COVENTRY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubting the logic
The great thing about airport planning disputes is the ease with which the argument can be justified by all parties. It is one of the few times where everyone is genuinely right in their assertions.
Airport expansion - always environmentally unpopular, always creates fare competition, always generates investment, always leads to more jobs, always coughs up loads to the Exchequer. This one had a new and unusual aspect which was the big airport up the road and that is the whole darn issue in a nutshell. History is littered with examples where government has failed to protect the welfare of its industry and associated workers, which contributed to the collapse of UK manufacturing and Coventry/Warwickshire has suffered more than most in that process while government stood by - yet here is blatant protection of one private company masked with a few environmental titbits.
And yet - 6 or 7 supermarket superstores in one town is not considered over capacity, 20 cab firms, 3 or 4 bus companies on the same routes etc etc etc.
In any one large metropolitan area there are even several radio and TV stations playing the same music to the same people. All of these areas are regulated by government, be it local or national.
So where is it written that competition in the aviation industry should be policed by planning. It would not happen with supermarkets and it has no business happening here.
Thanks to whoever said 'good luck to the staff' - we'll be ok because the game is not over.
Airport expansion - always environmentally unpopular, always creates fare competition, always generates investment, always leads to more jobs, always coughs up loads to the Exchequer. This one had a new and unusual aspect which was the big airport up the road and that is the whole darn issue in a nutshell. History is littered with examples where government has failed to protect the welfare of its industry and associated workers, which contributed to the collapse of UK manufacturing and Coventry/Warwickshire has suffered more than most in that process while government stood by - yet here is blatant protection of one private company masked with a few environmental titbits.
And yet - 6 or 7 supermarket superstores in one town is not considered over capacity, 20 cab firms, 3 or 4 bus companies on the same routes etc etc etc.
In any one large metropolitan area there are even several radio and TV stations playing the same music to the same people. All of these areas are regulated by government, be it local or national.
So where is it written that competition in the aviation industry should be policed by planning. It would not happen with supermarkets and it has no business happening here.
Thanks to whoever said 'good luck to the staff' - we'll be ok because the game is not over.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A terrible decision and another case of Coventry as a region being put down by the powers that be that reside in Birmingham. Super casino one already being built in Coventry support no in fact campaign against for a theoretical site in Birmingham and lose, national football stadium one with planning permision in Coventry support it no campaign against for one in Birmingham and lose out to Wembley, Jaguar need to lose a plant campaign against the one in Coventry that was home to the marc in favour of the one in Birmingham, Rover closes huge fuss marches campaigns visits by politicans money flows Peugeot closes nothing, Possibility of a high tech medical park in Coventry, land available firms want to move in does advantage west midlands support it no but pushes a less suitable site in Birmingham, possibility of a high tech research facility for an Indian company who are very keen on Coventry because of their links with Warwick University Advantage West Midlands rubbishes Coventry in favour of Birmingham, money available for a station to serve the Ricoh arena is it built no reason its not on a direct line to Birmingham and so and so on. Its all very frustrating and wouldn't be so bad on the aviation front if Birmingham served the region well but as we have seen in recent days it doesn't and is a total shambles.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are of the opinion that the Coventry expansion/development has not been thwarted by Birmingham wishing to maintain its monopoly in the West Midlands then it is you who is being ridiculous.
The point was that this is not the first, and probably will not be the last, example of Birmingham as a city using its influence not to promote the greater good of the West Midlands region , but to keep economic development for itself. Coventry in recent times has lost the employment provided jaguar, massey fergusen, peugeot and marconi and in the jaguar case this was directly affected by lobbying from Birmingham that saw the sacrifice of jobs in Coventry as a price worth paying to maintain jobs in Birmingham. Then to exacerbate the situation when the posibility of alternative employment in Coventry has emerged, The super casino, the national stadium, the airport, the medical park, The tata research centre, this has been actively opposed by Birmingham in the shape of advantage west midlands and the Birmingham City Council in an attempt to divert these potential jobs from Coventry to Birmingham.
The point was that this is not the first, and probably will not be the last, example of Birmingham as a city using its influence not to promote the greater good of the West Midlands region , but to keep economic development for itself. Coventry in recent times has lost the employment provided jaguar, massey fergusen, peugeot and marconi and in the jaguar case this was directly affected by lobbying from Birmingham that saw the sacrifice of jobs in Coventry as a price worth paying to maintain jobs in Birmingham. Then to exacerbate the situation when the posibility of alternative employment in Coventry has emerged, The super casino, the national stadium, the airport, the medical park, The tata research centre, this has been actively opposed by Birmingham in the shape of advantage west midlands and the Birmingham City Council in an attempt to divert these potential jobs from Coventry to Birmingham.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cvt person, as far as I'm aware, TATA are ONLY looking at ANSTY for their new research centre, and they currently have a base at Warwick Uni.
Aside from that, Advantage West Midlands was very slow to react to the city's desire and plan for a medical research centre, and the local politicians had to go to the government and force AWM to do something about it. At the moment infrastructure is apparently planned for the Ansty site, and a large chunk of it is going to be for TATA.
As for Jaguar - the Coventry plant at Browns lane was an assembly plant, and it was closed because Jaguar didn't need it. I won't go into it at lengths, but the reasons for Coventry losing its car plants are historical, and stem from the fact that Coventry was mainly a centre for assembly plants, with components being made in Brum which was already a centre for that sort of industry. On the good side, Coventry has managed to retain much of the high-tech side of the motor industry and has two Universities that are world renowned centres for design & engineering. This is why TATA are here.
The closures of Browns Land and Peugot were a blow for jobs, but they were the dying remains of the city's assembly industry. Nothing to do with conspiracies. And the number of jobs lost in the late 1970s was something in the region of 60,000 in the space of months.
In some ways Coventry may be in a stronger position with Jaguar now - the Design centre at Whitley is now the HQ and if it does get sold on, the chances are the design centre will be kept - in which case, Castle Brom or Halewood may find themselves being closed. Or the whole lot is shipped to China.
Aside from that, Advantage West Midlands was very slow to react to the city's desire and plan for a medical research centre, and the local politicians had to go to the government and force AWM to do something about it. At the moment infrastructure is apparently planned for the Ansty site, and a large chunk of it is going to be for TATA.
As for Jaguar - the Coventry plant at Browns lane was an assembly plant, and it was closed because Jaguar didn't need it. I won't go into it at lengths, but the reasons for Coventry losing its car plants are historical, and stem from the fact that Coventry was mainly a centre for assembly plants, with components being made in Brum which was already a centre for that sort of industry. On the good side, Coventry has managed to retain much of the high-tech side of the motor industry and has two Universities that are world renowned centres for design & engineering. This is why TATA are here.
The closures of Browns Land and Peugot were a blow for jobs, but they were the dying remains of the city's assembly industry. Nothing to do with conspiracies. And the number of jobs lost in the late 1970s was something in the region of 60,000 in the space of months.
In some ways Coventry may be in a stronger position with Jaguar now - the Design centre at Whitley is now the HQ and if it does get sold on, the chances are the design centre will be kept - in which case, Castle Brom or Halewood may find themselves being closed. Or the whole lot is shipped to China.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvt-bhx
The main difference here between the Manchester Liverpool and Blackpool debate is the distances involved, none are about 12 miles.
The main infrstructure at these other airports is already in place, not so at Coventry.
As regards supermarkets etc that is not similar at all, and yes they are regulated.
The burning question is do you need another airport wishing to offer the same services as one 12 miles away. The sensible answer in this day and age has to be NO.
As I said in an earlier post this is all down to local pride and not common sense. Call BHX BCI Birmingham Coventry International.
On the subject of Birmingham exerting its influence over Coventry I dont think so and I could list numerous major companies that have folded or left the area. Both cities have had it hard as well as alot of others in the UK.
You will be talking about putting guards on the A45 next.
The main infrstructure at these other airports is already in place, not so at Coventry.
As regards supermarkets etc that is not similar at all, and yes they are regulated.
The burning question is do you need another airport wishing to offer the same services as one 12 miles away. The sensible answer in this day and age has to be NO.
As I said in an earlier post this is all down to local pride and not common sense. Call BHX BCI Birmingham Coventry International.
On the subject of Birmingham exerting its influence over Coventry I dont think so and I could list numerous major companies that have folded or left the area. Both cities have had it hard as well as alot of others in the UK.
You will be talking about putting guards on the A45 next.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cvt person, Coventry has changed a lot - its economy is much more mixed than it was in the 1970s, and as a consequence the region is far more stable and not reliant on a few large firms. Things like Friargate are creating a fair amount of interest (Apparently) in speculative office developments, which will bring more jobs to the city and also help fuel the council's hope to increase the population by up to 100,000:
www.friargatecoventry.co.uk
It's nice for Cov Airport to doing passenger flights, but in real terms, it's a drop in the ocean of some of the future plans for the city - which will soon have a 55 minute rail link to London.
www.friargatecoventry.co.uk
It's nice for Cov Airport to doing passenger flights, but in real terms, it's a drop in the ocean of some of the future plans for the city - which will soon have a 55 minute rail link to London.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion as a Tfly CVT employee:
The terminal has been declined, so pax numbers have an imposed limit.
Tfly and FCA are about to become TUI travel, a really big charter company.
There will be areas of cost-saving required.
BHX is a few miles away.
So, TUI travel pulls out of schedule operations and ceases operations from CVT (but keeps DSA is it doeas alot of charter, and keeps BOH as it has the catchment). Moves everything to BHX, or the staff to the job centre!
The terminal has been declined, so pax numbers have an imposed limit.
Tfly and FCA are about to become TUI travel, a really big charter company.
There will be areas of cost-saving required.
BHX is a few miles away.
So, TUI travel pulls out of schedule operations and ceases operations from CVT (but keeps DSA is it doeas alot of charter, and keeps BOH as it has the catchment). Moves everything to BHX, or the staff to the job centre!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion as a CVT contractor
Present pax numbers between 600 and 700k so still potential to increase flights by almost a third b4 reaching capacity.
Existing buildings easy to reconfigure without need for further consent.
Serious marketing to build non-pax business (yep might be noisy)
Then growth by stealth - a building here, a building there - and of course with the passage of time and politics the tide may turn favourably back towards the limited expansion that was proposed.
Not likely? Well remember the airport did have PP for this project in the late 90's but squandered it so who's to say new thinking might make it reappear in some way, shape or form.
The economics - well I could run an airport on .98 million pax plus freight and GA and make the sums add up. In fact if they want to sell it to me for a quid I'll give it a try.
I think there will be hard decisions to take but these people do think creatively and I know that, now the terminal has been refused, if they focus on improving and marketing the present instead of being distracted by the future, there is a sustainable model.
I can tell you, from first hand experience, that had CVT been able to provide better facilities from the outset, its pax performance would have been better. Certainly the pax I meet are highly satisfied with the 'ease' of CVT and the high standard of service they receive. They do not have the same opinion of the treatment they get at BHX.
Existing buildings easy to reconfigure without need for further consent.
Serious marketing to build non-pax business (yep might be noisy)
Then growth by stealth - a building here, a building there - and of course with the passage of time and politics the tide may turn favourably back towards the limited expansion that was proposed.
Not likely? Well remember the airport did have PP for this project in the late 90's but squandered it so who's to say new thinking might make it reappear in some way, shape or form.
The economics - well I could run an airport on .98 million pax plus freight and GA and make the sums add up. In fact if they want to sell it to me for a quid I'll give it a try.
I think there will be hard decisions to take but these people do think creatively and I know that, now the terminal has been refused, if they focus on improving and marketing the present instead of being distracted by the future, there is a sustainable model.
I can tell you, from first hand experience, that had CVT been able to provide better facilities from the outset, its pax performance would have been better. Certainly the pax I meet are highly satisfied with the 'ease' of CVT and the high standard of service they receive. They do not have the same opinion of the treatment they get at BHX.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May Provisional route analysis
From the CAA with my estimate of pax per flight: -
Salzburg 1939 average 75 pax - 2006 in brackets
Orly 5701 average 92 (3293)
Pisa 3401 average 95 (3555)
Amsterdam 5259 average 97 (4602)
Alicante 6103 average 117 (5950)
Barcelona 6041 average 97 (6719)
Malaga 6325 average 102 (6489)
Palma 6255 average 120 (6889)
Valencia 3445 average 101 (4080)
Faro 5938 average 114 (5826)
Jersey 5761 average 93
I am not privy to the number of cancellations and the number of rotations
has been taken from the current timetable and might not be accurate
for May. However a reasonable set of results except for SZG, which
considering the month is understandable.
Enough to maintain their operation I would have thought without seeing the individual yields, what do others think?
Pete
Salzburg 1939 average 75 pax - 2006 in brackets
Orly 5701 average 92 (3293)
Pisa 3401 average 95 (3555)
Amsterdam 5259 average 97 (4602)
Alicante 6103 average 117 (5950)
Barcelona 6041 average 97 (6719)
Malaga 6325 average 102 (6489)
Palma 6255 average 120 (6889)
Valencia 3445 average 101 (4080)
Faro 5938 average 114 (5826)
Jersey 5761 average 93
I am not privy to the number of cancellations and the number of rotations
has been taken from the current timetable and might not be accurate
for May. However a reasonable set of results except for SZG, which
considering the month is understandable.
Enough to maintain their operation I would have thought without seeing the individual yields, what do others think?
Pete
Last edited by OltonPete; 16th Jun 2007 at 09:50. Reason: wrong year
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guards on the A45 might be going a bit far but I would certainly be in favour of severing all political ties with Birmingham with getting out from under the umbrela of Advantage West Midlands as the first step. I would also be adamantly opposed to the notion of a Birmingham City Region which is currently being promoted from within Birmingham which would result in Coventry being governed from Birmingham.
I am not alone in having the opinion that Birmingham is actively working against the economic interests of the Coventry Area. On the local radio last night the leader of the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce said the opposition that Birmingham had shown to the development of Coventry's airport following on from its opposition to Coventry's bid for a super casino and the national stadium was a big issue for the people of Coventry.
I am not alone in having the opinion that Birmingham is actively working against the economic interests of the Coventry Area. On the local radio last night the leader of the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce said the opposition that Birmingham had shown to the development of Coventry's airport following on from its opposition to Coventry's bid for a super casino and the national stadium was a big issue for the people of Coventry.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVT Person - a lot of what you write is true, even if some people think you are suggesting a conspiracy theory. I don't think they have looked at the facts. They are just knocking you without checking.
What now for the airport? If the plan of the current owners was to sell the airport just as soon as the planning permission for the new terminal had been granted, they've got a problem now. I believe that the airport is currently unprofitable, (but I am open to correction), and if this is the case, it is hardly worth anything. £4m or £5m I would suggest, and that assumes that the current business can be made profitable to the tune of £500,000 a year or so - a tall order.
Bearing in mind the aggravation and difficulties in running an airport these days, why would anyone want a loss-making one?
What now for the airport? If the plan of the current owners was to sell the airport just as soon as the planning permission for the new terminal had been granted, they've got a problem now. I believe that the airport is currently unprofitable, (but I am open to correction), and if this is the case, it is hardly worth anything. £4m or £5m I would suggest, and that assumes that the current business can be made profitable to the tune of £500,000 a year or so - a tall order.
Bearing in mind the aggravation and difficulties in running an airport these days, why would anyone want a loss-making one?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future
Well, clearly I have a keen desire to see the airport continue as it was our very first base for Skypartners and we have worked so very hard in a (sometimes) harsh environment to make a go of things. Personally I have much to be thankful of with the whole CVT pax adventure for it gave birth to Skypartners and a whole new opportunity for myself and the people I work with.
For us it was already an emotional week even before Friday's news. We got word on Monday that we have won a third airport contract (official announcement next week) and at the same time as informing the staff of that good news we had to announce that their much loved and admired base manager at CVT is leaving the Company after 4 years and moving to Scotland.
Now another cloud on the horizon. Sometimes it's like rowing through a river of treacle but - hey, we got strong arms and big paddles!
What is the relevence of all this on pprune? well I thought it was worth showing you some of the 'human interest' part of the story of CVT.
For us it was already an emotional week even before Friday's news. We got word on Monday that we have won a third airport contract (official announcement next week) and at the same time as informing the staff of that good news we had to announce that their much loved and admired base manager at CVT is leaving the Company after 4 years and moving to Scotland.
Now another cloud on the horizon. Sometimes it's like rowing through a river of treacle but - hey, we got strong arms and big paddles!
What is the relevence of all this on pprune? well I thought it was worth showing you some of the 'human interest' part of the story of CVT.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skypartners:
"yet here is blatant protection of one private company masked with a few environmental titbits"
You know I could say a great deal more on this, but your sentence sums it up in a nutshell.
"yet here is blatant protection of one private company masked with a few environmental titbits"
You know I could say a great deal more on this, but your sentence sums it up in a nutshell.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Somewhere in the South West
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am personally gutted about the decision, having worked at CVT and been involved with the Inquiry it was saddening to hear. The guys on the ground work very hard in very difficult circumstances.
Sky Partner.... I am sure you will be welcomed in your new operation!!!
Sky Partner.... I am sure you will be welcomed in your new operation!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, time for a bit of positive thinking, no doubt that the decision was a kick in the teeth for CVT, however there are plenty of airports making money with less than 1M pax (many of them would love to get anywhere near what CVT has now). As stated during the PI, CVT may now need to refocus its marketing efforts to other aviation sectors...the combination of freight, maintenance, training, exec and 1M pax can be profitable, however it will require the airport to realise that pax flights are not the "be all and end all" whilst still trying to attract locos to take up the 1M capacity from a "temp" terminal. By the way, their last "temporary" terminal lasted about 50 years so they have a track record with this! The less restrictive 106 agreement for the temp terminal will allow the airport to expand these other sectors more easily than if they had received the PP for 2M pax.
Customer satisfaction at CVT is imho not a major issue, I have met many people who state that they like the small airport feel and they have elected to fly from CVT numerous times - you cannot get lost at CVT (that may have to be their new catchphrase). Skypartners and friendly airport staff have much to do with this customer satisfaction and I hope for all their sakes that pax services continue as they all do a great job.
I hope that a customer survey may persuade TOM to stay but who knows what their masterplan is? What I do know is that the pax figures have shown other airlines that CVT has great potential and it is quite possible that another lo-co would be interested in flying from CVT should TOM decide to go elsewhere. Whoever decides to operate can be assured that they will receive a priority service from the airport, TOM may need to realise this before making any decisions.
What can the airport do now to improve the pax experience? A coat of paint and a more appealing terminal exterior to start with. As I said many people like the small airport feel, however the lack of shopping appears to be an issue, so could the airport use the upstairs of the temp terminal as a shopping area? Does a shopping area constitute a terminal? With an agreed limit of 980,000 pax, would it not be fair to allow the airport to do this?
(However, since when has fair come into CVT's fortunes!) Failing that, how about a heated marquee shopping village next to the temp terminal? It will be just like Croydon Airport all over again!
Stay positive, there are other options!
Customer satisfaction at CVT is imho not a major issue, I have met many people who state that they like the small airport feel and they have elected to fly from CVT numerous times - you cannot get lost at CVT (that may have to be their new catchphrase). Skypartners and friendly airport staff have much to do with this customer satisfaction and I hope for all their sakes that pax services continue as they all do a great job.
I hope that a customer survey may persuade TOM to stay but who knows what their masterplan is? What I do know is that the pax figures have shown other airlines that CVT has great potential and it is quite possible that another lo-co would be interested in flying from CVT should TOM decide to go elsewhere. Whoever decides to operate can be assured that they will receive a priority service from the airport, TOM may need to realise this before making any decisions.
What can the airport do now to improve the pax experience? A coat of paint and a more appealing terminal exterior to start with. As I said many people like the small airport feel, however the lack of shopping appears to be an issue, so could the airport use the upstairs of the temp terminal as a shopping area? Does a shopping area constitute a terminal? With an agreed limit of 980,000 pax, would it not be fair to allow the airport to do this?
(However, since when has fair come into CVT's fortunes!) Failing that, how about a heated marquee shopping village next to the temp terminal? It will be just like Croydon Airport all over again!
Stay positive, there are other options!