When do TUI'S 735's Arrive At Coventry? [Archive]

jamesfly

20th Mar 2004, 11:22

ILS nope and yes, it been calibrated about 5 times the last few months, but
still problems with it.

Chaos caused by what was always thought would be the problem, Britannia
aircraft have always been one of the operators that have never liked to be routed
outside controlled airspace, they don't do the Birmingham-Brecon procedure
and even when normally positioning to other airports not connected as well to
the airways system, they always route the airways way (i.e places like
Bristol etc) this goes for not just the flights operating out of brum but
all other airfields.

So there has been new procedures and pressure to keep these aircraft in
controlled airspace as much as possible, rather than the usual get em down
quick and straight into cov, they now route past hon and sequenced from
there. Some days this will not pose as much as a problem depending upon
runways in use at egbb and egbe. But other days will cause absolute chaos,
Cov have no secondary radar so are unable to see height read outs of any
aircraft, so they're unable to be given traffic that maybe higher than brums,
until it is clean laterally as they cant see if they can step it down on
top, hence the rather excessive routing it received the other day, and as
someone pointed out weaving around warks and west midlands in and out of
brum traffic was precisely what it did!!! Before still having to leave
controlled airspace east of cov to be vectored for runway 23...with loads of
unknowns buzzing around that bit of airspace and from my experience some of
the GA routing along there (many route dty sapco lic or similar routing) are
working either cov, east midlands or brum, or none. So cov have no way of
knowing what that traffic is doing...and TCAS doesn't see non-squawking
traffic!! Its an accident waiting to happen, and putting a lot of pressure
on Controllers to risk there licence's by trying to provide a Radar service
outside of controlled airspace.
I wouldn't fly on one of these planes even if it was free!

James

unwiseowl

20th Mar 2004, 11:28

James, I'm sure you're not wrong - the density of VFR traffic to the East of Coventry can be very high - the risk is significant.

small4

21st Mar 2004, 16:30

Hmm James.

I note that this is your first and only post. Your terminology seems to indicate that you have some knowledge of aviation.

Would you care to update your profile, which at the moment is somewhat short on detail, to give us a clearer idea of the validity of your observations.

Cheers.

sharpshot

22nd Mar 2004, 07:21

Methinks Jamesfly has a wealth of experience looking at a screen.
Cleverly disguised use of the syntax mind you.:ok:
Think you mentioned the peril of flight OCA to the east of EGBE....and not even a free ticket would persuade you to venture out there in a 73.

Easy226

22nd Mar 2004, 13:33

So whats G-OA doing at the moment, sitting on the apron at Coventry? Went down yesterday and could see no sign of it?

sharpshot

22nd Mar 2004, 14:11

Back in AMS
outside the Schreiner hangar.

What is going on:confused:

MAN_Dispatcher

22nd Mar 2004, 15:13

Will ThomsonFly have their own ground staff at CVT, or will Aviance (formerly Reed Aviation) be handling these flights???

Lite

22nd Mar 2004, 15:46

MAN_Dispatcher, I want to know exactly the same thing with regards to who will be handling Thomsonfly flights out of Coventry, as I'm trying to get a job in customer services in the Midlands at the moment, and could find nothing on the Thomsonfly or Coventry Airport websites with regards to handling agents or positions available.

sharpshot, I believe that the aircraft is at the Schreiner hangar in Amsterdam having some final tests done out there before launch, like Go Fly had done on their 733s at FLS before they launched flights, because Go like Thomsonfly does not have the facilities to do these tests on their own. I also think that the aircraft are being refurbished to Thomsonfly specifications.

Easy226

22nd Mar 2004, 19:56

Oh right i see - so i take it came last thursday for a training flight then?
Back to the main thread question - when are they actually arriving at coventry then!?
Many Thanks
Dan

jmc757

22nd Mar 2004, 20:02

About handling. Aviance packed up and left last summer, so it won't be them?! (wonder if they now wish they had stayed??)

Thomsonfly said to me that it was Coventry Airport. Now, I do not know if they mean Coventry Airport (http://www.coventryairport.co.uk ) OR Coventry Airport handling (separate company)... who were set up with what was left after Aviance/Reed went. Their website: http://www.aviationhandling.com . Interestingly the same address Reed Aviation used to have.

preston

22nd Mar 2004, 22:07

Hi,

Handling of the flights at CVT will be by Coventry Airport Handling.
but just for info they started up before Aviance pulled out!!

regards

Preston

Easy226

23rd Mar 2004, 08:59

Are any jobs going at Coventry since the startup of this airline? I thought they would be advertising in local newspapers, but have seen no sign....
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

23rd Mar 2004, 10:58

Due at Bournemouth Tuesday G-THOB from Amsterdam 13:00, then outbound to Lasham at 14:00.

Jon

Buster the Bear

23rd Mar 2004, 14:30

Jet lands airport in a fresh noise row Mar 23 2004

By Emma Snodgrass And Ben Griffin

Campaigners and bosses at Coventry Airport are embroiled in a new row over plane noise - a week before the first official no-frills flight takes off.

People fighting expansion of passenger flights at the airport have hit out at opera-tors TUI for their "cynical spin" after the first Boeing 737 passenger jet touched down at Baginton last week.

The day after the plane landed, TUI released a statement claiming no noise complaints had been received. Experts measured the noise above Stoneleigh at 55dB, compared to 80dB for later freight flights.

But frustrated residents living near the airport claim they have given up complaining to the airport because nothing is ever done to alleviate noise problems.

Tomorrow a Boeing 757 plane - with more than 100 more passenger seats than the Boeing 737 - will have a test landing at Baginton.

The airport claims this is necessary in case any "technical" difficulties ground their other planes.

Airport campaigner Archie Muir said: "This is a cynical piece of spin. It is not a proper reflection of the noise levels locals are subjected to.

"We knew the plane was coming.

"But an unladen plane is much quieter than a fully laden plane and a plane coming in and taking off between 6pm and 7pm is doing so when the ground noise is reasonably high anyway.

"It will be very noticeable when they touch down in the middle of the night, late at night or in early morning.

"If he is suggesting when we complain he will do something about it, we will flood him with complaints."

Bill Savage, managing director of Coventry Airport, said the lack of complaints demonstrated the "aircraft will not prove to be a noise nuisance to local residents and so augurs well for the reintroduction of scheduled passenger flights from the end of March".

Russell Ison, from TUI, said the larger Boeing 757 planes owned by TUI's sister company Britannia, would only be used if there was a technical fault with one of the 131-seat 737s. He said the plane would land, turn round, and take off again, but was unable to say what time it would happen.

"It's purely a test," he said. "It is not a big event."

http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrary/jpeg150/br/brown_bear_120_wide.jpg

jon01

23rd Mar 2004, 14:52

Dan, take a look at the Britannia webpage for jobs

http://www.britanniaairways.com/ (go to 'more categories')

Jobs available at Coventry:

Pilot/First Officer
Station Manager
Cabin Crew

Or e-mail Coventry Handling, they prob have vacancies.

Jon

Powerjet1

24th Mar 2004, 05:39

Britannia 757 departing LTN for Coventry at 10.00 today, returning to LTN at 13.45.

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 06:28

As predicted last week, B757 due to touchdown at Coventry 10:30 Wed 24th March.

Callsign: BAL757A
Reg:G-CDUP (in latest 'billboard' titles)

Jon

volrider

24th Mar 2004, 06:44

Coventry have been told that the portacabin terminal needs planning permission..which they have not got! so its looking like its off again!!!
It seems an odd way of building an airport.. the runway probs now the terminal probs...I cant see this starting next week, unless the pax check in at BHX and then are bussed into CVT :D
Oh and the baggage handlers...well they will be the fireman at the airport!
This is like a classic "Carry On" film will they get Barbra Windsor to open the terminal in her wellies and bikini:D :D

Oh the 757 flight..whats the point of that?? one could never operate in and out of CVT with a proper load???
I think TUI have really bought a lemon here!

richterscale10

24th Mar 2004, 07:54

I heard that the firemen down in CVT need a little more training - as the new Thomsonfly aircraft was 'christened' with a jet full of foam - most corrosive on aircraft bodies - instead of the traditional water......during its official 'welcome' to CVT.

What a welcome!!!!!

But on a positive note - the aircraft is there at least!!!

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 08:55

G-THOB did not tun up at Bournemouth Tue, now due Wed at Lasham 08:50 TOM001P

Jon

Easy226

24th Mar 2004, 09:54

One of TUI's 757-200's has just flown the approach to 05 over Leamington and i guess has just touched down!! What a sight
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 10:23

So the local council have told the airport not to use the building and thomsonfly have said they are going ahead with the launch next week, going to be interesting...

Jon

Council planning officer, Gary Stephens, said: "The council is saying that the development they, the airport management, have undertaken for the passenger terminal facilities and associated works is of such scale that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

"And in those circumstances, the development requires to be subject to a planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment.

"We, the council, have notified them, the airport management, that they need to make a planning application and asked that they stop work on the terminal and do not to use the terminal building.

"It is up to them whether they do so. They could carry on and start using the building next Wednesday.

"If they do, then they are subject to enforcement action."

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 15:22

Due at approximately 17:30 Wed is G-THOB from Lasham TOM003P.

Coventry Rwy now closed 0900-1700 Thu-Sat

Jon

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 17:37

G-THOB just landed at Birmingham!!

Should come over to Coventry later Wed eve....

Jon

Easy226

24th Mar 2004, 17:39

Prob landed at birmingham due to the runway being closed? You see the 757 earlier Jon?
If 05 in use i will be looking out for OB - is it staying there until next week?

jon01

24th Mar 2004, 17:46

Hi Dan, He did some approaches at Birmingham to certify the ILS kit for autolands, something they can't do at Coventry. Just about to depart for Cov, should be landing on 05.

Yep, saw the 757 land 05, took of at 13:20 for the 15 minute flight to Luton.

The runway at Cov is closed Thu, Fri and Sat 0900-1700.

Not sure how long he is staying, I'll keep you posted.

Jon

Easy226

24th Mar 2004, 18:01

G-OB just touched down on 05 as well - good timing!
Thanks for this - how do you get all the info for the flights?!
Runway closed due to threshold work?

jon01

25th Mar 2004, 18:02

G-THOB is tonight (Thu) doing four 25min local flights to Cowley and back out of Coventry:

18:00
18:40
19:20
21:00

Jon

Easy226

26th Mar 2004, 07:30

Yeah i guess it was practicing the most common departure route off 05. You kno if G-OB is staying for the next week?
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

29th Mar 2004, 05:25

G-THOB is doing some local trips to Cowly/Wod Monday. TOM001P at 07:00, TOM007P at 10:20 and TOM007P at 12:00.

There is a B737-800 at Cov today as well 12:05/14:15. It's G-XLAH (brand new a/c)doing a charter to Kristianstad, Sweden.

Jon

jon01

30th Mar 2004, 06:26

G-THOA arrives today to join it's sister (Tue) from Amsterdam 09:05 TOM001P. It then does two local flights to DTY and LIC TOM009P and TOM010P.

Jon

Easy226

30th Mar 2004, 15:21

Yeah saw them earlier today - any more flights tonight or is that it until passenger operations tomorrow?
Ho wmany more aircraft are to come then?
Many Thanks
Dan

Easy226

31st Mar 2004, 18:22

So now G-THOA AND G-THOB have arrived and are in operational service, when do the next two come - i heard they are ex - BMI baby?
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

31st Mar 2004, 19:37

Yep, next two come from baby, not for a while yet.

Hers's some recent photo's i've found of the first a/c in service:

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00086372&size=large

http://myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00087920&size=large

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00086581&size=large

Jon

twostroke

31st Mar 2004, 20:34

I wasnt wrong then, when i said they'd need every last inch of the runway. Bloddy hell another 3 inches and it it would be on the interim stopway hardstanding overun facility(definitely not a starter extension):O

gobfa

31st Mar 2004, 20:41

Only comment deserved is "You should have gone to Specsavers"

Easy226

1st Apr 2004, 13:05

Good shot Jon, you uploaded any more on airliners yet?

Ex Oggie

1st Apr 2004, 15:58

Well that gives your hidden superhero identity away Jon! I wasn't quite sure, but that now explains why you know every little detail on the operation :ok:

Wycombe

1st Apr 2004, 19:19

Twostroke - if you're a pilot you should know that one of the three most useless things in aviation is "runway behind you" ;)

Moondance

2nd Apr 2004, 10:26

Twostroke, I would be ever so grateful if you could remind us of your qualifications to comment on civil transport performance requirements.

Hansard

2nd Apr 2004, 15:43

A classic comment twostroke!

gobfa says it all

Caption for the photo: "I can take it from Echo"

twostroke

2nd Apr 2004, 21:06

Just been and put my new specsavers glasses on, and twigged that the photo is rather more interesting than I thought.
Thanks for the info guys :ok:

jon01

4th Apr 2004, 10:58

Inbound load from Jersey Sunday morning was 79.

You guys living in the area with an airband radio can get pax loads that are usually broadcast on 130.07Mhz, the handling agent at Cov.

j0n01

Easy226

5th Apr 2004, 17:56

Oh right cheers - is it Coventry airport handling that are sorting out this?
Jon - you got any more pictures at cov ?
Many Thanks Dan

jon01

9th Apr 2004, 18:19

This afternoon's (Fri) Venice flight TOM205/206 is being operated from Birmingham with passengers being coached to Coventry....

Looks like it's being operated by a B757.

Jon

52 North

9th Apr 2004, 19:04

I have just added this to the other Thomsonfly thread but for those who haven't seen it:

Those wishing to show their support for the passenger flights at Coventry airport can go to

http://www.supportcoventryairport.co.uk

Cheers
52N

Easy226

10th Apr 2004, 16:57

Oh right i will be supporting it!
Any resons for the flight being operated from Birmingham?
Many Thanks Dan

jon01

11th Apr 2004, 21:19

Inbound loads Sunday eve:

Jersey: 28
Malaga: 68

Jon

Yorky Towers

11th Apr 2004, 22:01

Have they not just started taking pax. out to these destinations ?
:=
Giv'm a chance and and they will start comin' home !!
:E
Regards
The Towers.

jon01

13th Apr 2004, 06:36

Inbound loads from Monday pm: -

Valencia 76
Venice 92
Jersey 69

Jon

Easy226

13th Apr 2004, 08:32

Those figures look quite promising! I suppose, as Yorky Towers stated, we have to give the passengers a chance to return!
Anyone know when the next two 737's are coming in or are they halting this until the arguments have ceased?
Many Thanks
Dan

warkman

13th Apr 2004, 09:47

The schedule of increasing flights according to Thomsonflys own web site is this:

31 March 2004:
Jersey, Malaga, Rome, Valencia, Venice

22 April 2004:
Marseille, Nice, Palma

20 May 2004:
Naples, Pisa

11 June 2004:
Ibiza

So, what? around may?

Buster the Bear

14th Apr 2004, 14:28

Airport notices served Apr 14 2004

Bosses at Coventry Airport have been told they have six weeks left to use their controversial buildings after legal papers were officially served by Warwick District Council yesterday.

They have been told they cannot use the terminal buildings - which are said to flout planning laws - after May 24, and the buildings must come down the following month.

The council yesterday issued two enforcement notices against West Midlands Airport Limited relating to the unauthorised passenger terminal at Coventry Airport.

TUI and Thomsonfly.com have been told the notices come in to effect on May 17.

The firms have seven days from that date to stop using any part of the unauthorised buildings at the Baginton airfield as a passenger terminal.

They also have 28 days from the same date to remove the buildings from the site, so the site must be cleared by June 21.

If airport bosses decide to appeal, however, that would freeze the enforcement action.

http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrary/jpeg150/br/brown_bear_120_wide.jpg

52 North

14th Apr 2004, 14:54

Assuming that the airport will appeal against the WDC action, how long is this case likely to last? Have there been any other similar cases in the past?

Cheers
52 N

www.supportcoventryairport.co.uk
register your support now!

Easy226

15th Apr 2004, 11:57

Thanks for the link. So you think TUI is doomed now that they will not have acces to a terminal in the not too distant future?
Mnay Thanks
Dan

Buster the Bear

15th Apr 2004, 15:30

TUI UK-owned Coventry International Airport has confirmed that is appealing against the enforcement notices issued yesterday by Warwick District Council.

In a statement the airport said: 'We will be appealing against the notices. This would seem to be an unfortunate commencement of what may be a long and drawn out process.'

Warwick has served two notices on the airport - the first one relates to the passenger terminal which, the council claims, was built without necessary consent. The airport argues that the terminal falls within its 'permitted development rights' and does not need planning permission.

The second notice concerns not only the terminal but access and car parking. Previously the council's planning department has suggested that the effect of the additional facilities would require TUI UK to provide the council with an environmental impact assessment into all its work on the airport, even if the temporary terminal is found to have been built legitimately.

Both notices will be served on May 17. Officially Coventry Airport has seven days from that date to stop using the terminal with a further three weeks to remove the buildings from the site unless it has lodged an appeal with the secretary of state.

MELmonkey

15th Apr 2004, 15:30

The operation is still pretty pants. Wait until we are mid August, with the aircraft all carrying 4 hr delays and the 'terminal' bursting at the seems. Car parking will have run out, seats will have run out, the catering may well have run out; it will be hell on a pointy stick there.

Which will be a marked difference to the first Wednesday in November when I suspect the tumbleweeds will outweigh the passengers by 15 - 1...

Monkey.

CAP670

15th Apr 2004, 19:35

Even if Coventry Airport succeeds with its appeal, the Council is likely to seek a judicial review of such a decision.

And even if that upholds the Court's decision, it's quite likely that the Warwick/Leamington/Kenliworth populus will lobby strongly for a Public Inquiry by which time, with a general election looming, local MPs and counsellors will all be falling over themselves to give support to their constituents' calls.

The attitude of the Airport's management is a sad combination of staggering naievety and arrogance - they would have been far better to have courted the Council and got it on board right at the outset instead of trying to play the legal technicality card.

'Environment' is now the # 1 issue affecting all UK airports, and it doesn't matter who you are, big multinational or small airport operator, you just can't run 'rough-shod' over it.

Bosses at BHX, MAN, LTN, EMA, SOU, STN, etc., can all testify to this painful fact - one wonders why the idiots at CVT didn't realise!

:hmm:

LGS6753

15th Apr 2004, 19:51

I am surprised that TUI/Britannia took the risk with CVT. TUI don't seem to be a risk-taking company, and both Britannia and Thomson seem to demonstrate stability and maturity.
The development of a new-type venture at an unproven and undeveloped airport just seems out of character. The fact that they were 'forced' to acquire the whole airport to take control of the process seems to imply panic.
Launching at CVT means that the the local opposition to the 'new' airport is directed entirely at them (Thomsonfly). If they had been an incremental operator, the degree of opposition may have been less.
I know RYR fly from some underdeveloped airports, but have they ever been the first and only passenger operator at any of their destinations? (Hahn??).

Lite

15th Apr 2004, 20:22

It does look surprising why Thomsonfly would be based at an under-developed airport, but where else in the UK could the airline have been effectively based? Members have mentioned BHX/NEMA/LTN but it makes no sense to be based there.

LTN does seem to have a monopoly when it comes to no-frills airlines, with only EasyJet serving no-frills flights to the airport (with the exception of Ryanair to DUB/BGY), & is also the home of your parent company Britannia, but why try & compete against the largest no-frills airline in Europe, who are continuing to base more planes at the airport, and continuing to add routes?
NEMA has an excellent catchment area & is just as well situated as Coventry. But, with three no-frills airlines already flying from the airport, and also looking for growth, why try from there?
BHX has a successful regional no-frills airline, as well as a no-frills airline from one of your biggest competitors, plus having a successful full-service carriers to many European destinations.

TUI AG have been very successful with the launch of Hapag Lloyd Express, which is a very well respected & well run operation in Germany. I don't see why the carrier was not called TUI Express, and have bases both at TUI's German & British airports. I feel that makes more sense? :ok:

Arbottle

15th Apr 2004, 22:03

As I understand it:

a) The Airport had long standing planning permission for a passenger terminal on Siskin Drive. This had been renewed but was not renewed due to the airport's plan to put forward a detailed application.
b) It's in the county's transport policy as being the regional centre for air transport, and the policy also sets aside land for passenger purposes.
c) Warwick DC seem to have refused to speak to the airport -- and they Bodged the original planning application by not including a scoping report until AFTER the airport had produced its EIA.
d) The Airport had a passenger terminal at the Baginton side of the airport -- this was demolished as part of a long standing agreement over the construction of a new passenger terminal.
e) The assessment of Toll Bar end roundabout *does* take into account increasing passenger numbers at the airport.
f) The Council seemed unable to actually do their research and dismiss the lies the campaigners were spreading.
g) The White Paper actually *supports* the development of Coventry.

This is a mess that is probably going to get messier; and in the meantime, the chances of a proper terminal for the airport seem to be a distant event.

Flightmapping

16th Apr 2004, 11:51

Finally went to take a look at the terminal yesterday. What a monstrosity. Hope they get a proper building up as soon as possible, but it seems quite bizarre to be making such a fuss about a stack of Portakabins.

CVT were given no choice but to operate in this way, because the council have sat on the planning application for so long.

"Environment" maybe the number one issue, but it is still ironic that these protests are focusing on a the relatively quiet parts of the airport operations. The helicopters make much more noise, as do the Dc3's & Electras and they are all based on the Baginton side of the runway.

I was on my bike, and noticed the pollution around Tolbar Island far more than anything coming out of the airport.

None of the other operations directly benefit any of the villagers, unless they work at the airport, or enjoy watching the planes.

The passenger flights will give them an opportunity to benefit from having the airport so close by (they could even have free access to the terminal using the shuttle bus).

It is often been argued that people know the airport is there when choosing to move. There are some houses which have been constructed in the last year or so, yet they are still displaying anti-flights posters. Surely these are the biggest nimbys of them all?

Yorky Towers

16th Apr 2004, 12:32

Flightmapping,

" I was on my bike the other day and noticed the pollution at Toll bar roundabout"

Ye I agree, but have you noticed when one of the modern Tui 73's passes over on landing or departure how it sucks all the pollution away giving us all in the area a "breath of fresh air"!!!!:E

Regards
Yorky:ok:

Balboy

16th Apr 2004, 13:08

Thomsonfly and Britannia have just announced that Doncaster( Robin Hood ) Airport for their next base.

warkman

16th Apr 2004, 13:25

A couple of interesting items in the local paper (Leamington Courier)

1) The Office of Fair Trading announced that the sale of the airport will NOT be investigate, after the Anti-Airport gang complained to OFT. OFT states that TUI do not hold a buisness monopoly which was more than 25% than other airline companies in the UK
Craig Greenway, spokesman for the anti airport gang said he was dissapointed the investigation was not getting the go-ahead. He said "we have to stand by what the OFT claims and don't want to attack it. We have to go down every avenue. We` are confident we will succeed and are currently researching other avenues"
Kimberly Kay Marketing Director of Coiventryu Airport said "we are pleased that the OFT has decided not to investigate. we are not surprised at the decision"

2) Coventry City Council has offered the airport use of land for car parking. Councillor Mutton said "we support the airport because of the new jobs it is creating but we want it done sensitivitely to minimise impact"

That should put an end to the car parking debate :O

twostroke

16th Apr 2004, 19:31

Arbottle: your points a) to g) are so inaccurate and far from the truth that I had to reply,

a) outline planning permission was granted in 1990 for replacement passenger terminal for the one that used to be in Baginton. This was subject to a time condition, that the works had to commence within so many years, 3 I think. When this failed to happen the airport put in for renewal, and this was given, once in '94 and once again in '98. When they tried to renew for a third time the council refused, largely because legislation has now changed, and such applications now need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. So basically the origimal outline permission expired, through the airports own failure to build anything for 12 years. Noone elses fault but their own

b) The county policy is that coventry airport should be the focus of aviation activity in Warwickshire,yes, but in the context of BIA being down the road. It says any expansion should be only when acceptable environmental and mitigation proposals have been made, and when a 'green' travel plan is in place. None of these are in place.
The district councils plan identifies the airport land, it identifies no new land for airport development, in fact in designates most of the airport site, including its runway, as Green Belt land!

c) Warwick dc have never refused to speak to anyone. It is however the responsibility of the applicant (the airport) to consult all those affected, which they have spectactularly failed to do. As regards the timing of the eia and scoping reporrt, the airport asked Warwick dc for a scoping opinion (that is the subjects and scope of the environmental impact assessment), but bizarrely the airport chose to complete their EIA before the scoping opinion was published. It seems even then, just over a year ago, the airport was hell bent on ignoring the planning authority's views.

d) As part of the parcelforce development, the airport agreed to reduce the size of their operation on the Baginton side of the airport (section 106 agreement). Part of that was to reduce by 40% the size of its passenger terminal. There was no obligation on WDC to grnt planning perimission for a replacement, but in the event outline permission had been given, see a) above.

e) the traffic impact assessement supplied by the airport to support its application suggests that the airport will generate on 16 vehicles in the evening peak hour, thereby having no great impact on tollbar end roundabout. However the flight schedule used to generate thes flows, does not bear much realation to thomsonflys schedule: their timetable shows arrivals and departures both generating traffic movements in pm peak hours. In addition the traffic impact assesment also assumed 70% of pax could park on site. This was never going to be the case and certainly isnt now. As a result the bulk of passengers are drop off movements generating twice as much traffic.

f) the council, along with all reasonable people, can distinguish fairly easily lies from the truth. The airport are hardly squeaky clean an have done themselves no favours whatsoever.

g) The white paper certainly does NOT support the expansion of coventry airport. Neither does it dismiss it. It sits firmly on the fence and says 'it is a matter for local determination'. As such it seems strange that the airport have got on the wrong side of WDC as they are the people who will be determing the application locally.

Yorky towers:
An interesting concept, aircraft jet engines that leave a wake of clean fresh air behind them. Get it patented quick, youre on your way to your first million.

Flightmapping:
Agreed the helicopters, dc3, 6 electra's etc are all very noisy, but as far as I know, are all operating legally out of building with palnning permission. If the airport ever offered to phase these out or reduce them in exchange for the tui flights, then they might find some residents groups interested in negotiation. But they have bever made this offer. The airports idea of mitigation is to set a night flight quota at around 50% to 100% higher than the current level. Some mitigation that. not.

Also I agree that those who have bought he newly built houses in baginton in the last year are hardly in a position to complain about flights. But they are rightly entitled to expect companies to follow planning procedure, and not to operate outwith planning legislation.

Yorky Towers

16th Apr 2004, 21:19

Your wrong on most counts however, bored now, so goin' for a breath of fresh air.....:zzz:............and the 2nd million!!!!:)

Flightmapping

18th Apr 2004, 10:15

when a 'green' travel plan is in place

Agreed, a big own goal by TUI.

There should have been a bus to Pool Meadow & Cov station to meet all flights from the start.

Why do the parking shuttle buses need to run every 10 minutes. Surely, they only need to run from perhaps 2 hours before departure to 30 mins after arrival? The rest of the time, could they not just instal a "request bus" telephone link?

Installation cost = £16.99 (£6.99 for the phone + 1 x £10/hour to install)
Fuel & traffic saving over lifetime of car park = £000's

AS747

18th Apr 2004, 21:10

TwoStroke

Could you tell me where in the published White Paper it says that Coventry's development 'is a matter for local determination', I had a quick look today at http://www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/whitepaper/main/chap9.htm
and couldn't find anything?
Is it in another document?

Thanks
Andy

singleacting

19th Apr 2004, 12:07

'is a matter for local determination'
This is a quote from Tony McNulty (Aviation Minister) When asked if the government would Intervene over Coventry Airports planning application.

twostroke

19th Apr 2004, 12:27

as747
The quote is from the summary document:

The Midlands
The Government does not support the option of a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.

We support a second runway at Birmingham International Airport. We prefer the wide-spaced option, but with the new runway limited to 2,000m and with other improvements as proposed in the airport operator’s ‘Birmingham Alternative’. Development should be subject to stringent limits on noise, which should be kept under review.

We believe that the projected expansion of passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands Airport should be permitted, but only with strict controls on night noise. We do not support a second runway or safeguarding of land for one, but will keep this under review.

The development of Coventry Airport, Wolverhampton Business Airport and any civil use of RAF Cosford are matters for local determination

summary doc (http://www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/whitepaper/summary/sum_p2.htm)

Arbottle

19th Apr 2004, 19:59

Planning for airports "should" follow the section in the white paper that details the results of the government plan. (Can't recall the section).

That section acknowledges that there is a planning application for 2m passengers PA from Coventry, and "does not envisage" further development beyond this number. It also states that the plans are for local determination.

Local MPs have consistently (I've read Hansard) tried to get across the same old rubbish about runway/safety/etc in Parliament, but the goverment refer them to this section of the paper, and repeat the mantra "for local determination." As it is clear the safety issues were a pack of lies, and the section of the paper acknowledges the development of a terminal, then WDC have no reason to turn down development based on this section -- which _would_ be the case for Wolverhampton & cosgrove.

In effect, the development of the Terminal is not constrained by the white paper, and cannot be used to stop its development.

I think it's about time the airport was put to better use. I live in the flight paths of both Coventry and Brum and get planes flying overhead all day & sometimes in the early hours [These ones I assume are the noisy freight planes?] I fully support more use -- I only hope that Cov CIty council and TUI can get their heads together and start some decent transport links.

AS747

19th Apr 2004, 21:43

twostroke

Thanks for the info.

Andy

jon01

20th Apr 2004, 13:13

B752 G-BYAS is doing the Venice service from Coventry Tue pm due to non availability of a B735

13:30/14:10 fr Gatwick to Venice
18:30/ ???? fr Venice

Jon

Easy226

20th Apr 2004, 18:05

Oh right - i take it the 757 has landed now? Has it gone back to Gatwick then?
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

21st Apr 2004, 05:50

Dan -The B757 positioned to Gatwick at 20:10.

Thomsonfly's 3rd aircraft arrives Wed night...

It's a 146-200!!

21:00 FLT392P B462 G-DEBE

Jon

Easy226

21st Apr 2004, 07:33

What, so where have the 737's gone to?! Are the 146's a permenant plan?! Any idea what time it arrives at tonight?
I'll be down the airfield in the next couple of weeks Jon.
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

21st Apr 2004, 08:30

It arrives at 21:00 (9pm) It's hired in from Flightline to help cover the new flights that start Thu to Nice, Palma and Marseille.

The 3rd B737-500 is still not ready for service.....

Cya soon DB,

Jon

Easy226

21st Apr 2004, 11:26

Oh right i see and are the pilots from TUI or flightline - you got any pics of the aircraft?
I wonder how long it is going to be for the 3rd 735 to arrive - i had a feeling time would beat them on receiving the third aircraft in time for the new routes.
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

21st Apr 2004, 11:59

Here's the latest photo I can find:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/517552/M/

Jon

richxby

21st Apr 2004, 12:07

Hiya

I don't think TOM crews will operate the 146 as none of us are checked out on that aircraft! So I would guess it will be Flightline flightdeck + cabin crew who operate the flights for us!!

Shame really cause I was rostered the MRS on Friday, aah well, maybe I'll get a day off :hmm: ;)

Oh and I'm not sure when THOC is due to arrive, will ask around! Quite surprised sitting in the crew room the other day an seeing the 757 arrive from Venice, but its nice to have a bit of variety!!

jon01

21st Apr 2004, 15:35

Could be quite busy at Coventry Wed pm. EAF B732 just departed for the Grand Prix at San Marino, Emerald ATP doing training and aircraft diverting from Birmingham, a Dash 8-400 has gone off the end of the runway there!

Jon

jon01

22nd Apr 2004, 06:07

G-DEBE 146-200 is doing Rome, Venice and the evening Jersey for Thomsonfly. B735's are doing the new Nice, Marseille and Palma services.

Jon

Flightmapping

22nd Apr 2004, 11:07

"Thomsonfly now recognise they will eventually be driven out of Coventry. So they have found themselves another base to run to. Interestingly, Avia Solutions, who until recently employed Bill Savage, advised the Government on it's White Paper and did the schmoozing work to drive Finningley though a Public Inquiry. All smells a bit doesn't it ?

With people like Avia both advising the Government on "policy" and driving developments at small airstrips like Fillingley, no community is safe from the rapacious demands of the Avaiation Industry."

Firstly, has it never occured to them that a new business like TOM will want to expand, and operate these routes from BOTH airports? How many airlines have ever survived by operating from just one base?

Secondly, DSA is an old RAF base. Give me 737s over military jets any day - they are far worse noise-wise than the freight carrying beasts at Coventry.

jon01

22nd Apr 2004, 14:55

The 3rd B737-500 G-BVKA/G-THOC is in the hangar at Nottingham/East Midlands airport. It's now in full thomsonfly.com colours.

Jon

Flightmapping

23rd Apr 2004, 00:00

Looks like "RR" is getting even more attention than he deserves, now that there is a much more famous Racist Ron in the national news!

Pirate

23rd Apr 2004, 17:37

There was an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today. Apparently the new temporary terminal hasn't been given the appropriate approval and Warwickshire CC say it has to come down. The airport says it will appeal the decision. Red faces somewhere, I guess.

confundemus

Arbottle

23rd Apr 2004, 17:59

That's old news. The Airport claim it's within their permitted rights. WDC have actually changed the reasons why they were enforcing this on a number of occasions.

eurostar builder

23rd Apr 2004, 18:35

I am sure that Bournemouth would build a new cash point for THomson Air - a terminal might follow too..

jon01

24th Apr 2004, 05:34

The hired Flightline 146-200 leaves Cov at 17:00 Saturday, it's being replaced by Astraeus B737-300 G-STRA arriving from Gatwick at 12:50 Saturday.

G-THOC was airtested at N-EMA on Friday.

Jon

CWLSWS

24th Apr 2004, 10:18

Hello

I think that TUI deciding to invest their time and patience into CVT should be welcomed by the local community and councils. Not many companies would put up with all this hastle and negative response to what must be a great asset to CVT in terms or employment, and for local businesses. CVT has gone from a runway which is home to old, noisy, polluting Electras, DC3s and DC6s to a new gateway to passenger travel on quite modern B737-500s. So what exactly are people complaining about. I know how noisy both the Electras and the B735s are so am able to compare and know which I would prefer to operate out of my local airport!

Already Excel have operated a charter out of there on again a very modern quiet 737-800 so there is obviously a market for this airport. I cant see what exactly people are complaining about. Ok the terminal is small but its only a temp building. I mean you can check in and board an aircraft with hardly any hassle like neighbouring BHX. Off the plane, collect bags and out of the arrivals hall in 15 mins!

I think local people should give Thomsonfly a break and support this development. If this isnt a success - will the NIMBYS regret it in a couple of years as the noisy Electras will still be there!!!

jon01

24th Apr 2004, 12:26

The Astraeus B737-300 is unservicable and will not be arriving Saturday, leaving nothing available at the moment for the 13:35 Venice service....

Jon

jon01

24th Apr 2004, 13:28

Saturday Venice Pax being transported to Manchester to depart on Astraeus B737-700 G-STRC. The aircraft will return to Cov later from Venice:

ETA 20:45 TOM206 B737

Jon

Arbottle

24th Apr 2004, 19:00

Believe me, most people in Coventry itself support the airport's expansion.

TUI have their UK HQ in Coventry and are a major employer in the city.

Easy226

24th Apr 2004, 19:29

With you all the way on your views CWLSWS! I really cant understand the fuss with noise - electras departing late at night are surly more suseptible to noise complaints than a 737 - 500!

Jon - saw the 146 depart when i was at work (Newbold Comyn) - im sure there were lots of happy passengers on the Vencie flight!
When do you think G-0C will arrive then?

Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

25th Apr 2004, 05:57

B757 G-BYAE is doing Sunday's flights to cover for the 3rd B737-500 still sitting at N-EMA.

Sunday's B757 times:
07:05/08:10 BAL950F/TOM191 fr Manchester to Nice
12:30/13:25 TOM192/TOM003 fr Nice to Palma
19:00/19:45 TOM004/TOM195 fr Palma to Marseille
23:59/----- TOM196 fr Marseille

Jon

warkman

25th Apr 2004, 22:47

Interesting artical on ICBirmingham web site.

Part of the anti Cov airports augument is that the airport is unsafe due to the length of the runway and the flights should be from Birmingham instead. Now ex pilot says BHX's runway is unsafe! Can anyone say for certain what the situation is?

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14180456%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline =runway%2dis%2dthreat%2dto%2dplanes%2d%2d%2dclaim-name_page.html

jon01

26th Apr 2004, 06:05

G-BYAE B752 is still based at Coventry UFN, op the services to Nice, Palma and Marseille.

Jon

small4

26th Apr 2004, 09:16

Warkman

Just to put a mild sense of reality into this argument over runway length.

1) Which takeoff performance manual is the anti-CVT movement using showing that the B737-500 cannot be operated out of CVT?

2) If their is a limitation would they kindly publish it, bearing in mind that this changes with the weather conditions. Even a 747 at LHR has limitations on takeoff when it is warm!

3) Do they honestly think that the flight crews would put themselves at risk on a daily basis both personally and legally just to get the aircraft airborne.

4) At Jersey, where the runway is if anything more limiting, no similar problem seem to exist. I personally have operated the larger -300 into JER on more than one occasion over the years with no problems.

Wycombe

26th Apr 2004, 09:40

....and BA operated the 75' from JER (albeit on a short sector to LHR) for many years

twostroke

26th Apr 2004, 10:35

Small4: At the risk of being flamed... I dont think anyone, including the opposition groups, is saying the 735's cant be operated out of coventry, they clearly are operated already, but..

I believe the argument is that coventry's shorter runway 05 , at 1615 m TORA, is very short for a 737-500 with fuel and reserve for the longer hops to malaga, rome etc, with a "full payload of passengers and baggage". On hotter days the problem clearly gets worse. My understanding is that they will be limited, in some circumstances to 75% payload or even less.
Would anyone deny that runway 05 could do with a extra couple of hunded metres of tarmac , to be comfortable?

With regard to Jersey comments, I believe Im also correct in saying that
1) Jersey's shorter runway direction is (slightly) longer at 1645 m TORA than coventry's
2) Clearly the european sectors are a couple of hundred mile shorter from Jersey - ie less fuel.
Both of which mean Jersy is less 'near the limits' than coventry.

Ex Oggie

26th Apr 2004, 17:38

There seems to be quite some confusion about runway length at CVT, especially from the anti's.

To put it simply, they are no grey areas in runway length, either it is long enough, or it isn't, for a given t/o weight, fullstop! The MTOW can and most likely, will, vary from day to day, flight to flight.

In public transport op's, there are no 'uncomfortable' runway lengths. Apart from the fact it is worked out, usually both manually and on computor, there are large safety margins factorised into the calculations. If its marginal, its safe as it is within factorised safety limits (based usually on an average aircrafts performance). If it's beyond marginal, you dump weight because it is outside limits! Simple.

I admit to not having a deep knowledge of the 737 series perf calc's, but I would have thought that it would only become an issue with full fax, lots of go juice and a damn hot day. You can bet that TUI have run these calculations over and over to assess any impact on business.

ExO

twostroke

26th Apr 2004, 20:09

Confused about the runway length at coventry? 05 1615m Tora and 23 1825m Tora. The official coventry airport website neglects to tell you about the short runway 05 in its 'data' section. Maybe they are confused?

To put it simply, they are no grey areas in runway length, either it is long enough, or it isn't, for a given t/o weight, fullstop! The MTOW can and most likely, will, vary from day to day, flight to flight.
If it's beyond marginal, you dump weight because it is outside limits! Simple

So if the winds in the wrong direction, or its a bit hot, some customers will be politely asked to stay behind? or their baggage accidentally left behind?

Anyway, I think we more or less agree. When using 05 for takeoff, payload will be limited in some circumstances

Buster the Bear

26th Apr 2004, 20:39

So why choose to fly from and then be forced to buy an airport with non 24-7-365 operable availability for the aircraft type they selected to operate and to the destinations on offer?

Anyway, when Buster sets his CeapyBairJet up, I can fully anticipate being offered the same incentives and discounts from TUI Coventry as ThomsonFly get under a new European court ruling. What a legal minefield that would be now that airports have to offer all subsidies to ALL potential customers!

http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrary/jpeg150/br/brown_bear_120_wide.jpg

Moondance

26th Apr 2004, 21:19

Twostroke, if you read Ex Oggie's post, he says dump weight, not pax, not baggage. Nobody or their luggage will be left behind, all that may be required is a tech stop for fuel.

For the record, 05 CVT does have a TORA of 1615m, but also a TODA of 1865m and ASDA of 1795m, so probably not quite as limiting as the NIMBYs hope.

BAW954

26th Apr 2004, 21:20

When using 23 for take off the 737 was rotating after a 25 second roll which is the runway crossover just after Echo. When it lands it stops before Echo (Echo is around 1/2 of the runway.. there abouts). The 757 uses 2/3 of the runway and stops at A1 before it has to backtrack to Echo via 05. They won't need to backtrack soon once the taxiway from the end of 23 (top of 05) is complete (work already started). So hopefully they'll get them off the runway quicker since it can get rather busy occasionally. They don't use up alot of the runway even on the hotter days.

They are rather quiet actually also, IMO the Emerald 360's are SO much louder than the 737/757 it's unbelievable! After takeoff from 23 it's an immediate left hand turn at 500ft to avoid passing over Baginton. And a immediate right hand when 05. 23 is always favoured though to prevent backtrack.

Even with a wet runway, they just kick up the spray and they rotate just after E1 (53%) of runway used. Having said that, when 05 is in use they go right to the end. Stop for a while, bring the engines up. Then put full power on, wait for 5 seconds or so, then release the brakes to gain that essential speed (understable). IMHO i'd rather a 737/757 than the Atlantique DC3's flying over.

And hey, it isn't as though the people of Baginton didn't notice the airport when they bought there house. Afterall, it's been there since 1935 or so. And jets going in and out for a long time.

I could see some BAe146's going in and out. They use hardly any of the runway. A flightline one that was going to Bordeaux was up before E1, it was probably empty though, or had few pax.

If the runway wasn't long enough, I don't think TUI would be using it. Since they know what they're doing afterall!

The only problem now is the council and their injunction. However, when it's appealed at the high court (if they're actually stopped) it will most likely be passed since it isn't affecting anyone. Just the locals have more to moan about. Afterall, they can't stop Thomson from flying out. Only building a terminal.

Adam!

Easy226

27th Apr 2004, 00:10

Yes BAW 194, the flightline 146 was used by TUI due to the delay in avalability of their next 735 (G-OC). So im sure there were a number of passengers on board when you saw this take off and that the runway distance used was not to anyones concern!
Many Thansk Dan

jon01

27th Apr 2004, 06:16

Seats go on sale on Thursday for Thomson IT's. Flights are available from Coventry to Mahon, Corfu and Faro. All flights 'W' rotations departing mid afternoon (when it's hot) by B757-200. Flights operate May-Oct 2005.

Jon

thoma-hawk

27th Apr 2004, 09:32

I understand the Corfu flight will depart COV on a Tuesday at 16.50; the Mahon on a Wednesday at 15.00; and Faro on a Thursday at 14.20.

AS747

27th Apr 2004, 16:58

I see that Thomson are flying Aberdeen to Tenerife this summer, any idea what they are using out of there? The TORA is 1829M and a TODA of 2030M.

Are they planning to do that direct? If they can I reckon Coventry-Corfu shouldn't be a problem!

Andy

Easy226

27th Apr 2004, 17:57

So deos that mean that there will be a 757 based at coventy in the not too distant future?
Many Thanks
Dan

jon01

27th Apr 2004, 18:41

Don't think they have any intention of basing a B752 at Cov for a whole season.

The B752 flights are doing 'W' rotations next year, this means they are probably Birmingham or N-EMA based aircraft and crews that route, for example, B'ham-Faro-Cov-Faro-B'ham.

Jon

Flightmapping

28th Apr 2004, 11:27

Just checking through Hansard, and there are some astonishing quotes from James Plaskitt re: Coventry Airport:

"When the new service was proposed, Coventry airport submitted a planning application to build a new terminal."

The application has been in place since March 2003. Coventry have always expressed an intention to run a small no-frills operation. Nothing changed when TOM made their announcement - it only confirmed the existing intention.

"Last month, in only a few hours, Thomsonfly purchased the airport, so the airport operator and the airline are now the same entity".

It was TUI group who purchased the airport, and does he really think the transaction took "only a few hours". Besides, what is technically wrong with airport & airline being part of the same group? Isn't this what has been argued for the railways?

"Taken together, the whole operation would be close to the scale of that at East Midlands airport at present, which would be a complete transformation in the historical nature of such a small rural airport" .."the airport is home to several small flight training and freight operations"

An airport which has been in existence longer than Birmingham. Which is surrounded by heavily trafficed roads, an industrial estate and a car factory. Which is the headquarters of Parcelforce UK. Yup, that really sounds small and rural to me.

On congratulating the government on the white paper "..to make the best use of existing facilities, ... and to reject new airports on greenfield sites…

Surely that is EXACTLY what is happening at Coventry?

On Rugby Airport: I am inclined to answer "Only one miracle at a time"

As if Rugby airport was ever a serious threat, and as if Plaskitt made the slightest difference in the "decision" not to take it any further.

"Indeed, the first that I or any of my constituents knew about it was seeing advertisements on our regional television"

This shows an utter ignorance of developments at his local airport. Coventry's plans for passenger flights were well documented & openly expressed long before the announcement. Just exactly what sort of consultation was expected - they could not exactly discuss details of confidential commercial arrangements with the public.

"in a very short space of time, this airport will begin handling 2 million passengers a year"

The current Thomsonfly timetable is for about 1/8th of this number.

"I understand that it is also talking to about 20 other regional airports in the UK, none of which is a former second world war aerodrome and all of which are established"

Is Doncaster established?

"The only possible reason for starting at Coventry is because it is cheap: it has nothing to do with the Government's air transport strategy and everything to do with quick profit for one company"

Benbecula is cheap too. How about proximity to large cities nearby, easy road access etc....

The market should dictate where people want to fly, not the Government.

"there is a nearer and far more imminent threat than we ever considered possible when we objected to an international airport at Rugby.

Where have you been over the Midlands aviation debate Mr Plaskitt? Coventry's intentions have been well known throughout this. Even the White Paper you keep referring to mentions the 2m passengers per year terminal. Why have you done nothing about the freight flights? These are far noisier, and emit a lot more pollution. These planes are so old that they have escaped any kind of regulation. They could economically be replaced by much quieter equipment.

If you are that concerned about the growth in aviation, why have you done nothing about the tax situation on flights? It is your government which REDUCED air passenger duty.

twostroke

28th Apr 2004, 14:04

The High Court hearing is fixed for 14 and 15 May to decide whether the airport has to stop using the terminal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/3663401.stm

jon01

28th Apr 2004, 17:05

The 3rd B737-500, G-THOC, was due to arrive at Coventry Wed eve at 19:00 from Nott E.Mids, but this now appears to be delayed.

The B752, G-BYAE, will depart to Gatwick after the late evening Marseille arrival.

Jon

Flightmapping

28th Apr 2004, 19:59

Isn't the 15th a Saturday?

Just seen the number of supporters up to 737! Well done guys!

jon01

29th Apr 2004, 05:39

G-THOC finally arrived 23:35 Wed eve and is now in service.

Jon

Adam Leach

29th Apr 2004, 06:19

Excellent! It'll be good to see her next Saturday. Hopefully we'll still get the occasional 757 - she's a beauty!

Easy226

30th Apr 2004, 10:59

Im sure the 757's will be in fairly often when maintainance is taken place on the 737's.
Many Thanks
Dan

dada

1st May 2004, 12:28

had a scout around cvt the other day - why is there no sign of thompson (posters etc) anywhere to be seen. the whole set up looks like something fron that jack ruskin airline series back in the 80's. bag o' s...

Skypartners

1st May 2004, 22:50

Dada - the airline ops from the airport South side where there is plenty of branding to be seen. I guess you were elsewhere onsite - poss amongst the Atlantiqe aircraft on the North side where it would not be appropriate for Thomsonfly stuff to be posted. Whilst Thomsonfly and the airport share common ownership they do not have carte blanche to brand the whole airport with their stuff. Their flags fly on the south side and the departure lounge is bedecked with their ads. The passenger info screens in departures and arrivals are also heavily branded. I guess when another airline comes aboard that will change. As for the basic nature of facilities - yes on the North and West side there's a lot of older hangarage - housing many classic aircraft because that's Atlantique's thing - maybe you missed that subtle point. On the South side it's temporary buildings whilst Warwick District Council play silly ******s, after which a posh new terminal goes up.

Arbottle

2nd May 2004, 11:29

Skypartners,
Are they actively trying to get more airlines operating from Cov?

Skypartners

2nd May 2004, 12:44

Arbottle - not to my knowledge but the businesses (airport and airline) are totally separate entities - and as the airport has many other tenants not associated with Tui the branding remains airport first, client second. If more airlines come here in the future I'd guess some of the Thomsonfly stuff in the departures area would have to be changed for generic airport branding. Airport colours are green and black - Orange will look horrid here :D

singleacting

2nd May 2004, 21:33

Got to agree with Skypartners DADA ! You were on the wrong side of the airfield DOH ! and there you where sounding so knowlegable!!

Flightmapping

3rd May 2004, 09:09

The antis are using the following “professor” Timar as evidence to back their pollution claims.

http://www.angelfire.com/pe/environmentaleng/

Have a read of:

http://www.areco.org/gtaaimpact.pdf

If you want some entertainment. Especially the household survey at the end - “how many deaths have you had this year”

Easy226

5th May 2004, 09:55

So can someone confirm that the final decision regarding the terminal will occur on 15th May?
Many Thanks
Dan

twostroke

5th May 2004, 12:05

Despite the BBC reference to 15 th May, its actually the 13th and 14th may, that Warwick District Council are having a preliminary hearing in the high court, as to whether Coventry Airport are within Permitted Development rights or not, to have erected and operated the 'interim' terminal - ie the portacabins. WDC are adamant that they are not; that Cov Airport should have submitted a planning application and environmental statement for the temp facilities. Equally the airport are adamant they are operating within the law. Someone will be wrong. There is more than a fair chance that the high court will order the airport to stop using the 'interim' facilities, but it may have to go to a full hearing of the high court, which will give thomsonfly a bit more time to set up a plan B.

The permanent passenger terminal planning application is another matter altogether. That application is still on hold. Despite it being submitted over a year ago, cov airport have requested Warwick district council delay any decision, as the airport want to resubmit the environmental Impact assessment and supporting mitigation package. They did say it was going to be reissued at the start of April, but here we are in May and it hasnt reappeared yet.

So no date currently is set for the permanent passenger terminal.

Daysleeper

5th May 2004, 13:23

Noww the mayor of whitnash is complaining in the local paper that aircraft low flying over the tachbrook road are a terrorist risk.
....I was amazed to see a low flying plane. It was only 18,000 feet up.
I'm not kiding that is eighteen thousand that he is complaing about.:rolleyes:

Easy226

5th May 2004, 16:07

Yeah i saw that rediculous statement in the Courier as well. Was just about to post it too!

twostroke

5th May 2004, 16:45

I presumed it was a typo in the paper? How could he have measured 18,000 feet?

Daysleeper

5th May 2004, 17:47

Well its an odd figure, if it was a typo then did he mean , 18 feet, 180 feet, 1800 feet or 180,000 feet and how the heck does he know.

As for the Letter on the next page calling for a total EU ban on night flights these people have no idea what we do at night :mad:

Leamington Courier 30 April 04. P37.

Flightmapping

5th May 2004, 20:01

Very interesting article in CET stating that the new chair of the airport committe, Lord Snape, will not tolerate the "fundamentalists" who have been stirring up so much bad feeling about the airport:

Lord Snape, 62, who as Peter Snape was MP for West Bromwich, has been a friend of Coventry Airport managing director Bill Savage for several years. He has declared he will not support the views of "fundamentalists".

He said: "The fundamentalists take the view that the airport should not be here in the first place.

"That's not the view that I take and is not one I want to entertain; that is something for the High Court to decide.

"It's somewhat illogical to buy a home adjacent to an airport and then ask them to stop flying.

"What I will be doing is addressing the issue of noise, making sure airlines stick to landing and take-off guidelines and persuade the airport to benefit local purposes."

Full article:

http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=14212395&method=full&siteid=50003

Naturally, CAECA have already accused him of bias, because they are all so neutral aren't they?

twostroke

6th May 2004, 08:01

DfT Guidlines for consultative committees:

guidelines (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/source/dft_aviation_source_026254.doc)

Note the bits about appointment of a chairman, paras 5.1 and 6.5

Flightmapping

6th May 2004, 13:07

Not really a good week for CAECA is it?

Firstly, they are exposed as thugs on the evening news after they are challenged at one of their protests.
Then the new chair of the airport committee calls them "fundamentalists"
Then they try and hijack the supporters' forum with repeated spam attacks.
Now one of the country's top experts in pollution criticises their "black arts" of propaganda, after one of the local papers actually bothers to check up the nonsense they send them.
No wonder they have gone so quiet lately....

6/5/2004 - Coventry Observer

Airport campaigners raise pollution fears
CAMPAIGNERS fighting the expansion of Coventry Airport claim infant mortality rates around the airport will double if passenger flights continue.

The Campaign Against Expansion at Coventry Airport (CAECA) claim to have evidence of catastrophic health implications for residents living near the airport.

The campaigners point to statistics taken from a study by Canadian professor Gabriel Timar on pollution at Toronto International Airport, which carries over 20 million passengers per year.

Professor Timar states aircraft emissions have strong links to cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease and infant mortality.

But checking the professor's credentials on the internet, The Observer discovered his work has not been published in reputable scientific journals and, according to the professor himself, he does not have figures to back up his claims.

Professor Ronan Lyons from the University of Wales, one of the country's top authorities on atmospheric pollution, told The Observer this week campaigners must back statements with credible evidence.

"The first question one has to ask when presented with statistics like this is 'where they have come from?' - has it been reviewed by other experts, are there any vested interests?," Professor Lyons said.

"The NIMBY brigade like to scare the living daylights out of people without any real evidence because they know it makes for good headlines.

"It's the old black art of propaganda."

When The Observer questioned CAECA's evidence and revealed Professor Lyons opinion, a spokesman said precise figures of the impact of passenger flights at Coventry Airport were "hard to measure at the moment."

But the spokesman added the campaigners were keen to see air monitors installed at the airport.

"We need to know what the pollution threat is," the spokesman said.

"We are aware that, because of the conflict of airspace with Birmingham, aircraft have to fly lower and for longer in and out of Coventry.

"This causes more pollution. The airport has refused to calculate the environmental impact and have started flights without doing any kind of assessment."

twostroke

7th May 2004, 09:02

Methinks you are desparately trying to distract attention away from the real point.

Coventry Airport are being taken to the High Court next week for flagrant breaches of planning regulations. Cov Airport/Tui/Thomson may not care about planning regs or environmental assessments but plenty do. It is the law of the land, not something that can be ignored by bully boy big business.

If the proper procedures had been adhered to , cov airport probably would now not be up the creek without paddles. They only have themselves to blame for the mess they are in

warkman

7th May 2004, 09:28

Twostroke:-

{quote} Coventry Airport are being taken to the High Court next week for flagrant breaches of planning regulations. {quote}

ALLEGED breach. The airport will contend that they carried out development WITHIN the permitted development. I also have to say Warwick DC have not alleged "Flagrent" that is your opinion only.

{quote} Cov Airport/Tui/Thomson may not care about planning regs or environmental assessments but plenty do. It is the law of the land, not something that can be ignored by bully boy big business. {quote}

Again, that is YOUR interpretation, not fact, Twostroke.

{Quote} If the proper procedures had been adhered to , cov airport probably would now not be up the creek without paddles. They only have themselves to blame for the mess they are in {Quote}

Again I would contend that proper proceedures WERE carried out by the airport, and that the Planning Committee, by ignoring the evidence are now up the creek and will have only themselves to blame for the debace (and costs) to come.

Shall we leave our comments untill the High Court makes the decision?

twostroke

7th May 2004, 12:02

Yes, agreed, they are of course my opinions I posted.

Also agreed, we may as well wait till next week, to see who can post the 'told you so' message !

warkman

7th May 2004, 12:04

Knowing the courts it won't be as simple as black & white :-)

twostroke

7th May 2004, 12:16

Blimey, I agree with you again. I bet there will be some middle-ground face-saving deal done, and everyone will claim 'victory';)

Flightmapping

7th May 2004, 12:22

I'm still wondering if there is any precedent for this case. Has anyone had such a big argument over a temporary structure?

I don't see any victors next week, except the lawyers.

If TUI win, the antis will cry foul. If WDC win, TUI will appeal. If TUI lose on appeal, will they reduce the size of the terminal - afaik, they still have development rights to operate the flights?
Even if they have to get rid of the terminal, couldn't they 'borrow' one of those mobile loungers, as used at places like Dallas? I'd love to see WDC try to slap an enforcement notice on one of those - every time they tried, they could just move it across the apron!

Seriously though, as I understand it, TUI HAVE tried to arrange mediation, but WDC have refused. They have NOT done a very good job at explaining this though, and really should have tried the PR offensive months ago.

jon01

7th May 2004, 21:26

A few inbound loads from Thu/Fri:

Marseille:102
Malaga: 82
Palma: 60
Jersey: 42, 63
Rome:50

(so running at about 50% load factor)

Jon

Easy226

9th May 2004, 18:15

Is a 50% load factor good for a low cost airline - or is it usually higher than this?
Many Thanks
Dan

gobfa

10th May 2004, 11:07

Following extracts from Coventry Evening Telegraph on the recent demonstration by CAECA (the anti's)

"May 8 2004

By Simon Dudman

Supporters of expansion at Coventry Airport have rubbished claims made by protesters about the environ-mental impact of extra flights.
On Monday, members of the Campaign Against The Expansion of Coventry Airport (CAECA) staged a peaceful protest outside the airport which was attended by nearly 250 people and was on the theme of pollution."

However,

"May 4 2004

By Simon Dudman

More than 200 angry campaigners protested outside Coventry Airport at Baginton to voice concerns over its environmental impact.
The Campaign Against the Expansion of Coventry Airport (CAECA) staged the event yesterday to draw attention to what it said were the negative effects on air quality, ecology and road conditions and the risk of disease.
The protest had aimed to be peaceful but airport security staff had to restrain some protesters who appeared to be trying to storm the entrance."

So was it peaceful ?

Flightmapping

10th May 2004, 11:22

gobfa, check out the airport supporters' forum for more about this - http://pub33.bravenet.com/forum/2773950195

No, it was anything but peaceful, as the Observer more accurately reported. The CET reported didn't even show up to the demo.

gobfa

10th May 2004, 14:38

Flightmapping

Have been following this tread and various web sites for sometime now, and yes i have registered.

As for Simon Dudman (is this his real name or just a description of his output), have sympathy for the "boy", he had to write something after waiting in The Oak for the protestors to turn up. How else can he justify the expense claim.

Remember the old press saying "Why let the truth get in the way of a story"

Look forward to more lies being debunked

jon01

10th May 2004, 17:37

Palma loads from the past few days reported as 88 and 92.

Thomsonfly are planning Coventry to Amsterdam and Skiing destinations later this year.....

Jon

Flightmapping

10th May 2004, 22:04

Jon, Where are you getting this from? I'd love to see Turin in their winter t/t - it is a great city in its own right, and of course host for Winter Olympics etc.

Now I wonder what might link Coventry with Turin?

jon01

11th May 2004, 07:02

New route's planned came from staff at Thomsonfly.

Jon

Richardms31

11th May 2004, 12:31

I attended the protest at the airport gates and of course it was peaceful as it was mostly mothers and children like myself.

There was an incident when an idiot came out and waved a clipboard around shouting that he was 'protesting against the protest' and deliberately tried to antagonise people. All that happened was that he was picked up by two men and carried a few yards away from the crowd, he was subsequently apologised to by some of the women and he seemed ok, if a little shame-faced.

I witnessed only one other incident whereby a Land Rover driver deliberately drove into and hit a protester carrying a sign. He must have hit him quite hard as his wing mirror fell off. This could have been a child, and he was very lucky that this gentleman wasn't seriously injured as we have the registration and many witnesses.

LTNman

11th May 2004, 12:50

I wonder how many of the protesters will be flying off to the sun this year. I guess it is OK to fly over someone else’s house as long as it isn’t their home. :mad:

Flightmapping

11th May 2004, 14:56

LTNman, all I can say is that the usally empty Oak car park was suddenly very full on the day of the protest.

It is precisely for reasons liks this that I decided to go and challenge CAECA head on.

Richardms31,

...an idiot came out and waved a clipboard around shouting that he was 'protesting against the protest' and deliberately tried to antagonise people.

> Haven't CAECA antagonised enough people already? It only takes one person to speak up for the silent majority.

....All that happened was that he was picked up by two men and carried a few yards away from the crowd,

> and kicked, and had umbrellas pushed in my face.

....he was subsequently apologised to by some of the women and he seemed ok, if a little shame-faced.

> I don't recal anyone apologising to me, or condemning the actions of those who ejected me from the demonstration, which I had just as much right to attend as they did.

The tide is at last turning against this very small minority who are trying to stop the rest of us enjoying our local flights. Please do not reply with some environmental tosh about saving the community for future generations, because it won't wash with me.

I have tried having that debate with people from CAECA, and they aren't interested. They are only interested in their own backyard, and until they accept that passenger flights from Coventry are here to stay (and are much better for the environment than people driving to Gatwick), and come to the table with some constructive comments about noise mitigation, then I will continue to campaign against their lies and anti-airport propaganda.

Richardms31

11th May 2004, 17:18

Oh it was you was it? Well done for coming out, all I know is that I know what I saw, and I don't tell lies in order to preserve my job or my web-site!

My children have both developed hacking coughs since 1st April, and the doctor has diagnosed asthma, no history of this ever in my family or any similar symptoms previously - but hey, the health of young children isn't important is it? As long as they're not your children or the children of airport workers or TUI employees it's ok, as long as we dont all have to travel an extra 15mins down the road to Bham airport, it's just fine, and as long as TUI make a huge profit, that's fine too. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Flightmapping

11th May 2004, 17:31

Richard,

I told you that I would not listen to any kind of environmental tosh.

To say that there is a causal link between Thomsonfly flights starting on one day, and your kids getting asthma the next is utterly ridiculous.

I don't want to belittle a serious condition, but I have never heard such crap in this debate. I suggest you read last week's Observer article, in which CAECA tried to claim a 50% rise in infant mortality around the airport. This claim was put to Professor Ronan Lyons, one of the country's top experts in air pollution, who said there was no evidence to back up such claims, and accused CAECA of using the "black arts of propaganda".

No-one denies that planes emit pollutants. But I think you will find a much bigger source of pollution running near to the airport. It is called the A45.

Sorry, I forgot to add that if the driver deliberately hit the protestors as you say he did, you should report him to the police. Violence against protestors cannot be condoned, whatever side of the argument they are on.

And if you think I am telling lies, please come up with some factual claims to back up your arguments.

jmc757

11th May 2004, 17:37

Someone else has broke planning regulations! Its not the people who run a big field with a strip of tarmac down it. Its not the people flying big blue airplanes.... its CAECA!!

Theyve been ordered to take down their Protest Signs as they are effectively adverts that have no permission!! Full story: www.iccoventry.co.uk (http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14230598%26method=full%26siteid=50003%26headline =protest%2dposters%2dmust%2dcome%2ddown-name_page.html)

Ok, not big news, but couldnt help LMAO! :p

Adam Leach

11th May 2004, 17:39

Didn't you notice CVT airport when you bought your house? What about the jets that fly in and out oftenly.. not forgetting Air Atlantique.

By the way, my sister has asthma too, it doesn't run in our family either.

Flightmapping

11th May 2004, 17:53

Asthma is one of those conditions which has unfortunately been on the rise in the UK, and we don't have a very good record in treating it.

I would ask anyone who suffers from it what they are doing to make the home environment more tolerable. For example, I get quite bad hay fever. I'm not saying for one minute that this is as bad. But what I am saying is that I regularly wash bed linen, and have a very good air filter in my home office and in my bedroom. This takes away most of the problem. I understand that there are some very good hoovers on the market too, which can help get rid of the dust-mites which make these conditions so much worse.

I know this is getting a little off topic, but I think it is worth pointing out that there are various things which can be done to "mitigate" living near busy roads or airports, which will all be far more effective than barking at the thousands of people who are using them (will CAECA try picketing the road users on the A45?).

I also wonder how many people living near airports have double glazing? This might sound obvious, but I stayed in an airport hotel near EWR in March. I knew the planes were there, but thought I was a fair distance from the runway (arriving late at night, and through winding access roads). It was only when I went out the next day that I realised just how close to the runway the hotel actually was.

Again, we're not very good at building houses in the UK either. I just wonder if all new houses near airports were built to Swedish insulation standards, whether we'd have so many complaints?

Stand 22

11th May 2004, 18:06

My children have both developed hacking coughs since 1st April, and the doctor has diagnosed asthma, no history of this ever in my family or any similar symptoms previously

I'm sorry, did I read that correctly? You are trying to link asthma to the start of thomsonfly flights? What total and utter sh*te.

no history of this ever in my family or any similar symptoms previously

There was no history of it in my family either, but that didn't stop me getting it at the age of 7 and we didn't even live near an airport or close to busy city roads. I have worked in close proximity to aircraft for the last 6 years yet they have never agitated my condition or given me casue to use my inhaler. Smokers on the other hand............

warkman

11th May 2004, 18:12

You have GOT to read this!
Talk about showing WDC up!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3705269.stm

ROFLMAO!!!!

Daysleeper

11th May 2004, 18:36

Top Banana. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Wish the council would stop wasting my taxes on crazy lawsuits.

(if they spent the money on education maybe i could learn to spell ) :rolleyes:

AS747

11th May 2004, 19:23

Could be good news for the airport but whilst all this waiting is going on how many people are holding off from booking flights?(several people I know are), I wish there was a way that the airline could claim back any lost revenue whilst this waiting is going on. I suppose proving it is the problem.

Also does this mean another delay for the planning permission for the permanent terminal? I guess they will be calling for a public enquiry for that next, however at least that would end all this nimby nonsense.

Re the asthma, sorry to hear that your children have developed that condition but your claims are medically unfounded and quite frankly ludicrous, it is those sorts of claims that have done your CAECA organisation no good at all. The CAECA effort is full of lies and deceit and I think they are to blame for much of the pro-airport sentiment being voiced, people are fed up of hearing all their ridiculous claims.

WDC website just updated:

click here (http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/pls/wdc/wdc_ser.web_pages.Newsevents4?in_ssu_code=139&in_sar_code=290&in_newsevent_id=614)

warkman

11th May 2004, 19:36

The full planning permission for the actual terminal is a seperate PP so this should not effect it at all, but I think you know the way the Councillors will vote on that!

As for astmah, Britain is known for having the highest rate` of this in Europe, with parts of Warwickshire suffering high levels, but that does not include Bagington. It is said that Rugby has a higher concentration possibly (though not proven) because of the Cement works (the same thing is said about Southam & Long Itchington.) But we are a country that suffers and cannot be blamed on a few new flights.

LTNman

11th May 2004, 19:47

My children have both developed hacking coughs since 1st April, and the doctor has diagnosed asthma

Come on Richards31, spill the beans, have you ever flown. I guess you have but then you were flying over someone else’s house so that was OK. I am sorry to hear about your children. Does this mean that you will be selling your polluting car to help the environment ? I doubt it some how.
:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Richardms31

11th May 2004, 19:56

Thanks to those of you who have expressed sympathy about my kids, interesting to see the condescing and agressive replies trying to justify your positions, you all have an agenda but are too scared to admit it. But at least it's not your kids eh? so that's ok. Nice to see human nature at it's best.

Flightmapping

11th May 2004, 20:02

Sorry Richard, but the date just makes you case sound even less credible. Did it start happening after midday by any chance?

OK, I'm getting flippant here, but as AS747 rightly says, we are just fed up with one lie after another. We therefore have to dismiss all with ridicule, unless proven to the contrary.

I think my top ten of anti-airport lies (not all attrituble to CAECA though) have to be:

1) Warwick Castle foundations will crumble
2) Coventry will become a magnet for asylum seekers
3) Planes fly low to drop drugs
4) Infant mortality will go up 50%*
5) These planes will cover Warwickshire with jet fuel*
6) The supporters' website is run by the airport*
7) The runway isn't long enough*
8) The plane which crashed in Coventry was a 737, so it is adding insult to injury to use 737's again.
9) "We stopped Rugby", so we can stop Coventry*
10) Bird strikes are a risk to passenger flights only

Ones with a * ARE from the CAECA website or CAECA representatives

Sorry, (2) and (3) are from Coventry Airport "The Facts", a website supported by CAECA

Richard (your last post came through as I was typing)

Can I remind you that you are posting on a pro-aviation website. The airport supporters\' forum (http://www.supportcoventryairport.co.uk/discuss/) does have sections to debate pro v. against.

That may also be a pro-aviation site, but at least it has been open and welcomes contributions from both sides. Something CAECA have never done. Can\'t you see why we have got so angry. We have just heard lie after lie after lie, and now we are fighting back.

Yes, we do have agendas - to defend our industry from ludicrous attacks. That does not make us blindly pro-everything to do with flying, and as many of us have said, we don\'t deny that planes cause pollution. Some of us also believe more needs to be done to cover the full environmental costs of flying.

You have been ridiculed because you posted a suggestion that there was a link between one day of Thomsonfly operations and your kids getting asthma. Other posters have admitted that they themselves suffer from asthma or related conditions. Just because we have no time for your flawed arguments does not mean we are lacking in sympathy for your sons.

Skypartners

11th May 2004, 21:52

Erm - maybe that they have grown into the allergy stage of their lives and, coincidentally, the pollen season is upon us. Richard as I have said before you do your cause no favours by introducing wild generalisation - such a your claims about low pay - I still await your apology! No Doctor in the world would suggest a link with the Thomsonfly launch and your kids asthma - not after a month!

Flightmapping

11th May 2004, 22:36

Skypartners,

April 1st was the DAY after the launch. If anyone has any PEER REVIEWED studies of pollution around UK airports, then I'd be interested to read them. I have heard it said that the biggest PROVEN health risk around airports such as LHR and AMS, where some studies have been done is malaria (http://www.aviation-health.org/Newspage.asp?ArtID=140) - and even for this, you are talking about one case in 20 years.

The key issue when quoting evidence regarding pollution is that such studies must have been published in a reputable scientific journal. It is very easy to chuck stuff on a website and make it look authentic, as CAECA have done on just about every issue regarding the airport.

I have searched the bmj (British Medical Journal) website, and it has no record of any studies on airports since 1994.

I would never deny that some pollution risk must exist from aircraft emmissions, although bearing in mind that pollution from aircraft engines is dispersed in three dimensions rather than two, and roads are much closer to the ground than planes, I would also expect their impact to be that much greater.

Then again, Coventry is not Heathrow and the A45 is not the M25, so I really can't imagine the problem is anywhere near the levels the nimbys would like you to believe.

Richardms31

12th May 2004, 19:59

oh terribly, terribly sorry Skypartners, it was £4.75 per hour that you were advertising some of your catering vacancies at the jobcentre, not £4.50 as I mistakenly stated, 25p above the nmw is a much better rate isnt it?

warkman

12th May 2004, 20:06

Hmmmm
And the going rate for catering staff is??
I am surprised you are not rushing to Skypartners for a job Richardms31 :p

And as you seem to think that all the jobs at the airport are low paid, how much does a captain of a 737 earn? waht about a first officer? Cabin Vrew? what about the fire crews who, if your house caught fire would be there quicker than the nearest warwickshire fire tender???

AS747

12th May 2004, 20:18

£4.75 is better than people claiming the dole.

Well done Skypartners, I have used the passenger facility and your staff were friendly, professional and seemed to be very happy. The same goes for the all the airport staff I met.

I am sure the airport won't let these pathetic NIMBY's ruin what is turning into a great success story at an airport which offers great services for the people of Coventry, Warwickshire and beyond.

PS Are there plans for a bar in the lounge?

Flightmapping

12th May 2004, 20:46

Richard,

Who's the one doing the antagonising now?

The difference between people on this forum and CAECA is that we are prepared to back up our points with fact.

There was a very interesting meeting at the Chamber of Commerce today where some of the representatives were telling me about the abusive phone calls they'd been getting from anti-airport nuts.

All I can say to you Richard is that I am glad I'm not having to employ you, because with an attitude like yours, giving you minimum wage would make you overpaid.

If you have the guts to set up your own business of any kind, then come back and tell others how to run theirs.

In the meantime, could someone take a look at the map at http://www.warwickshire-wildlife-trust.org.uk/airport/graphics/HBA-Airport5.jpg

and say just exactly how many of these "at risk" areas are actually under the flight path from Coventry? I can't imagine that any of them would be. Does the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have any prominent patrons who can be challenged over the nonsense they have just published on their website?

Skypartners

12th May 2004, 22:10

That's the polite word for you. The lowest wage advertised by us was £6 for catering assistants and £7 for caterers. I gave you the chance to correct your error and you did not take it - so, being generous, you still seem to be mistaken - because if this misinformation is deliberate that would make you a liar.

Right - now that\'s all out of the way - yep a bar is on the cards but I felt there were bigger issues to get sorted first before we start courting objections to a liquor license. I mean can you imagine the headlines - 'merry airport passengers a threat to local wildlife - say local protestors' etc etc :O

Richardms31

13th May 2004, 16:43

skypartners, I think you are the mistaken one, I have in my hot little hand a vacancy for your catering staff advertised at £5 per hour, not £6 or £7, although you do have those too. Would you like me to post it to you? If you're not Emma, I suggest you speak to her to get your facts straight. I can't find the £4.75 ones now but I have seen them when you first placed the vacancies. Stop lying, people don't want to work in Baginton anyway as they can't get there. There are hundreds of vacancies in Baginton and they can't be filled, the last thing we need is more.

warkman

13th May 2004, 16:52

Is this because the workers houses in the village which were built to service the airport and the surrounding farms have now been bought up by Coventry commuters and have turned it inro a middle class dormitory village??

Richardms31

13th May 2004, 16:56

I've just sent you a much more fun, interesting and truthful forum to play on Warkman - this is all getting very boring

Skypartners

13th May 2004, 18:25

I have worked this out - you are holding (in your hot little hand) a flyer (distributed in Baginton only) for a part-time job advertised in our staff restaurant last August (i.e months B4 the announcement of the launch of the new services) and in no way connected with the recruitment that took place for the new passenger operation. Different job, different place and different time.

The recruitment that commenced after the airline announced its launch was all conducted through the job centres and the airport website where there has never ever been a rate below £6 an hour. The extra revenue created by the airline coming to Coventry created the opportunity to offer such good, well paid positions. Skypartners was not contracted to provide hospitality services until January so nothing that appeared before was related to the expansion. So your posts portray your evidence as being representative of the current position but it is not.

Whilst I would not ordinarily go into such minute detail about our pay policy I will state, once again but hopefully for the last time, that we pay a minimum of £6 an hour - even to our student part timers, which is a significantly above the minimum wage. Richard -your assertion that the airport expansion created only low-paid jobs that nobody wants is just not true. We continue to receive several enquiries every day from wouldbe employees. We also have employees who live in Baginton.

That's all cleared up - Richard, I was polite in suggesting that you were mistaken when making your point - you chose to call me a liar - I'll let the readers decide if that assertion is misdirected.

colegate

13th May 2004, 18:44

The issue of Thomsonfly and Coventry seems to have generated more replies and site visits than any other airline or airport topic since PPrune was launched. Fascinating at a time when the whole industry has been through a period of extreme chaos, airlines have been failing at their usual prodigious rate, and airport congestion remains largely unrelieved. Why are Thomson and Coventry so interesting?

Arbottle

13th May 2004, 20:53

Not sure.
Having lived in Coventry for six years, it's clear that the City itself is definitely keen to see the Airport expand - no matter what the distance is to Brum Airport, Baginton is closer and more convenient. (Maybe the airport itself seems to also have attracted a lot of enthusiasts due to its flying school & shows)

There is also a distinct local identity crisis -- Coventry gets lumped in with Birmingham, which a lot of people here don't like, to the point of even being called Brummies [Which is odd, as the Coventry accent is more like a country bumpkin accent!] and the airport is seen as a major boost to the City, which has seen a lot of its traditional industry die, but has also had a massive boom in the IT sector and high tech, automotice industries, as well as financial & food.

AS747

14th May 2004, 14:32

from http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0150swarksnews/page.cfm?objectid=14241516&method=full&siteid=50003

This morning Joseph Harper QC, on behalf of Warwick District Council, revealed that even if the injunction was eventually granted the authority would not force the terminal to close as long as conditions were agreed to.

He said: "I don't anticipate we are going to close them, if I was to look in my crystal ball and we get permission for an injunction, then it is in everyone's interest to come together to reach an agreement that minimises the environmental impact."

"Mediation may be appropriate now but it was not earlier because we were in the weaker position.

"Now we have a much clearer idea about the conditions that we want.

"If we got an injunction we would suspend it on certain conditions that we have yet to finalise and if they break them then we would return to court."

Mr Harper said the injunction would be suspended until wider planning issues at the airport were resolved.

What a u-turn, if they wanted mediation why didn't they say that weeks ago before spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers money. A sign that they recognise just how weak their case is me thinks.

Flightmapping

14th May 2004, 14:43

What a waste of everyone's time then.

I'd like to know:

How much has this case cost?
Who's paying?
How much will WDC council tax have to rise?
What would happen if airport supporters paid their tax in full, minus this amount?
If someone will be prepared to take the stick for this?
If there is such a thing as a "Basil Fawlty" award for trying keep tourists away? WDC certainly seem to deserve one. Maybe we can lock these idiot councillors in the castle and make an attraction out of them. Raving Ron is certainly a classic comedy act "TUI are Germans and I keep mentioning the war" etc.....

I love his latest challenge - muster 200 people for a pro-airport demonstration and show us your money. How about the 1000 people who demonstrate every day and put their money where their mouth is by using Coventry Airport?

Daysleeper

14th May 2004, 15:04

I see our honorary muppet (J Plaskit MP) has been sticking his oar in again. The leamington courier (14 may, page 8)
has him saying that airspace " conflict can only be managed at times by stacking aeroplanes over Warwick." Why? there is already a host of holds avaliable in the local area. Oh thats right lets scaremonger about jets over warwick castle.
He does at least admit that there is no safety problem with the CVT / BHX interaction.

bacardi walla

14th May 2004, 15:38

colegate

The issue of Thomsonfly and Coventry seems to have generated more replies and site visits than any other airline or airport topic since PPrune was launched.

Not quite true. A recent thread about NOW Airlines went to 16 pages and they never got off the ground !!

:zzz:

Adam Leach

14th May 2004, 15:41

Looks like good news.

Taken from the Coventry Airport website located at: www.coventryairport.co.uk

Coventry Airport Press Statement

Friday 14th May, 2004

The two day hearing at the High Court was completed today before Mrs Justice Gloster with the judge reserving her judgment until further notice.

Coventry Airport continues to be fully operational and Thomsonfly.com continues to operate to 11 European destinations.

The Airport Managing Director, Bill Savage, said: "We are delighted that Warwick District Council have decided to withdraw their application for an interim injunction".

"We are also very pleased that in their submissions to Mrs Justice Gloster, their counsel Mr Harper made it clear that Warwick District Council had no intention to shut or close the Airport."

"The Airport and of course Thomsonfly.com look forward to a busy Summer."

jon01

14th May 2004, 17:44

A few recent Thomsonfly passenger loads from Thu/Fri

Palma 74 88
Nice 27 30
Valencia 80
Marseille 35
Rome 59

Jon

colegate

14th May 2004, 18:35

Good luck to Thomson's. They can now get on and make of success of these routes.

Richardms31

14th May 2004, 19:21

Skypartners, I work in the jobcentre with Simone, so get your facts straight please

Skypartners

14th May 2004, 21:18

Well no-one can say I didnt try to reason!

gobfa

14th May 2004, 22:57

Richardms31, have we finally found out why you are so upset with CVT developing.

You must be worried about all those vacancies being created that you will be made redundant from the Jobcentre.

Don't antagonise possible future employers.

jon01

15th May 2004, 05:45

The fourth Thomsonfly B735 G-THOD is delayed so they are looking for a stand in aircraft. Expect a foreign B733 to arrive on 19th May to operate the New Naples and Pisa flights the following day.

Jon

Arbottle

15th May 2004, 11:28

Odd, someone who works in the job centre complaining about a company offering jobs.

Anyway, looks like WDC have screwed up big time and everyone's laughing at their backpedal. Here's to more flights & a new terminal building a Coventry!

Adam Leach

15th May 2004, 16:07

I think this will definately be a great success. Anybody know why OD is delayed?

richxby

15th May 2004, 20:10

Hope everyone saw the press statement @ www.thomsonfly.com! Good news for us all CVT!

I'm not too sure why OD is delayed, could either to be with the repainting/interiors or test flights? Think it will probably be a week or so late, but in the meantime yeah we will have another ad hoc aircraft. Possibly a BY B757 or last time we had an Astraeus B738, but new flights will definately start as planned!

Anyway we look forward to welcoming everyone on board soon!

richxby

16th May 2004, 13:34

Just found out we're having a FlyMe (Swedish?) B733 @ CVT from 20th May until 2nd June I think, when THOD arrives!

singleacting

16th May 2004, 21:24

Richardms31
Why do you persist in this futile argument? Do you really think you know more about the catering staffs wages than the one who is paying them? What ever you have seen or what ever you have heard, Skypartners is the only one that knows the truth! Frankly I would rather trust his word than yours!
Weigh Anchor

Flightmapping

17th May 2004, 13:23

http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14249278%26method=full%26siteid=50003%26headline =air%2dalert%2ddrama%2dover%2dcity-name_page.html

It seems there was an "incident" at Coventry last Wednesday. What is the difference between an "airprox" and a "near miss"? Sounds like this was a very minor problem, if the plane didn't even have to execute a missed approach, but it is unfortunately playing straight into the hands of CAECA, just a we thought we'd got rid of them.

Trout99uk

17th May 2004, 15:21

Funny isn`t it that all those people got together to protest about the proposed Rugby/Coventry airport, and Thomsonfly and all the polution it will cause. Yet just 8 miles down the road they have the biggest cement plant in europe about to start burning alternative fuels. ie old tyres.

Now that IS polution. So all you people when you have finished with Baginton, go and have a go at them. :ok:

twostroke

17th May 2004, 21:28

Sounds like this was a very minor problem
mmm.... Flightmapping..... Self appointed accident investigator as well as environmental impact expert....

For an alternative view on the High Court proceedings, read Warwick District Council press statement below.

17th May 2004

Coventry Airport –
Enforcement Action & Injunction Proceedings

Following a two day hearing at the High Court last week, the Council is awaiting the courts decision on the case.

The Judge, Justice Mrs Gloster, listened to the Airport’s submission to have the case struck out (dismissed). The opposing view was strenuously put by the Council.

If the case is found for the Council our intention is to seek an early date for a full hearing of the injunction.

If the case is dismissed, the Council intends to continue with the separate enforcement action against the Airport and will defend any appeal against the action at a public local enquiry.

In either scenario, injunction or enforcement, the Council intends to proceed as quickly as possible in fully resolving matters.

To clarify the Airport’s statement of Friday last, the Council can confirm it has withdrawn the interlocutory (preliminary) hearing but only in order to proceed more rapidly to a full injunction hearing.

Head of Planning & Engineering, Mr John Archer said: “We are now in waiting for the Court’s judgement. We feel we have been given a full and fair hearing, and will await the outcome.”

ENDS

Arbottle

17th May 2004, 22:52

Nothing new in that.

WDC stated they were withdrawing from the interim hearing _in which they were going to get an injuction to have the terminal closed_ BEFORE the hearing DUE TO STRONG EVIDENCE from the Airport. Methinks they did not prepare their case well enough and had to pull out to get extra time to prepare it (Which is what, effectively, their legal team advised them to do.).

This left the Airport to make an attempt to get the case struck off as there is no case to answer (In their opinion.)

The sad fact is that by skipping this step it does not mean proceedings will go any faster. It'll probably slow them down.

WDC are also qouted as saying, during the hearing, that they really want the enfrocement order to use as a bargainning tool.

So, they had weak evidence for the court case, and are wasting taxpayers (Not mine, thankfully) money on taking the airport to court when they have _stated_ that they have no intention of forcing the airport to close even if they do have an enforcement.

They have also - much to the frustration of CA - refused to enter into any talks.

So then they get whalloped with evidence that's too overwhelming for them. They state this on their website as well.

Flightmapping

17th May 2004, 23:10

Twostroke,

mmm.... Flightmapping..... Self appointed accident investigator as well as environmental impact expert....

If you read my post again, you will see that I asked a question about the difference between an "airprox" and a "near miss", and that I also said it "sounds minor", not that it "is minor".

Having spoken with a very senior executive at TUI this evening, I will now change that to "WAS" very minor, as it was not deemed of sufficient importance at the time to alert senior executives. There was no accident, therefore I cannot self-appoint myself in that field.

With regards to environmental impact, yes I do think I am at least as qualified as any of the "experts" CAECA like to claim they have on board. As none of them have come back to me after I have challenged them on each and every one of their arguments, I think I can fairly safely say that there are no environmental issues at Coventry of any major significance.

twostroke

18th May 2004, 17:15

FM
The agreed definition of an Airprox is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised

QED, there is no such thing as a 'very minor' airprox.

After investigation it may get rated as category C - ' No risk of collision existed', but thats for the UKAB / SRG to determine and NOT a 'very senior executive at TUI'

Flightmapping

18th May 2004, 18:11

Twostroke,

I was saying that it was a minor issue relative to the fuss generated by the CET.

Yorky Towers

18th May 2004, 23:01

Sorry to butt in !! Reading your threads entices me to invite you for Tea and Biscuits at The Glengary, where facts may be discussed.::(

jon01

19th May 2004, 17:48

A few problems getting a fourth aircraft at the moment with some schedule changes:

Britannia sending a B757 to operate the Naples Thursday morning. G-BYAU arrives at 07:30 TOM209P. This will depart Thursday at 15:40 to Gatwick.

SE-RCS, B733 of FlyMe Sweden, will arrive at 17:00 on Thursday to operate the Friday morning Naples at 06:00

The new Pisa service re-timed to depart at 17:45 (18:20 Sunday)

The Marseille service has been re-timed to depart at 22:40 (19:30 Saturday)and returning at 03:25 (00:15 Sunday mornings)

This is valid until 1st June.

Jon

Richardms31

19th May 2004, 20:33

Sorry skypartners, your current vacancies are all for £6 and £7 per hour, the £5 ones must have been for last year.

Skypartners

19th May 2004, 21:19

Appreciate the correction. The kettle is on whenever you are passing.

Arkroyal

20th May 2004, 10:57

A while back, BAW954 said:when 05 is in use they go right to the end. Stop for a while, bring the engines up. Then put full power on, wait for 5 seconds or so, then release the brakes to gain that essential speed (understable)I wonder which 737 flying manual this technique is culled from?

In answer to the question: 'why is a rolling take-off preferred in respect of the engine' posed to CFM, the reply was:

Inlet vortices is common cause (sic, he is a Frenchman)of FOD ingestion on ground and created when high thrust and no speed (head wind or airspeed).

Vortex strength increases at high thrust, low airspeed

For example:

- Thrust advance for taxy breakaway from stop
- Thrust advance for TakeOff
- Reverse Thrust at low airspeed
- 180 degree turn on runway
- Power assurance runs

The vortex is destroyed by Airspeed and/or Headwind

Recommendations

Avoid engine overhang of unprepared surface

Minimize
- Breakaway and taxi thrust (Less than 40% N1, if possible), 10 knots airspeed/headwind will destroy vortices formed up to 40% N1

- Thrust assist from outboard engine in 180 degree turn

Rolling TakeOff, if possible, 30 knots airspeed will destroy vortices
formed at typical TakeOff thrust settings

Reverse thrust
- During taxi only on emergency
- Minimize on contaminated runway

This is the reason of rolling take off recommendations,... when possible. Hoping fulfil your query, nevertheless do not hesitate to contact me for any questions regarding CFM56 engines operations... and Congratulations Operating CFM56 Engines!!!

Best regards,

Capt. Max MOUTOUSSAMY
CFM Flight Ops Support Manager

Out of interest, are the 735 engines still rated at 18.5K as they were with their former users?

jon01

22nd May 2004, 08:00

Some Thomsonfly loads from the past week:

Palma: 62 68 82
Valencia: 79 104
Naples: 15 (first inbound on B757)
Rome: 57 80
Nice: 59 48 40

Jon

Adam Leach

25th May 2004, 18:50

Good news for all fans :D! from www.thomsonfly.com :D I think i'll go book my flights now ;)

Fight is won for Flights to the sun!
25.05.2004

Coventry Airport announced today that it has won its High Court case against Warwick District Council. Mrs Justice Gloster gave her judgment following a two day High Court hearing and ordered that the injunction proceedings brought by Warwick District Council regarding the Airport's use of its Interim Passenger Facilities be struck out.

Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that there would be no reasonable prospect of a court granting an injunction and further ruled that the action taken by Warwick District Council amounted to an abuse of legal proceedings.

Speaking after the High Court Judgment, Coventry Airport's Managing Director, Bill Savage said, "We are delighted that the High Court has thrown out Mr Archer's claims. We have stated all along that we wish to work with the Local Planning Authority, but Mr Archer has sought to take action that frustrated every attempt we tried to make. His action has undoubtedly cost the tax payers of Warwick District Council hundreds of thousands of pounds and I feel sorry for those tax payers that will inevitably face higher bills."

”Throughout this legal case Coventry Airport has assured us that the Interim Passenger facility was within planning regulations,” said Alex Hunter, Chief Commercial Officer, Thomsonfly.com “ The ruling this morning has vindicated the airport and we’re delighted that this now gives us a clear and long term future from Coventry Airport. Today’s news will give our present and future customers the confidence to book with us and take advantage of our low fare flights from their local airport.”

To celebrate the news Thomsonfly.com is offering 20,000 half price seats to people who book flights to any of the 11 destinations before 2nd June. With one way prices to Marseille from as little as £15.50 and Malaga from just £33.50 including taxes and charges.

There has never been a better time to get away from your local airport at Coventry. This summer Thomsonfly.com will be flying to Jersey, Marseille, Nice, Palma, Valencia, Malaga, Naples, Rome, Venice, Pisa and from 11th June Ibiza and will shortly be announcing its winter schedule which will feature some exciting new destinations.

With low fare flights making a short break or a longer holiday both practical and affordable, Thomsonfly.com is carrying over 10,000 people through Coventry Airport over the coming Bank Holiday weekend, testimony to how popular the new services have already become with local people. Already more than 50,000 have travelled with the airline.

Book now to take advantage of a half price seat or, at these prices, take the whole family!

To book go to www.thomsonfly.com or call our friendly sales team on 0870 1900 737.

Adam