BIRMINGHAM
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think as a taxpayer you will be stumping up your share towards this 2 billion as this is business driven and will not be financed through the government, but through the private sector.
The private sector will only get involved in projects of this nature in the UK if the Government - using our money - agrees to underwrite their investment.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caslance,
Why should the government underwrite the investment? They are not doing so for LHR T5 or STN's 2nd runway.
There are certain "public service obligations" on the railways, and less opportunities for open competition, except on a very select range of routes.
I think we have to look at this from the passengers' perspective - the ROI on CVTs permanent terminal is very high, even with all the legal fees which must be mounting up every minute this wretched enquiry process continues!
I always throught £4bn at STN was madness (over £1m per metre...), but the opportunities for passenger growth at BHX are much less than half this.
Perhaps BAA don't have a monopoly on "gold plated facilities" after all!
Why should the government underwrite the investment? They are not doing so for LHR T5 or STN's 2nd runway.
There are certain "public service obligations" on the railways, and less opportunities for open competition, except on a very select range of routes.
I think we have to look at this from the passengers' perspective - the ROI on CVTs permanent terminal is very high, even with all the legal fees which must be mounting up every minute this wretched enquiry process continues!
I always throught £4bn at STN was madness (over £1m per metre...), but the opportunities for passenger growth at BHX are much less than half this.
Perhaps BAA don't have a monopoly on "gold plated facilities" after all!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bhx
Age: 48
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the £2 billion quote covers all the infrastructure upgrades needed, a major re-routing of the A45, a new junction and probable widening of the M42 and upgrades of the West Coast Mainline and other public transport. I look forward to the masterplan and hope that the existing runway extension and terminal expansion is not too far away but it all faces a public enquiry first and i'm sure Solihull council will delay as long as they can.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caslance
On this occasion no not like the railways, as jabird points out they are not underwriting T5 or Stansted's proposed R2.
If the business case does not exist for a second runway then rest assured it will not be built especially with Tax payers money, was Manchester's 2nd runway built with Taxpayers money or underwritten by the government out of interest.
emiratesdxb
runway14141414
I understand new terminal first then extension to existing runway and then 2nd runway in that order.
emiratesdxb
Oh.......like the railways, you mean?
If the business case does not exist for a second runway then rest assured it will not be built especially with Tax payers money, was Manchester's 2nd runway built with Taxpayers money or underwritten by the government out of interest.
emiratesdxb
runway14141414
I understand new terminal first then extension to existing runway and then 2nd runway in that order.
emiratesdxb
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Leicester
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All credit to Birmingham who have just spent 11 million pounds on the new Skyrail link between the Birmingham International Rail Link and BIA to provide a 90 seconds 'free' journey for rail passengers. One would presume this is in order to promote green travel plans and achieve sustainable and responsible targets for use of Public Transport.
Coventry Airport has still to cough-up enough money for a decent SSR for increased safety, (before starting on the subject of public transport or CVT's gold-plated fittings?).
Is 'cheap' and 'often' the only way forward as opposed to 'quality' with possible reduced 'quantity'?. (I do not think I have phrased that correctly so please do not take it as suggestive in any way).
Can both airports be successful in the future if each continually tries to 'out-play' the other (then there is Wolverhampton and NEMA)?
It is going to be interesting. Why would anyone want to go on holiday when they can be this entertained here?
Coventry Airport has still to cough-up enough money for a decent SSR for increased safety, (before starting on the subject of public transport or CVT's gold-plated fittings?).
Is 'cheap' and 'often' the only way forward as opposed to 'quality' with possible reduced 'quantity'?. (I do not think I have phrased that correctly so please do not take it as suggestive in any way).
Can both airports be successful in the future if each continually tries to 'out-play' the other (then there is Wolverhampton and NEMA)?
It is going to be interesting. Why would anyone want to go on holiday when they can be this entertained here?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And didn't MAN's 2nd runway come in at around £300m, including the relocation of Tatton Hall?
We know that £2bn now means £3bn by the time it gets built - and no, that woudln't include anything to do with the rail facilities, but obviously the airport would have to pay for any A45 diversion / tunnelling. Does this really justify a 1000% inflation over MANs new runway, for what is ultimately a much smaller airport, however much we want to see our facilities in the midlands develop?
Does anyone have a cost figure for the extension alone? Presumably, EMA could handle more long haul scheduled flights, but the major airlines such as EK, SA, AA etc would always be more interested in using BHX??
We know that £2bn now means £3bn by the time it gets built - and no, that woudln't include anything to do with the rail facilities, but obviously the airport would have to pay for any A45 diversion / tunnelling. Does this really justify a 1000% inflation over MANs new runway, for what is ultimately a much smaller airport, however much we want to see our facilities in the midlands develop?
Does anyone have a cost figure for the extension alone? Presumably, EMA could handle more long haul scheduled flights, but the major airlines such as EK, SA, AA etc would always be more interested in using BHX??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably, EMA could handle more long haul scheduled flights, but the major airlines such as EK, SA, AA etc would always be more interested in using BHX??
BHXviscount
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There certainly was, jabird.
In fact a number of historic farms and residences were moved but not Tatton Hall, which is quite a large building situated on a substantial estate.
In fact a number of historic farms and residences were moved but not Tatton Hall, which is quite a large building situated on a substantial estate.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caslance, thanks for the correction.
BHXviscount,
BHX will have a 10200ft runway under develpment plans
My question was how much would this cost? I am supportive of it in principle, but would be concerned about the costs of diverting the A45, etc.
so why would any of the above airlines want to switch to EMA,
I wasn't saying switch, I was merely referring to the fact that EMA has the runway capable of handling them. I would far rather see all of the above come to BHX, but if the costs of this infrastructure are prohibitive, then does muggins passenger end up paying for it, regardless of where they want to fly to?
And to add, it looks like BHX are now seeking involvement in the CVT Interim inquiry, over the airspace issue, despite surely knowing about any potential conflicts long before TOM started operations in March last year.
BHXviscount,
BHX will have a 10200ft runway under develpment plans
My question was how much would this cost? I am supportive of it in principle, but would be concerned about the costs of diverting the A45, etc.
so why would any of the above airlines want to switch to EMA,
I wasn't saying switch, I was merely referring to the fact that EMA has the runway capable of handling them. I would far rather see all of the above come to BHX, but if the costs of this infrastructure are prohibitive, then does muggins passenger end up paying for it, regardless of where they want to fly to?
And to add, it looks like BHX are now seeking involvement in the CVT Interim inquiry, over the airspace issue, despite surely knowing about any potential conflicts long before TOM started operations in March last year.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHXViscount,
I generally agree with you that NEMA will offer no greater benefit, AS LONG as BIA management is prepared to compete commercially against NEMA on issues such as operator fees.
First Choice are operating Florida, Cancun, and Dominican Republic from NEMA this summer. Yes, it has a longer runway for the 767-300, but given that due to their reconfig inside the max pax load is about 260.
This could have been lifted off BHX's current R/W direct to ALL of the destinations. Sadly BIA failed to compete cost wise for this business in comparison to NEMA, and hence the work has gone there. This even takes into account FCA has no Boeing crew at NEMA and will incur aditional costs/work days lost in getting crew there a day early to operate flights. BHX would have been self sufficient crew wise, but the NEMA offer is still far too attractive in comparison
Jabord,
Well, until TOM actually started operating then the airspace issue was purely theoretical. Now it has been allowed an operational period, only then can the true problems be fully assesed - and yes, there are problems for BHX with the airspace issue as it stands!
30W
I generally agree with you that NEMA will offer no greater benefit, AS LONG as BIA management is prepared to compete commercially against NEMA on issues such as operator fees.
First Choice are operating Florida, Cancun, and Dominican Republic from NEMA this summer. Yes, it has a longer runway for the 767-300, but given that due to their reconfig inside the max pax load is about 260.
This could have been lifted off BHX's current R/W direct to ALL of the destinations. Sadly BIA failed to compete cost wise for this business in comparison to NEMA, and hence the work has gone there. This even takes into account FCA has no Boeing crew at NEMA and will incur aditional costs/work days lost in getting crew there a day early to operate flights. BHX would have been self sufficient crew wise, but the NEMA offer is still far too attractive in comparison
Jabord,
Well, until TOM actually started operating then the airspace issue was purely theoretical. Now it has been allowed an operational period, only then can the true problems be fully assesed - and yes, there are problems for BHX with the airspace issue as it stands!
30W
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30w
Fine, if that is the case. Do they relate to SNN, ORK etc, or other destinations? And if so, why did Mr Heard not mention this in his letter to PINS of 18th Jan, in which he stated that not only did he have no concerns over the IPF, but that he was also worried about its implications for PDRs, which might affect all UK airports.
Fine, if that is the case. Do they relate to SNN, ORK etc, or other destinations? And if so, why did Mr Heard not mention this in his letter to PINS of 18th Jan, in which he stated that not only did he have no concerns over the IPF, but that he was also worried about its implications for PDRs, which might affect all UK airports.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird,
Sorry, does what apply to SNN,CRK etc?
Not sure what you want me to answer. My response to you was regarding the airspace issue, and my previous comment was regarding the costs that BHX want to charge operators in comparison to NEMA.
I have no knowledge of SNN, CRK etc........sorry!!
30W
Sorry, does what apply to SNN,CRK etc?
Not sure what you want me to answer. My response to you was regarding the airspace issue, and my previous comment was regarding the costs that BHX want to charge operators in comparison to NEMA.
I have no knowledge of SNN, CRK etc........sorry!!
30W
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W,
I was referring to ORK and SNN as destinations from CVT, where a/c are heading west. Most other CVT destinations are to the south, hence a/c tend to turn left fairly rapidly on departure. As you may well know, CVT did commission an "independent" report which declared that there were no airspace issues. To the best of my knowledge, the CAA have not raised a problem.
I'll admit that most people on this forum are far more qualified to talk about airspace matters than I am. However, my concerns are that these objections from BHX at this late hour are (1) more about competition concerns than airspace, and (2) rather unhelpful, as the inquiry was split in two specifially because this matter was seen as something to be more appropriate to discuss in relation to the permanent terminal.
I was referring to ORK and SNN as destinations from CVT, where a/c are heading west. Most other CVT destinations are to the south, hence a/c tend to turn left fairly rapidly on departure. As you may well know, CVT did commission an "independent" report which declared that there were no airspace issues. To the best of my knowledge, the CAA have not raised a problem.
I'll admit that most people on this forum are far more qualified to talk about airspace matters than I am. However, my concerns are that these objections from BHX at this late hour are (1) more about competition concerns than airspace, and (2) rather unhelpful, as the inquiry was split in two specifially because this matter was seen as something to be more appropriate to discuss in relation to the permanent terminal.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, until TOM actually started operating then the airspace issue was purely theoretical. Now it has been allowed an operational period, only then can the true problems be fully assesed - and yes, there are problems for BHX with the airspace issue as it stands!
Fried Chicken
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
Ok, see where your coming from.
All departures off 23 at CVT impact on BHX. Not so much in the quieter winter, but very much so in the summer. There is an airspace issue, and that issue directly impacts BHX's customer airlines, and hence directly BHX as a business.
Not sure how SNN,CRK is routing, but the initial routing inside the BB zone is still an issue which effects BHX arrivals. Southbounds are the same, and DO delay BHX inbound flow. Often when CVT launches a southbound now, BHX can't get a 'straight in' onto 33. I would guess it takes me about 4mins more each time for that.
Having said that, under the airspace charter, CVT are EQUALLY entitled to use the airspace. No argument. However I do understand BHX wanting an input to the inqyuiry when CVT use materially effects it's business.
Also, BHX PAY NATS to manage the airspace around BHX. PAY NATS then have to provide equal access. Bit of a strange situation really!! CVT don't pay for the BHX ATC provision that they receive..........
30W
Ok, see where your coming from.
All departures off 23 at CVT impact on BHX. Not so much in the quieter winter, but very much so in the summer. There is an airspace issue, and that issue directly impacts BHX's customer airlines, and hence directly BHX as a business.
Not sure how SNN,CRK is routing, but the initial routing inside the BB zone is still an issue which effects BHX arrivals. Southbounds are the same, and DO delay BHX inbound flow. Often when CVT launches a southbound now, BHX can't get a 'straight in' onto 33. I would guess it takes me about 4mins more each time for that.
Having said that, under the airspace charter, CVT are EQUALLY entitled to use the airspace. No argument. However I do understand BHX wanting an input to the inqyuiry when CVT use materially effects it's business.
Also, BHX PAY NATS to manage the airspace around BHX. PAY NATS then have to provide equal access. Bit of a strange situation really!! CVT don't pay for the BHX ATC provision that they receive..........
30W
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lichfield
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Choice at NEMA
A close friend of mine who works at BHX for First Choice has said that pax loads on the new flights from NEMA have not been as good as they thought they would be. People who live in the West Midlands will fly with Thomson instead. NEMA is too remote to attract long haul services other than charter flights. BHX can charge premium because people want to fly city to city into and out of a major city. this is why BHX has BA,CO,AZ,EI,KL,AF,SN,LX,SK etc. The village of Castle Donnington can only attract low cost carriers. Time will tell if First Choice are able to make a success of flights to NEMA.
Daza
Daza
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Derby
Age: 52
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
Well i tried to book for the Dominican flight for this summers holiday and all flights were full, they had 1 date left but we could not get the holiday leave for then, so we booked for mexico and the same there, but did mange to get hold of one our dates, so we are of to cancun.The travel agent in Derby says the flights have been very popular as with the Egypt flight which BY operate, and apparently they BY and TCX are going to introduce A 2006 LH programme from EMA, they will probably wait and see how everything goes this summer with FCA.
I hope EMA do pull it off, they deserve it.
Bye
Well i tried to book for the Dominican flight for this summers holiday and all flights were full, they had 1 date left but we could not get the holiday leave for then, so we booked for mexico and the same there, but did mange to get hold of one our dates, so we are of to cancun.The travel agent in Derby says the flights have been very popular as with the Egypt flight which BY operate, and apparently they BY and TCX are going to introduce A 2006 LH programme from EMA, they will probably wait and see how everything goes this summer with FCA.
I hope EMA do pull it off, they deserve it.
Bye