COVENTRY
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 500/300 are not landing weight limited on a wet runway at CVT. These go-arounds mentioned would be for some other reason. Wet runways usually come with other weather as well, so it's more likely low viz, wind shear, crosswind limits, unstable approach etc.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody earlier mentioned the old hangars being condemmed. Are these listed or not, obviously if they're the latter, they can be bulldozed. I'm sure the owners of the various exec' jets that are based at Coventry would prefer the latter so these leaky hangars can be demolished & replaced with a modern structure.
Is it the Atlantique classic flight that are moving out? I presume Air Atlantic, Atlantic Flight training & Atlantic Recon' are all staying at Coventry.
In addition to the reduction in visiting GA, has there been a reduction in cargo flights? There doesn't seem to be as many at night as there used to be
Cheers
Fried Chicken
Is it the Atlantique classic flight that are moving out? I presume Air Atlantic, Atlantic Flight training & Atlantic Recon' are all staying at Coventry.
In addition to the reduction in visiting GA, has there been a reduction in cargo flights? There doesn't seem to be as many at night as there used to be
Cheers
Fried Chicken
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase some of the hangers have been condemmed does not equal all the old hangers. Certainly one of them is in a poor state but it does not house aircraft but is used as an equipment store.
Neither does a reduction in GA equal a reduction in visiting G A but more probably refers to the relative health of the various air training establishments some of which are fairing better than others but all of which continue to operate.
There have been rumours of the classic flights impending departure for at least two years but new aircraft continue to arrive the latest being a jet provost. Various destinations have been rumour but usually accompanied by the engineering remaining at Coventry. AFT, Air recon, and Atlantic cargo are all seperate organisations either sold or been subject to a management buy out and are therefore unaffected by anything that happens with the classic flight.
Neither does a reduction in GA equal a reduction in visiting G A but more probably refers to the relative health of the various air training establishments some of which are fairing better than others but all of which continue to operate.
There have been rumours of the classic flights impending departure for at least two years but new aircraft continue to arrive the latest being a jet provost. Various destinations have been rumour but usually accompanied by the engineering remaining at Coventry. AFT, Air recon, and Atlantic cargo are all seperate organisations either sold or been subject to a management buy out and are therefore unaffected by anything that happens with the classic flight.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coventry
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would give Thomsonfly a perfect excuse to go. But I hope the airport would immediately apply for permission for a proper terminal to handle the same number as the present temporary arrangement (980,000pa)
Another fine example of the Government kicking Coventry (the city) in the teeth, egged on by Birmingham.
Bitter of Coventry
Another fine example of the Government kicking Coventry (the city) in the teeth, egged on by Birmingham.
Bitter of Coventry
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, if the airport was to be renamed "London Coventry", I'm sure the powers that be would have granted permission within a month of the end of the enquiry...rather than the absolute farce that the length of the decision, and (if this is true) the actual decision has taken
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's true, it may account for the recent lowering of prices...
Although the airport seemed confident of being granted permission - they'll look a bit stupid if this is true.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the airport sold off and used as housing/business use or even quarrying - apparently there's a lot of gravel under that land.
Although the airport seemed confident of being granted permission - they'll look a bit stupid if this is true.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the airport sold off and used as housing/business use or even quarrying - apparently there's a lot of gravel under that land.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: big gay blackpool
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe they could send some of that gravel up to blackpool, to shore up the sinking runway...
Last edited by take-off; 15th Jun 2007 at 11:44. Reason: spelling!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRPORT chiefs in Coventry have slammed the decision to block their expansion plans as short-sighted, but investment plans will still go ahead.
The reaction came as Government inspectors returned their decision not to allow a new passenger terminal, capable of handling more than two million passenger a year, to be built at the Baginton site.
After almost four years and two full-scale enquiries, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Transport have concluded that the environmental impact and noise from the proposed development would significantly harm the quality of life for nearby residents.
They have also stated that public transport to and from the site is a problem as well as the airport's relationship with nearby Birmingham International, which has always opposed any expansion at Coventry.
But Coventry Chief Executive Chris Orphanou, said it would be business as usual for the airport.
He said: "We are bitterly disappointed with this decision as an airport and because of the impact it will have on the region.
"Despite this setback, we believe our investment plans will only be delayed slightly.
"We have already invested more than £5 million as part of the improvement programme and we will continue to move forward with developing other aspects of the business, in particular our airline route network.
“In our view this decision is extremely short-sighted and not in the best interests of the region. We have established strong working relationships with local businesses, Chambers of Commerce, local communities, tourist bodies and tour operators to promote Coventry and the economic development of the West Midlands.
"Today’s negative outcome is a stumbling block we intend to overcome.”
But Warwick District Council, is pleased the issue has finally been resolved, after the ongoing saga which is estimated to have cost taxpayers more than £750,000
Head of communications, Richard Brooker, said: "The decision supports the view of the Council that whilst the principle of limited development at Coventry Airport is in accordance with National and Regional policy, it must also be dependant on appropriate constraints and mitigation measures being put in place.
"The Government has concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the Airport are insufficient to compensate for the additional impact of the proposal.
"The council has always accepted that this was a matter that Government would ultimately need to determine.
"The council is therefore satisfied that this issue has now been resolved at this level and that there is now a clear framework for applying planning policy to the airport.
Coun John Hammon, added: “I am very pleased that the Government has finally resolved the issue of the impact of Coventry Airport on the local area.
"This council has been faced with great difficulties in dealing with the airport’s ambitions for expansion, balancing the concerns of the local community against wider regional and national policy.
"In refusing the proposal for a terminal, this decision now provides the clarification the Council needs and acknowledges the concerns of the local community.
"It is a good decision and one I am sure will be welcomed by many.”
• Coventry airport was bought in 2006 by CAFCO-C, who at the time pledged to improve the airport for the anticipated increase in passengers.
Facilities already completed include increased parking, improvements to the runway, ground lighting and improvements to air traffic control.
Before this latest decision, a £50m programme had been finalised to include the construction of the new terminal building and a new hotel
The reaction came as Government inspectors returned their decision not to allow a new passenger terminal, capable of handling more than two million passenger a year, to be built at the Baginton site.
After almost four years and two full-scale enquiries, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Transport have concluded that the environmental impact and noise from the proposed development would significantly harm the quality of life for nearby residents.
They have also stated that public transport to and from the site is a problem as well as the airport's relationship with nearby Birmingham International, which has always opposed any expansion at Coventry.
But Coventry Chief Executive Chris Orphanou, said it would be business as usual for the airport.
He said: "We are bitterly disappointed with this decision as an airport and because of the impact it will have on the region.
"Despite this setback, we believe our investment plans will only be delayed slightly.
"We have already invested more than £5 million as part of the improvement programme and we will continue to move forward with developing other aspects of the business, in particular our airline route network.
“In our view this decision is extremely short-sighted and not in the best interests of the region. We have established strong working relationships with local businesses, Chambers of Commerce, local communities, tourist bodies and tour operators to promote Coventry and the economic development of the West Midlands.
"Today’s negative outcome is a stumbling block we intend to overcome.”
But Warwick District Council, is pleased the issue has finally been resolved, after the ongoing saga which is estimated to have cost taxpayers more than £750,000
Head of communications, Richard Brooker, said: "The decision supports the view of the Council that whilst the principle of limited development at Coventry Airport is in accordance with National and Regional policy, it must also be dependant on appropriate constraints and mitigation measures being put in place.
"The Government has concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the Airport are insufficient to compensate for the additional impact of the proposal.
"The council has always accepted that this was a matter that Government would ultimately need to determine.
"The council is therefore satisfied that this issue has now been resolved at this level and that there is now a clear framework for applying planning policy to the airport.
Coun John Hammon, added: “I am very pleased that the Government has finally resolved the issue of the impact of Coventry Airport on the local area.
"This council has been faced with great difficulties in dealing with the airport’s ambitions for expansion, balancing the concerns of the local community against wider regional and national policy.
"In refusing the proposal for a terminal, this decision now provides the clarification the Council needs and acknowledges the concerns of the local community.
"It is a good decision and one I am sure will be welcomed by many.”
• Coventry airport was bought in 2006 by CAFCO-C, who at the time pledged to improve the airport for the anticipated increase in passengers.
Facilities already completed include increased parking, improvements to the runway, ground lighting and improvements to air traffic control.
Before this latest decision, a £50m programme had been finalised to include the construction of the new terminal building and a new hotel
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvt -bxh
Why not sell it, develp BHX with the money and call it Birmingham and Coventry International.
After all BHX is in Solihull, sits between Birmingham and Coventry and is on the
main rail line between the 2 city centres not far off equidistant between the them both.
Local pride eh.
Centre cities
After all BHX is in Solihull, sits between Birmingham and Coventry and is on the
main rail line between the 2 city centres not far off equidistant between the them both.
Local pride eh.
Centre cities
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they refuse this development at Coventry due to noise, then surely any expansion at Brum should be refused for the same reason. Or is there some dodgy politics going on here?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports spin:
http://www.coventryairport.co.uk/new..._local_inquiry
http://www.coventryairport.co.uk/new..._local_inquiry
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If they refuse this development at Coventry due to noise, then surely any expansion at Brum should be refused for the same reason. Or is there some dodgy politics going on here?"
Surely, expansion at ALL airports must be curtailed if noise was the reason....furtehrmore, lets not forget that the cargo aircraft that will now be encouraged to fly more in order to finance airport operations will probably be producing more noise day AND night.
I honestly cannot see the logic behind the decision...the Government have imposed a limit on the number of people to use the terminal (the current interim terminal has been granmted retrospective planning permission to cater for 980,000 passengers, yet have given a reason (noise, environment) that implies a restriction on the number of flights.
At the end of the day, Thomsonfly or any other carrier can sell their planes (should they wish to) to a maximum capacity of 50 seats on sale from the airport...and still have the same number of flights that the current terminal permits, as if it was selling the full capacity of the aircraft and operating from a bigger building.
Surely, expansion at ALL airports must be curtailed if noise was the reason....furtehrmore, lets not forget that the cargo aircraft that will now be encouraged to fly more in order to finance airport operations will probably be producing more noise day AND night.
I honestly cannot see the logic behind the decision...the Government have imposed a limit on the number of people to use the terminal (the current interim terminal has been granmted retrospective planning permission to cater for 980,000 passengers, yet have given a reason (noise, environment) that implies a restriction on the number of flights.
At the end of the day, Thomsonfly or any other carrier can sell their planes (should they wish to) to a maximum capacity of 50 seats on sale from the airport...and still have the same number of flights that the current terminal permits, as if it was selling the full capacity of the aircraft and operating from a bigger building.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just noise - some selected highlights of the rejection are:
Sustainability: The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, on balance, the proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development, conflicting in particular with sustainability objectives for transport. They agree with the Inspector that this is a very important factor weighing against the appeal, and that it is decisive in itself.
- There is an alternative airport only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations.
- They agree with the Inspector that, on the face of it, there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development, and it also has a bearing on the sustainability objective of reducing the need to travel by car.
- The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, in line with guidance in PPS23, in this particular case, the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration. They agree with the inspector that the extra passenger services associated with the proposed development would undoubtedly by polluting in terms of extra aircraft noise and odours.
- The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that the proposed improvements to public transport accessibility do not represent the step change mentioned in the Local Transport Plan. They accord this lack of such a step change significant weight. There is little prospect of the modal shift targets being met. They agree with the Inspector that it would be a nonsense to allow a development on the basis of a challenging target having been set, if there were little realistic prospect of that target being met.
- They agree with the Inspector that to encourage increased passenger operations at Coventry Airport, over and above levels which, in the case of the Interim Passenger Terminal development, had the crucial benefit of achieving significant controls over a formerly completely unregulated airport, is at odds with sustainability objectives.
- They agree that passenger services at Coventry Airport would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham International Airport.
National Policy: The Secretaries of State have considerable doubts as to whether the proposed development would represent the best use of existing airport infrastructure as required by the Air Transport White Paper.
Plus noise and other planning policy reasons for rejection
Sustainability: The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, on balance, the proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development, conflicting in particular with sustainability objectives for transport. They agree with the Inspector that this is a very important factor weighing against the appeal, and that it is decisive in itself.
- There is an alternative airport only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations.
- They agree with the Inspector that, on the face of it, there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development, and it also has a bearing on the sustainability objective of reducing the need to travel by car.
- The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, in line with guidance in PPS23, in this particular case, the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration. They agree with the inspector that the extra passenger services associated with the proposed development would undoubtedly by polluting in terms of extra aircraft noise and odours.
- The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that the proposed improvements to public transport accessibility do not represent the step change mentioned in the Local Transport Plan. They accord this lack of such a step change significant weight. There is little prospect of the modal shift targets being met. They agree with the Inspector that it would be a nonsense to allow a development on the basis of a challenging target having been set, if there were little realistic prospect of that target being met.
- They agree with the Inspector that to encourage increased passenger operations at Coventry Airport, over and above levels which, in the case of the Interim Passenger Terminal development, had the crucial benefit of achieving significant controls over a formerly completely unregulated airport, is at odds with sustainability objectives.
- They agree that passenger services at Coventry Airport would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham International Airport.
National Policy: The Secretaries of State have considerable doubts as to whether the proposed development would represent the best use of existing airport infrastructure as required by the Air Transport White Paper.
Plus noise and other planning policy reasons for rejection
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that the Government can look in to the future and see what routes would have been operated at Coventry had the terminal been built. Nice to really see that the government believe in the freedom of choice:
"There is an alternative airport only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations"
Also, if this is to be a yardstick then the Government will surely be restricting growth at Liverpool and Blackpool Airports as they offer the same routes as Manchester and at Luton Airport, for offering similar routes to Stansted:
"They agree that passenger services at Coventry Airport would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham International Airport."
"There is an alternative airport only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations"
Also, if this is to be a yardstick then the Government will surely be restricting growth at Liverpool and Blackpool Airports as they offer the same routes as Manchester and at Luton Airport, for offering similar routes to Stansted:
"They agree that passenger services at Coventry Airport would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham International Airport."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of decorum please
Can we all remember that there are 180 people that are directly affected by this as well as @400 indirectly. Before all the detracters and NIMBYS get going can we look at a bit of support for industry collegues.
OWZ
OWZ