COVENTRY
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur, however, the notam re the Fire Service is not good.
Cat 1 with Cat 2 available is the very basic cover and definately will impact upon the provision of most public transport category flights, i.e you'll only be seeing the smallest of such small aircraft (Citations, small Lears etc.) operating into Cov'.
Given that the notam is valid until 31 August, (rather ominous, as anyone in the airport industry knows that notams valid for 2 to 3 months often signify a long term problem rather than a we're going to fix this next week attitude) and the cause will be down one or all three of the following:
1) Lack of qualified staff and/or,
2) Lack of approved equipment, and/or
3) Lack of investment in the above by the owners.
Whatever it is, ithe owners of Coventry will have been aware that this was coming for some time now and they've got to pull their finger out, this sort of thing makes the Airport a laughing stock and sticks in the mind of potential commercial users. i.e If Coventry can't be bothered to ensure our safety, why should we give them our business?
Cat 1 with Cat 2 available is the very basic cover and definately will impact upon the provision of most public transport category flights, i.e you'll only be seeing the smallest of such small aircraft (Citations, small Lears etc.) operating into Cov'.
Given that the notam is valid until 31 August, (rather ominous, as anyone in the airport industry knows that notams valid for 2 to 3 months often signify a long term problem rather than a we're going to fix this next week attitude) and the cause will be down one or all three of the following:
1) Lack of qualified staff and/or,
2) Lack of approved equipment, and/or
3) Lack of investment in the above by the owners.
Whatever it is, ithe owners of Coventry will have been aware that this was coming for some time now and they've got to pull their finger out, this sort of thing makes the Airport a laughing stock and sticks in the mind of potential commercial users. i.e If Coventry can't be bothered to ensure our safety, why should we give them our business?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is not news
It will have a very significant impact upon commercial revenue and as I said previously, some operators may question the worth of committing themselves to such an operation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas,
I think we were actually in agreement re: Easy @ CVT - I don't think CVT will have an easy job attracting new pax operations, but equally I haven't given up hope:
"CVT will never threaten BHX whatever they choose to do.
I think we were actually in agreement re: Easy @ CVT - I don't think CVT will have an easy job attracting new pax operations, but equally I haven't given up hope:
"CVT will never threaten BHX whatever they choose to do.
Throughout the whole debate re: CVT's future, I have never seen anyone come forward and suggest that CVT should > BHX. In fact, the only mention I have seen of CVT handling upto 9m pax pa came from the govt White Paper, not airport sources.
Despite this, early on in the Tfly days, CVT clearly was a commercial threat to BHX, hence their extensive objections at the 2nd public enquiry, all in the name of air traffic control, of course.
CVT is a small provincial airport and will remain that way.Despite this, early on in the Tfly days, CVT clearly was a commercial threat to BHX, hence their extensive objections at the 2nd public enquiry, all in the name of air traffic control, of course.
Right now, let's face it, as far as pax are concerned, it is a dead airport. If an airport doesn't offer commercial flights, to the majority of people living near it (ie not the spotters, ga, biz jets etc), it might aswell not exist.
Anything the new owners do will be for the advantage of themselves and not Coventry or the people of Coventry.Well you might aswell say that everything BA or BAA or Ryanair or Easy do is for the benefit of themselves - a rather pointless argument, except of course that airlines or airports only actually make money by providing services that people want, at a profitable price point.
A nice business and freight airport with a smattering of niche pax routes would be the best it can hope for. I think that is all most CVT supporters would want to see. We all know that BHX is just down the road - but I have a Morrison's within a 10 minute walk but still prefer to get on my bike and go to Sainsbury's. The same is true for CVT v BHX - BHX handles c. 10m pax pa - CVT would be unlikely to handle even 10% of that, but if they offer the right deal to the right airline, there are numerous routes which could be served.
I wish it all the luck in achieving this.I think CVT's geography makes this a tough task, but not an impossible one. Although I don't have access to BHX's internal accounts, I suspect that a very attractive deal was done with FR following the demise of BACON. It would be very difficult for CVT to improve on this because afaik (please correct me here if I'm wrong), CVT's runway presents limitations for FR's 737-800s. So we can eliminate FR & Esy s highly unlikely @CVT - but there are numerous other potential operators who might be interested if the deal is right.
The transport links are abysmal though and need sorting to give them more of a chance."I was at the launch of the HLX route from Cologne, where the inbound German pax walked to the bus stop by Pc World and were on the side facting OUT of town! This was highly embarrassing, but the airport did eventually launch an hourly bus service. However, the mjority of pax still use their cars - even BHX with its 'wonderful' transport interchange (try using the train for a 06:00 flight) has less than 20% public transport usage. BHX needs the routes to fill its massive multi-storey car parks - CVT can undercut this, given the right operator to work with. It is a big if, but I have seen obscure routes to much bigger ifs than Coventry - which at least is somewhere people from mainland Europe know about, unlike EMA, formerly Nottingham....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danscowpie,
In the day and age when operators want the cheapest deal possible with an airport don't you think an operator might, during negotiations, critize an airport whereas they cannot offer the best deal and it was the airport's fault for maintaing Cat 4 or 5 or whatever fire cover when there was nothing happening. What you're suggesting is comparible to suggesting that an airport needs to keep the runway and airfield lights on H24 until a airliner may arrive a week next Wednesday or whenever!!!
jabird,
When I started out in this industry CVT was a grass runways airfield down the road from BHX, compare this to Redhill being just down the road from LGW ..... would anyone in their right mind develop, tarmac, Redhill's runways and seriously expect to attract airline operators away from LGW, a LGW that has all the motorway and rail connections that Redhill does not have!
As for car parking, public transport etc. at BHX I was a regular business traveller in/out of BHX when I lived in Northamptonshire, I'd drive 55 minutes to/from Hampton-In-Arden rail station, park the car for free in the rail station car park, and if I recall correctly it was £1.10 each way for the 4 minute train ride to/from the airport.
In the day and age when operators want the cheapest deal possible with an airport don't you think an operator might, during negotiations, critize an airport whereas they cannot offer the best deal and it was the airport's fault for maintaing Cat 4 or 5 or whatever fire cover when there was nothing happening. What you're suggesting is comparible to suggesting that an airport needs to keep the runway and airfield lights on H24 until a airliner may arrive a week next Wednesday or whenever!!!
jabird,
When I started out in this industry CVT was a grass runways airfield down the road from BHX, compare this to Redhill being just down the road from LGW ..... would anyone in their right mind develop, tarmac, Redhill's runways and seriously expect to attract airline operators away from LGW, a LGW that has all the motorway and rail connections that Redhill does not have!
As for car parking, public transport etc. at BHX I was a regular business traveller in/out of BHX when I lived in Northamptonshire, I'd drive 55 minutes to/from Hampton-In-Arden rail station, park the car for free in the rail station car park, and if I recall correctly it was £1.10 each way for the 4 minute train ride to/from the airport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
When I go to BHX, as you can't get longer than a day return, 1st class is about 50p more, so I make sure I get plenty of freebies from the lounge. But I can walk to Cov or Canley and I don't drive so parking is a non-issue. I certainly bow to your excellent money saving expertise and I'm sure you aren't the only one.
Clearly, TOM thought enough of CVT to make it their launch base as a loco operation. There are reams of comments on the history of this, but significant sums have been invested at CVT since then.
Does that mean I think the new owners should rush into a new terminal? Far from it, that would require a significant and stable base operation to pay for itself. But is there an opportunity to attract a few of the routes currently operated from BHX or EMA to use CVT? Yes, sure there is. You can continue to come up with reasons why CVT won't work, and I could counter with marketing speak about why it could (x million pop within y mins drive etc).
You for one would drive past CVT on your way to BHX. Want to dodge parking charges @CVT? I can think of several places within a long walk or a short taxi journey of the terminal - the locals won't thankyou but I don't think they could do anything about it!
When I go to BHX, as you can't get longer than a day return, 1st class is about 50p more, so I make sure I get plenty of freebies from the lounge. But I can walk to Cov or Canley and I don't drive so parking is a non-issue. I certainly bow to your excellent money saving expertise and I'm sure you aren't the only one.
Clearly, TOM thought enough of CVT to make it their launch base as a loco operation. There are reams of comments on the history of this, but significant sums have been invested at CVT since then.
Does that mean I think the new owners should rush into a new terminal? Far from it, that would require a significant and stable base operation to pay for itself. But is there an opportunity to attract a few of the routes currently operated from BHX or EMA to use CVT? Yes, sure there is. You can continue to come up with reasons why CVT won't work, and I could counter with marketing speak about why it could (x million pop within y mins drive etc).
You for one would drive past CVT on your way to BHX. Want to dodge parking charges @CVT? I can think of several places within a long walk or a short taxi journey of the terminal - the locals won't thankyou but I don't think they could do anything about it!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
As I understand it there are politics involved whereas CVT won't get planning permission for a new terminal.
In the earlier days of developing Loco operations around UK, when there was also such Loco's as Buzz, Go and any others I may have forgotten, it was a case of trying to do something different, some would like to try to copy Ryanair's business model of operations to/from airfields where nobody actually wants to go.
It wasn't just TOM at CVT, I think the likes of Ryanair, WizzAir and maybe others have given it a go in the past and none have proved to be satisfied with the result.
As I understand it there are politics involved whereas CVT won't get planning permission for a new terminal.
In the earlier days of developing Loco operations around UK, when there was also such Loco's as Buzz, Go and any others I may have forgotten, it was a case of trying to do something different, some would like to try to copy Ryanair's business model of operations to/from airfields where nobody actually wants to go.
It wasn't just TOM at CVT, I think the likes of Ryanair, WizzAir and maybe others have given it a go in the past and none have proved to be satisfied with the result.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
Yes there was heavy local politics! Two public enquiries - first about the temporary terminal and its right to operate with TOM, then a second one about a permanent terminal.
I spoke in favour of CVT at the first inquiry - there was a supporter's group, some may still be on here, but the problem was that its founders chose to remain anonymous - making it difficult to represent in a public forum, but I felt there was an argument which needed to be made from the grass roots, and the outcome of that inquiry was that CVT could stay open.
When it came round to the 2nd inquiry, I decided I had a business to run so I didn't attend. The airport lost that one!
Of course, had I been there, they would have won! No, the real reason was that BHX didn't show up to the first one, and then weighed in heavily against on the second. OK, BHX couldn't show up on the first one - because it was about usage of permitted development rights and that is fundamental to all airports in the UK, so they couldn't be seen stamping on that!
My understanding of the current situation is that they would get approval for 1m pax pa. The temporary terminal can handle almost this number so there isn't much ROI gain in building a new terminal - unless a new carrier came in and demanded it as part of a deal.
I'll have to check up on how long the temporary terminal can last before its right to exist expires. That, I will admit, could be a serious thorn in CVT's side.
I'll also have to look up which destinations mgt are trying to bring in - last time I read about this in local press they were talking about EDI, GLA, DUB etc - all the destinations which are well served from BHX.
You are right - airlines need to innovate and if an operator were attracted to CVT, they would need to do something different. But there are still plenty of sunshine destinations which can take more competition, not to mention numerous European capitals not served from BHX.
TOM DID innovate when they first came to CVT - first airline to offer MRS, VLC & NAP from outside LON. Then they dropped the interesting routes & became another me-too. You are spot on re: Wizz - some UK airports have worked for them, others haven't. I think proximity to LTN is an issue here.
FR operated 1-11s into CVT, so we're going back a bit. Afaik there are technical issues with 738s but I've never seen a detailed breakdown of which routes could be offered full (DUB? BVA?) & which would have seat restrictions.
I think we can both agree that CVT is going to have a tough job attracting new pax ops. Perhaps we only differ in that I would like to see my local airport working again and that this is of no concern to you, although you clearly have enough interest in CVT to stay on this thread
Yes there was heavy local politics! Two public enquiries - first about the temporary terminal and its right to operate with TOM, then a second one about a permanent terminal.
I spoke in favour of CVT at the first inquiry - there was a supporter's group, some may still be on here, but the problem was that its founders chose to remain anonymous - making it difficult to represent in a public forum, but I felt there was an argument which needed to be made from the grass roots, and the outcome of that inquiry was that CVT could stay open.
When it came round to the 2nd inquiry, I decided I had a business to run so I didn't attend. The airport lost that one!
Of course, had I been there, they would have won! No, the real reason was that BHX didn't show up to the first one, and then weighed in heavily against on the second. OK, BHX couldn't show up on the first one - because it was about usage of permitted development rights and that is fundamental to all airports in the UK, so they couldn't be seen stamping on that!
My understanding of the current situation is that they would get approval for 1m pax pa. The temporary terminal can handle almost this number so there isn't much ROI gain in building a new terminal - unless a new carrier came in and demanded it as part of a deal.
I'll have to check up on how long the temporary terminal can last before its right to exist expires. That, I will admit, could be a serious thorn in CVT's side.
I'll also have to look up which destinations mgt are trying to bring in - last time I read about this in local press they were talking about EDI, GLA, DUB etc - all the destinations which are well served from BHX.
You are right - airlines need to innovate and if an operator were attracted to CVT, they would need to do something different. But there are still plenty of sunshine destinations which can take more competition, not to mention numerous European capitals not served from BHX.
TOM DID innovate when they first came to CVT - first airline to offer MRS, VLC & NAP from outside LON. Then they dropped the interesting routes & became another me-too. You are spot on re: Wizz - some UK airports have worked for them, others haven't. I think proximity to LTN is an issue here.
FR operated 1-11s into CVT, so we're going back a bit. Afaik there are technical issues with 738s but I've never seen a detailed breakdown of which routes could be offered full (DUB? BVA?) & which would have seat restrictions.
I think we can both agree that CVT is going to have a tough job attracting new pax ops. Perhaps we only differ in that I would like to see my local airport working again and that this is of no concern to you, although you clearly have enough interest in CVT to stay on this thread
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
I'm just hanging around because I've not much else to do until I manage to sell my house and relocate to an island where the island airport has a mere, 4,150ft (ish) runway and, at present, sees a mere 5 x ATR42's per week, another airline has been threatening to start operating MA-60 aircraft in/out of the island but nothing yet ..... and people call me a Reggie Spotter, 5 x ATR42's per week!!!
You say destinations not served to/from BHX ..... When you have the likes of KLM, Lufty, Swiss, SAS etc. etc. etc. there are very few airports not served.
As an example Swiss's whole business model is on PDQ connections thru ZRH, one connection I was in the ZRH terminal for all of 9 minutes which included the quickest cigarette on record and queuing up at security, I alone have travelled with Swiss to MXP, FCO and HKG, all from BHX. Lufty operate DUS, FRA. MUC, from BHX I've flown with Lufty to Kiev, Timisoara, Stockholm etc. KLM I've flown BHX to Tallinn, Kiev, FCO and others, SAS I flew via CPH to Tallinn, all of these destinations served to/from BHX that don't appear on the airport departures board.
I'm just hanging around because I've not much else to do until I manage to sell my house and relocate to an island where the island airport has a mere, 4,150ft (ish) runway and, at present, sees a mere 5 x ATR42's per week, another airline has been threatening to start operating MA-60 aircraft in/out of the island but nothing yet ..... and people call me a Reggie Spotter, 5 x ATR42's per week!!!
You say destinations not served to/from BHX ..... When you have the likes of KLM, Lufty, Swiss, SAS etc. etc. etc. there are very few airports not served.
As an example Swiss's whole business model is on PDQ connections thru ZRH, one connection I was in the ZRH terminal for all of 9 minutes which included the quickest cigarette on record and queuing up at security, I alone have travelled with Swiss to MXP, FCO and HKG, all from BHX. Lufty operate DUS, FRA. MUC, from BHX I've flown with Lufty to Kiev, Timisoara, Stockholm etc. KLM I've flown BHX to Tallinn, Kiev, FCO and others, SAS I flew via CPH to Tallinn, all of these destinations served to/from BHX that don't appear on the airport departures board.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
Island with a very short runway? Sounds like SAB but they can only take otters.
5 ATRs - that sounds like Nevis, where my parents are based. You moving anywhere in that part of the world?
All those routes from BHX you mention are conx. Interesting you mention the Swiss efficiency - I have done BHX-ZRH twice, once with Swiss as you say, the other time a conx with KL - so a hub feeder can't be that good if it is cheaper to go via another hub! Conx from BHX or direct from LON - always a close call, think the leakage to LON is pretty substantial.
Island with a very short runway? Sounds like SAB but they can only take otters.
5 ATRs - that sounds like Nevis, where my parents are based. You moving anywhere in that part of the world?
All those routes from BHX you mention are conx. Interesting you mention the Swiss efficiency - I have done BHX-ZRH twice, once with Swiss as you say, the other time a conx with KL - so a hub feeder can't be that good if it is cheaper to go via another hub! Conx from BHX or direct from LON - always a close call, think the leakage to LON is pretty substantial.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
Twas cheaper to fly to Italy via ZRH than fly direct with a, supposed, LoCo.
Check it out on Swiss's website, just as an example it's cheaper to fly to Italy, via ZRH, that it is to fly to ZRH itself!
A friend of mine, a Scouser, had travelled previously to Kiev via MAN then LON including the M25 between LON airports, when I questioned why he didn't fly to Kiev from LPL he told me he couldn't ... for his next trip I pointed him in the direction of the KLM website, he saved himself time and money for which he thanked me profusely!
The island airport I refer to, where I'm moving to, goes under the IATA code 'IAO' .... I'm moving to the bottom right hand corner of the island, check out the pics on Google Earth.
Twas cheaper to fly to Italy via ZRH than fly direct with a, supposed, LoCo.
Check it out on Swiss's website, just as an example it's cheaper to fly to Italy, via ZRH, that it is to fly to ZRH itself!
A friend of mine, a Scouser, had travelled previously to Kiev via MAN then LON including the M25 between LON airports, when I questioned why he didn't fly to Kiev from LPL he told me he couldn't ... for his next trip I pointed him in the direction of the KLM website, he saved himself time and money for which he thanked me profusely!
The island airport I refer to, where I'm moving to, goes under the IATA code 'IAO'
.... I'm moving to the bottom right hand corner of the island, check out the pics on Google Earth.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
No doubt about it conx can be cheaper than loco as can direct legacy - all depends on supply & demand at the time, and the onward conx being cheaper than direct to hub is also a frequent occurence.
But I still say BHX has plenty of routes it could serve direct - BER & MAD being the most obvious. Then again even EDI now has Easy to ATH (ok, not best time for new route there but there is still latent biz & tourist demand which has been served before) But that's for the BHX thread
And as for your island, looks great but I think we're into pm territory there
No doubt about it conx can be cheaper than loco as can direct legacy - all depends on supply & demand at the time, and the onward conx being cheaper than direct to hub is also a frequent occurence.
But I still say BHX has plenty of routes it could serve direct - BER & MAD being the most obvious. Then again even EDI now has Easy to ATH (ok, not best time for new route there but there is still latent biz & tourist demand which has been served before) But that's for the BHX thread
And as for your island, looks great but I think we're into pm territory there
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
It is interesting what you said might have been Wizz Air's reason for leaving CVT, a conflict of interests with their LTN operation, the point I have been trying to make ..... what chance EZY?
It is interesting what you said might have been Wizz Air's reason for leaving CVT, a conflict of interests with their LTN operation, the point I have been trying to make ..... what chance EZY?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF, as I said in my earlier post, I felt Easy were unlikely too and that Jet2 is where I would put my money.
However, Easy are a very different operation to Wizz - much wider brand recognition, extremely diverse portfolio of routes etc.
So just as I was surprised to see Easy @ SEN, I wouldn't rule out Easy @ CVT.
However, Easy are a very different operation to Wizz - much wider brand recognition, extremely diverse portfolio of routes etc.
So just as I was surprised to see Easy @ SEN, I wouldn't rule out Easy @ CVT.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you will find that is correct. Opening till 0200 and lots of staff recruited. I am amazed that this has not been posted long before this, as I said in a previous post I think all the regular posters are sworn to secrecy.
Perhaps someone would like to spill the beans on passenger flights.
When you have a an extremly rich owner things happen.
Centre cities
Perhaps someone would like to spill the beans on passenger flights.
When you have a an extremly rich owner things happen.
Centre cities
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centre cities,
You are quite correct, things do happen when you have an extremely rich owner.
A number of years ago I worked for an airline that was owned by an incredibly rich family and the family member at the helm, the president, of the airline was born with some 8 million US dollars to his name and that was just loose change when compared to what he was worth when I/we worked for him.
Yes, things certainly happened ... the airline went tits up !!!!!
You are quite correct, things do happen when you have an extremely rich owner.
A number of years ago I worked for an airline that was owned by an incredibly rich family and the family member at the helm, the president, of the airline was born with some 8 million US dollars to his name and that was just loose change when compared to what he was worth when I/we worked for him.
Yes, things certainly happened ... the airline went tits up !!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centre cites
I will re post my thoughts re Coventry which I feel sorry for..
Coventry will now never suceed it may ahve lots of money from Sir Whatever but he will only put money in to a sinking ship
Theres only a limited number of times you can put a ship into Dry dock for repairs but if its full of Holes your Pixxing into the on coming sea breeeze
I feel sorry for the Airport and the great people that worked to try to keep the ship afloat but I am afraid even with Cargo flights sir Whatever will be closing his wallet soon
I m afarid in this day and age its going to join the number of sinking airports in the UK
Good luck
Gerry
NB
Sorry to make all the comparisons to Nautical activites (I DONT EVEN LIKE SHIPS)
R S V P Titanic (Sorry EGBE)
Coventry will now never suceed it may ahve lots of money from Sir Whatever but he will only put money in to a sinking ship
Theres only a limited number of times you can put a ship into Dry dock for repairs but if its full of Holes your Pixxing into the on coming sea breeeze
I feel sorry for the Airport and the great people that worked to try to keep the ship afloat but I am afraid even with Cargo flights sir Whatever will be closing his wallet soon
I m afarid in this day and age its going to join the number of sinking airports in the UK
Good luck
Gerry
NB
Sorry to make all the comparisons to Nautical activites (I DONT EVEN LIKE SHIPS)
R S V P Titanic (Sorry EGBE)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way to become a millionair airport operator is to start as a billionair.
There is not going to be any big growth in flying with high fuel costs here to stay. The only way to get significant traffic at the airport is to keep charges low. low prices do not pay the bills unless you get a massive pound shop like trade.
Around the airport big business parks and housing is being proposed. The final stage is the airport changes in homes after the gravel in extracted.
There is not going to be any big growth in flying with high fuel costs here to stay. The only way to get significant traffic at the airport is to keep charges low. low prices do not pay the bills unless you get a massive pound shop like trade.
Around the airport big business parks and housing is being proposed. The final stage is the airport changes in homes after the gravel in extracted.