing it for the patients. Their desire for generous pay awards (to add to pensions that are the envy of the private sector) is billed as almost incidental to their mission to save the National Health Service. Failure to award them a double-digit pay rise, they explain, will result in catastrophe for the health service. And why? Because, says the British Medical Association, the professional body for doctors turned militant trade union, young medics would be 'forced' to hightail it to sunny Australia to line their pockets. They wouldn't be able to help themselves. The activists in the BMA fomenting a new and scarcely believable round of strikes, beginning on Friday with a five-day stoppage, should stop insulting the public's intelligence with this offensive cant, wipe away their crocodile tears and admit that it's all about the cash. The price: thousands of patients will end up in more pain and for longer, or die earlier, because of their grotesque selfishness. The NHS, which these wreckers always claim to revere, will be plunged into chaos again, just as it is recovering from 44 days of strikes in 2023-24. And what is the BMA's latest pay claim? Resident doctors — hospital doctors who are not consultants, previously known as junior doctors — want 29 per cent. Yes, really. That is on top of a 22 per cent rise last year. After the Labour government's capitulation to the BMA in 2024, it is trying to return to relative normality this year with an above-inflation offer of 5.4 per cent, in line with the pay review body recommendation and the most generous offer in the public sector. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is trying to talk sense into the strike leaders, offering the olive branch of reduced student debt. But having shown weakness once Mr Streeting finds himself in the all-too-predictable position of facing an emboldened opponent confident in its power. The good news is that Sir Jim Mackey, chief executive of NHS England, has refused to play the BMA's game and is insisting that routine operations carry on. Tom Dolphin, chair of the BMA council, and Emma Runswick, his deputy, have called for all non-urgent procedures to be cancelled, claiming that doing otherwise would 'put patients at risk'. Their hypocrisy is nauseating: it is the BMA that is placing patients in peril. The BMA's cynicism does not end there. When resident doctors strike it falls to consultants to fill the gaps. These aristocrats of the NHS, enjoying basic salaries up to £140,000, not including private work and overtime, are being advised by the union to charge £313 an hour for strike night cover. This is rampant profiteering. Only 26,800 BMA resident doctors voted to strike out of 53,800. Some 22,000 resident doctors are not in the BMA. So just a third of all resident doctors voted yes to misery. The silent majority should back the NHS. Medical graduates start their professional training on £36,000; by their early thirties they are earning £70,000. From then on it is a staircase to comfort. NHS doctors enjoy a super-perk they prefer not to highlight: generous, index-linked defined benefit pensions resulting in retirement incomes greater than most salaries. The public needs to understand how much it is paying for the retirements of these arrogant, entitled, callous strikers. The BMA is now in danger of overreaching itself, of forfeiting public respect. A 29 per cent pay claim, following a 22 per cent one, is a sick joke.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store