Right then, let's have a bit of perspective from a "mislead" non-Sheffielder, who
couldn't possibly understand the problem by virtue of not living in Sheffield. I'll just put all my years of understanding the industry to one side and live entirely on emotion then?
there's no reason why it could not be used for business flying and recreational flying, and perhaps a fast link to Finningley.
Did I read that right? A shuttle flight to an airport that is just round the corner? By what means? Helicopter? Sorry, I don't want to knock Sheffield, but this is not the French Riviera, nor is there a high end demand for such a service backed up by lack of land for a runway, nor is there a major international airport at either end. So please, just forget that one!
In area where a longer runway could be laid would have been chosen.
Like DSA
Or are areas where long runways can be laid down without a substantial body of local objections (based on no prior aviation activity) ten a penny? To suggest as such is to suggest all the land around Sheffield is both worthless and free of populace, when clearly neither is true.
It started with Sheffield, and the very same thing is now happening at Teesside.
No, it started with increasing fuel prices, lower PSCs due to low cost airlines ruling the roost, was bolstered by rising APD and then the economic conditions made it worse still.
It has also happened at PLH (another airport with a great runway), it happened here at CVT 4 years ago (we also lose out because our runway precludes many FR 738 routes), and numerous other airports around the country are struggling too.
So Peel are not the perps here. I can accept they may have had other intentions at SZD (and guess what, similar accusations could be made here), but I don't accept that at LPL or MME.
Teesside even has a very long runway, so the old excuse of a short runway wont wash up here!
Err, a runway is only as good as the apron that feeds it and that in turn is only as good as the terminal pax are fed through, and that in turn depends on the catchment areas and road (/ rail) network around it.
valuable land (airports)
Not always the case. As a going concern, and airport is only worth a multiple of the profits it is able to generate from aviation and related activity. If closed, airport land can be affected by various covenants, not to mention the small fact that in many cases, the airport is classed as greenbelt, by virtue of the large amounts of grass which surround the runways / taxiways.
However, I would accept in Sheffield's case that the land may be worth more than at many other airports due to its location.
That still does not point directly to a conspiracy. A functioning airport can facilitate links to numerous destinations around Europe (and globally for a larger one), and thus it can create more linkage than a station or motorway junction ever can from a very small area. However, this is only relevant if a network of routes can be sustained, and that really doesn't seem to be the case.
So to blame losing slots at AMS, or to create any other kind of conspiracy is really only half the story. Of course, the airport's short shelf life is grounds for suspicion, which is entirely natural, but the nature of the whole aviation industry shows that there is no guarantee for any airport to be a going concern right now, especially one with a very restricted runway.
If Gamston Airport near Retford can manage to justify its existence financially then surely Sheffield City Airport could.
Oh please! If PC World can justify then surely Comet could?
If Max Spielman can then surely Jessops could?
You cannot point to the existence of one airfield in a more rural location with a different purpose and then suggest that an enitrely different business should be able to work any more than you can point out why two neighbours in the same street might have two entirely different jobs, if they work at all.
As for the "Sheffield is the largest city without" - I remember using a similar argument for CVT, except it went along the lines of "we're the largest UK city with an airport with a runway capable of handling the B737 that doesn't currently do so".
So what? It was merely a pointer to the ideal that a city of our size would benefit from having a network of loco flights. Of course we would, of course SZD would benefit the city of Sheffield.
So might HS2, but you get that in Meadowhall Ryanair East Parkway, and we'll have to go to a "Brum" station.
You can't win every battle you fight, but I really do think this one is pointless. There simply isn't a business case right now for a STOL operation at SZD, nor is there likely to be one soon.
DSA might primarily be a loco facility, but it still serves Sheffield and the rest of S Yorks, and is still closer to Sheffield than a number of other airports serving other European cities - and by that I mean single airport / cities - eg SZZ, SPU etc.