COVENTRY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanking you
Thanks - kind words and much appreciated. Your suggestions match, so closely, a conversation I had with someone yesterday and today that I wonder if I might know you 
. See my earlier post - I can see lots of ways to mix the offering at CVT to be a profitable microcosm of aviation. (I am now even impressing myself with such prose).
Jabird - I am sure you could say more - suffice it to say this - remember at school when they told you how life isn't fair - bullseye!
. See my earlier post - I can see lots of ways to mix the offering at CVT to be a profitable microcosm of aviation. (I am now even impressing myself with such prose).Jabird - I am sure you could say more - suffice it to say this - remember at school when they told you how life isn't fair - bullseye!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any reason to panic about TOM moving away. If anything, TOM management have far more issues with BHX than they do with CVT.
TOM faced a raft of local criticism when they first launched from here, and they have stuck resolutely to their guns, having also had to buy the airport lease to secure their launch plans.
I can't see what cost savings they would get by moving to BHX, especially as CVT has recently reduced its handling fees.
This latest situation is a farce, but we can be assured of getting either:
a) A fresh planning application, or
b) A victory on appeal (Mr Village is not the type to keel over easily).
If they went for option A, I'm not sure if that would just be for a straight one-for-one replacement - i.e. 1m pax per year, or for something larger, with a more comprehensive SAS.
This saga has seen enough twists and turns to be far from over yet.
TOM faced a raft of local criticism when they first launched from here, and they have stuck resolutely to their guns, having also had to buy the airport lease to secure their launch plans.
I can't see what cost savings they would get by moving to BHX, especially as CVT has recently reduced its handling fees.
This latest situation is a farce, but we can be assured of getting either:
a) A fresh planning application, or
b) A victory on appeal (Mr Village is not the type to keel over easily).
If they went for option A, I'm not sure if that would just be for a straight one-for-one replacement - i.e. 1m pax per year, or for something larger, with a more comprehensive SAS.
This saga has seen enough twists and turns to be far from over yet.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvt-bhx
"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."
Coventry has always maintained its idependance as a City. The development has been impressive over the last few years compared to when I worked their for several years in the 90's. This has been acheived without an airport that serves basic holiday routes and this will not change.
Just think if Coventry was in the North West it would be in Greater Manchester but stragly enough that does not seem to bother the towns around Manchester.
Centre cities
Coventry has always maintained its idependance as a City. The development has been impressive over the last few years compared to when I worked their for several years in the 90's. This has been acheived without an airport that serves basic holiday routes and this will not change.
Just think if Coventry was in the North West it would be in Greater Manchester but stragly enough that does not seem to bother the towns around Manchester.
Centre cities
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps because Manchester is an infinitely better run city than Birmingham and takes a more paternalistic approach to its neighbours than anything seen in the west midlands
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
52N, well done for encouraging positive thinking. It does help.
There may be planty of airports making money with less than one million pax, but CVT only manages 2/3rds of that number, and all the pax flights are operated by LCCs. The income received from these operations will be very low, and the car park presumably has to pay for a lot of the airport's operational costs.
The cargo business has dropped off somewhat, and certainly Parcelforce do not charter as many aircraft as they did. As CVT is a H24 airport, it should manage to increase this form of traffic somewhat, but I doubt it will exceed the level it reached around 5 years ago, when the airport was reported to be losing £1m a year.
But then, the number of staff employed by CVT was about 50. Now it is 180, according to the press release. If the average cost of one employee is £25,000, then this difference of 130 people adds up to £3.25m.
So I think the management have got a real problem. A massive problem.
There may be planty of airports making money with less than one million pax, but CVT only manages 2/3rds of that number, and all the pax flights are operated by LCCs. The income received from these operations will be very low, and the car park presumably has to pay for a lot of the airport's operational costs.
The cargo business has dropped off somewhat, and certainly Parcelforce do not charter as many aircraft as they did. As CVT is a H24 airport, it should manage to increase this form of traffic somewhat, but I doubt it will exceed the level it reached around 5 years ago, when the airport was reported to be losing £1m a year.
But then, the number of staff employed by CVT was about 50. Now it is 180, according to the press release. If the average cost of one employee is £25,000, then this difference of 130 people adds up to £3.25m.
So I think the management have got a real problem. A massive problem.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just think if Coventry was in the North West it would be in Greater Manchester but stragly enough that does not seem to bother the towns around Manchester."
Greater Manchester doesn't exist.
When the county was disbanded, the towns that were formerly in Greater Manchester decided to stick together and co-operate due to the fact they are all part of the same urban area. The towns are Manchester are also economically depedent on Manchester. Most of the towns were historically mill towns, whereas Coventry's never had much reliance on Brum economically. In fact, when Brum boomed, Cov was in a major slump for 200 years, with only a local watchmaking industry alongside ribbon weaving.
The West Midlands was rather different - Coventry is not part of the Urban area of Brum/black country, and there is about 15 miles of countryside between the two cities.
This means the "West Midlands" transport plan doesn't really feature Coventry, as the city has no real need to have any improved links with Brum - instead, Coventry is treated seperately in a document that takes in Warwickshire. But Warwickshire also has its own plan. It's a messed up situation, with buses in Coventry being a joke as they're not even run from the city. Problems have also been caused by removing Coventry from Warwickshire with local services in Warwickshire not having a mass of population and limited resources to tackle a population that is spread around in smaller towns.
Advantage West Midlands is actually against a "Brum City Region" for the simple fact that it's a multi-centred region.
The real problem at the moment with Cov is that Warwickshire scuppers any plans that involve Warwickshire, such as the SPRINT rapid transit. The number of people who commute from Warwickshire into Coventry is pretty huge - a large chunk of the workforce in the city are from the county.
This is very different to Manchester, where the authorities co-operated with the tram system.
Greater Manchester doesn't exist.
When the county was disbanded, the towns that were formerly in Greater Manchester decided to stick together and co-operate due to the fact they are all part of the same urban area. The towns are Manchester are also economically depedent on Manchester. Most of the towns were historically mill towns, whereas Coventry's never had much reliance on Brum economically. In fact, when Brum boomed, Cov was in a major slump for 200 years, with only a local watchmaking industry alongside ribbon weaving.
The West Midlands was rather different - Coventry is not part of the Urban area of Brum/black country, and there is about 15 miles of countryside between the two cities.
This means the "West Midlands" transport plan doesn't really feature Coventry, as the city has no real need to have any improved links with Brum - instead, Coventry is treated seperately in a document that takes in Warwickshire. But Warwickshire also has its own plan. It's a messed up situation, with buses in Coventry being a joke as they're not even run from the city. Problems have also been caused by removing Coventry from Warwickshire with local services in Warwickshire not having a mass of population and limited resources to tackle a population that is spread around in smaller towns.
Advantage West Midlands is actually against a "Brum City Region" for the simple fact that it's a multi-centred region.
The real problem at the moment with Cov is that Warwickshire scuppers any plans that involve Warwickshire, such as the SPRINT rapid transit. The number of people who commute from Warwickshire into Coventry is pretty huge - a large chunk of the workforce in the city are from the county.
This is very different to Manchester, where the authorities co-operated with the tram system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP,
I'm just seeing that we both posted at exactly the same time - some readers could almost think we were the same person, but we know different, eh?
"The real problem at the moment with Cov is that Warwickshire scuppers any plans that involve Warwickshire, such as the SPRINT rapid transit. The number of people who commute from Warwickshire into Coventry is pretty huge - a large chunk of the workforce in the city are from the county."
Arbottle - yes, I'm afraid this is very true. Let's not forget that CVT falls into the realms of Warwick District Council. I have to give it to them, they are a tough bunch - much as though I completely disagree with the stance they have taken, their viewpoint has been vindicated - at least for now.
How different it might have been if the airport was in the boundaries of Coventry? As SP rightly says, we have to live with this. BHX is also within Solihull boundaries, and I don't think their expansion plans are anything like a foregone conclusion either.
I will need to thoroughly digest the report, but I am still sensing that the grounds for refusal ultimately boil down to the presence of BHX - although I expect that this is a combination of pre-existence (for mainstream passenger purposes), public transport provision and clout, rather than any individual reason.
Yes I agree that this is far from over - there are appeals, and possible alternative submissions to think about. Meanwhile, the current terminal continues to operate, and to do so with planning permission.
I hope that the key political voices in Coventry will make their opinions known in the right places - shame on Jim Cunningham for caving in to the nimby arguments.
If a local shop of 70 years' standing was refused planning permission to open a second checkout desk, on the grounds that there was a large supermarket with 12 desks, and plans to expand to 36 desks, just 120 yards away, there would be total outrage, and cries of bullying on the part of said supermarket. Yet shops also cause disturbances, albeit on a different scale. And don't get me started on the nuisance going on outside a certain local pub tonight!
I hope that people will sense a similar outrage over what has happened here, and that they will see through the political points scoring which is so easy to do these days in the name of the environment, when it is perfectly clear that there are other, far greater, vested interests at play.
I'm just seeing that we both posted at exactly the same time - some readers could almost think we were the same person, but we know different, eh?
"The real problem at the moment with Cov is that Warwickshire scuppers any plans that involve Warwickshire, such as the SPRINT rapid transit. The number of people who commute from Warwickshire into Coventry is pretty huge - a large chunk of the workforce in the city are from the county."
Arbottle - yes, I'm afraid this is very true. Let's not forget that CVT falls into the realms of Warwick District Council. I have to give it to them, they are a tough bunch - much as though I completely disagree with the stance they have taken, their viewpoint has been vindicated - at least for now.
How different it might have been if the airport was in the boundaries of Coventry? As SP rightly says, we have to live with this. BHX is also within Solihull boundaries, and I don't think their expansion plans are anything like a foregone conclusion either.
I will need to thoroughly digest the report, but I am still sensing that the grounds for refusal ultimately boil down to the presence of BHX - although I expect that this is a combination of pre-existence (for mainstream passenger purposes), public transport provision and clout, rather than any individual reason.
Yes I agree that this is far from over - there are appeals, and possible alternative submissions to think about. Meanwhile, the current terminal continues to operate, and to do so with planning permission.
I hope that the key political voices in Coventry will make their opinions known in the right places - shame on Jim Cunningham for caving in to the nimby arguments.
If a local shop of 70 years' standing was refused planning permission to open a second checkout desk, on the grounds that there was a large supermarket with 12 desks, and plans to expand to 36 desks, just 120 yards away, there would be total outrage, and cries of bullying on the part of said supermarket. Yet shops also cause disturbances, albeit on a different scale. And don't get me started on the nuisance going on outside a certain local pub tonight!
I hope that people will sense a similar outrage over what has happened here, and that they will see through the political points scoring which is so easy to do these days in the name of the environment, when it is perfectly clear that there are other, far greater, vested interests at play.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP:
"it to say this - remember at school when they told you how life isn't fair - bullseye!"
CC:
"So its not Birminghams fault its Warwickshire, glad thats cleared up then."
SP, not sure how much I listened to my teachers at school, but if there is one musical lyric which springs to mind, it is one which eminates from a certain Manchester band I share my name with:
"Stop stop talking about who's to blame, when all that counts is how to change."
The decision has been made, and we have to live with it. For anyone directly employed at the airport, or who's business depends on the airport, this is a hard blow to take, especially as we approach what should be a busy summer, not to mention the excitement of the new link with Poland.
I have lived in this area for 29 of the 31 years I have spent on this planet. Prior to moving to Coventry, I lived in north Leamington. I also took a substantial interest in green issues when at university, so I think I can see this debate from most angles.
I have repeatedly pointed out that CVT needs an intelligent surface access strategy. They need to innovate, and to turn a weakness into a strength - just laying on a couple of buses doesn't do this. They need to look at the shared taxi system used by Chiltern Trains at Bicester (where parking constraints are a real problem), or they need to investigate whether or not Tfly's customer database can be used to offer this service as an add-on (hey, potential revenue earner here too).
I don't buy the argument that mitigation wasn't sufficient. If this was the case, surely the inspectorate could have imposed greater restrictions. This is to be expected anyway, as environmental concerns continue to grab more headlines. Let's not forget that 1m departures each year would have sent £10m to the treasury, yet nimbys tend to go strangely silent when asked if some of that income ould go towards mitigation schemes.
Noise and air pollution will be a problem at any airport, but it doesn't take a genius to glance at a map, and see that the residential areas around BHX are a great deal more dense than those around CVT. Imho, this more than equates for any alleged lack of public transport - especially as most of CVT's pax are on leisure trips anyway, and as 4 out of 5 people using BHX still arrive there by private transport or taxi.
So I think that the environmental reasons for refusal can and should be challenged, however much of a whipping stick the media like to beat the aviation industry with. Once those are given a fair weighting, I think that the case for moderate expansion at CVT - which is all anyone has ever asked for - is entirely reasonable, and consistent with the needs of the Midlands as a whole.
"it to say this - remember at school when they told you how life isn't fair - bullseye!"
CC:
"So its not Birminghams fault its Warwickshire, glad thats cleared up then."
SP, not sure how much I listened to my teachers at school, but if there is one musical lyric which springs to mind, it is one which eminates from a certain Manchester band I share my name with:
"Stop stop talking about who's to blame, when all that counts is how to change."
The decision has been made, and we have to live with it. For anyone directly employed at the airport, or who's business depends on the airport, this is a hard blow to take, especially as we approach what should be a busy summer, not to mention the excitement of the new link with Poland.
I have lived in this area for 29 of the 31 years I have spent on this planet. Prior to moving to Coventry, I lived in north Leamington. I also took a substantial interest in green issues when at university, so I think I can see this debate from most angles.
I have repeatedly pointed out that CVT needs an intelligent surface access strategy. They need to innovate, and to turn a weakness into a strength - just laying on a couple of buses doesn't do this. They need to look at the shared taxi system used by Chiltern Trains at Bicester (where parking constraints are a real problem), or they need to investigate whether or not Tfly's customer database can be used to offer this service as an add-on (hey, potential revenue earner here too).
I don't buy the argument that mitigation wasn't sufficient. If this was the case, surely the inspectorate could have imposed greater restrictions. This is to be expected anyway, as environmental concerns continue to grab more headlines. Let's not forget that 1m departures each year would have sent £10m to the treasury, yet nimbys tend to go strangely silent when asked if some of that income ould go towards mitigation schemes.
Noise and air pollution will be a problem at any airport, but it doesn't take a genius to glance at a map, and see that the residential areas around BHX are a great deal more dense than those around CVT. Imho, this more than equates for any alleged lack of public transport - especially as most of CVT's pax are on leisure trips anyway, and as 4 out of 5 people using BHX still arrive there by private transport or taxi.
So I think that the environmental reasons for refusal can and should be challenged, however much of a whipping stick the media like to beat the aviation industry with. Once those are given a fair weighting, I think that the case for moderate expansion at CVT - which is all anyone has ever asked for - is entirely reasonable, and consistent with the needs of the Midlands as a whole.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The civic leaders of Coventry in the shape of Coun Ken Taylor the city council leader have now made their feelings known about this decision through a local paper.
Coun Taylor is quoted as saying " We are amazed and dismayed. Amazed that after dealing with all the important planning, access, environmental and airspace isues when John Prescott gave permision for an airport that could deal with 1 million passengers per annum we are now told that that means nothing.
Dismayed that a government that says it supports the diversification of the British economy should now prohibit 50 million pounds of new investment and 1000 new jobs in a city and subregion that has shown it can lead the way in creating the new economy that Britain needs to succeed in the 21st Century.
We are committed to changing our city for the better why isn't the government supporting us in this. Why is the British government stopping Coventry and Warwickshire succeeding. Why are ministers overriding their previous decision to support investment in Coventry. What if any support can we expect in working with a government who ask us to change our economy but stop us doing this?
In a city that bore Frank Whittle who invented the jet engine and where today in the 21st century we are working together to invent and develop technology that can respond to our climate change challenges we expect the government to work with us in developing and delivering a public transport system that meets Britain's modern needs. We shouldn't expect less. Coventry Airport is a key part of our future.''
Seems to be fairly upset!!!
Coun Taylor is quoted as saying " We are amazed and dismayed. Amazed that after dealing with all the important planning, access, environmental and airspace isues when John Prescott gave permision for an airport that could deal with 1 million passengers per annum we are now told that that means nothing.
Dismayed that a government that says it supports the diversification of the British economy should now prohibit 50 million pounds of new investment and 1000 new jobs in a city and subregion that has shown it can lead the way in creating the new economy that Britain needs to succeed in the 21st Century.
We are committed to changing our city for the better why isn't the government supporting us in this. Why is the British government stopping Coventry and Warwickshire succeeding. Why are ministers overriding their previous decision to support investment in Coventry. What if any support can we expect in working with a government who ask us to change our economy but stop us doing this?
In a city that bore Frank Whittle who invented the jet engine and where today in the 21st century we are working together to invent and develop technology that can respond to our climate change challenges we expect the government to work with us in developing and delivering a public transport system that meets Britain's modern needs. We shouldn't expect less. Coventry Airport is a key part of our future.''
Seems to be fairly upset!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird - well done. Very sensible.
I remember reading a few years ago, when Air Atlantique ran the airport, that they were looking at making an application to build a terminal adjacent to the railway line that is only about 1km away. There was to be a railway station on the line, and it was hoped that the West Midlands trains would reverse at "Coventry Airport" station instead of Coventry satation, thus providing a train every 15 minutes from one direction, and maybe every half hour from the other. Rather like Southampton Airport (later Parkway) served Southampton Airport.
The merit in this application was, I seem to recall, that the land was in Coventry's planning area. It would also have a large car park, and no doubt, become Coventry Parkway station, so it would be useful all the way round.
The only problem was that it would be a remote terminal, but I presume the idea was that "sealed" coaches would take the passengers from the terminal to the apron.t don't know why it didn't happen. Maybe because TUI had come on the scene.
I remember reading a few years ago, when Air Atlantique ran the airport, that they were looking at making an application to build a terminal adjacent to the railway line that is only about 1km away. There was to be a railway station on the line, and it was hoped that the West Midlands trains would reverse at "Coventry Airport" station instead of Coventry satation, thus providing a train every 15 minutes from one direction, and maybe every half hour from the other. Rather like Southampton Airport (later Parkway) served Southampton Airport.
The merit in this application was, I seem to recall, that the land was in Coventry's planning area. It would also have a large car park, and no doubt, become Coventry Parkway station, so it would be useful all the way round.
The only problem was that it would be a remote terminal, but I presume the idea was that "sealed" coaches would take the passengers from the terminal to the apron.t don't know why it didn't happen. Maybe because TUI had come on the scene.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that repeating the same old tired arguments (jobs, good for local area,etc) in favour of expansion are going to get anyone anywhere. We all know expansion has got some things in its favour and some against. One person's judgement of the balance is difference to another's. These have all been listened to at great length by the inspector and his and the Secretary of State are the opinions that count. They have deemed 1 million pax ok , 2 million not ok. I think Coventry airport have the challenge of making 1 million work economically, and forget over ambitious expansion plans, railway stations etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat,
Nothing to do with TUI. A simple part of the original Section 106 agreement governing the Parcelforce site, which dictated that the terminal was moved over to the south side of the airport.
To the best of my knowledge, no passenger numbers were ever mentioned in the previous outline applications.
Looking through the history of this, it would appear that several factors have come together to make the scare story far worse than the reality of the operations we have today:
1) The White Paper, which suggested that CVT could handle upto 9m pax per year - which makes central government's refusal for 2m even more bizarre.
2) The whole Rugby Airport hoax - which created a huge fighting force, many of whom then had nothing to do when they got their faux victory. The "scrapping" of this project was announced on the same day that Thomsonfly announced plans to set up base. In hinsight, I'm not so sure that this was the best timing, but TUI's logic has to be understood from within the industry context.
3) Tfly announcing base plans overnight - other airports had seen incremental growth, but CVT went from 0 to 4 based aircraft overnight.
4) The ability of well-funded local opponents to whip up media sympathy against the "giants" of TUI, which made 2m pa sound like a massive figure. Relative to zero, I guess it always was. Relative to BHX, or the proposed Rugby, or the UK industry as a whole, it always has been a drop in the ocean.
I am guessing that these factors, together with the airport's inability to put together a convincing ASAS and the presence of you-know-who just up the road, have all ultimately worked against the airport.
Plaskitt must be rubbing his hands with glee right now - after all, his seat is very marginal, and we know how much he can now parade his climate caring credentials.
Of course, we all know this to be a total farce - but since when has any politician or media outlet had any sense of proportion? The government gets to continue to push forward plans for vast expansion at STN, BHX etc, whilst getting to look nice and green in Coventry.
All they have really done is pick on a very easy target. But who can ever cry "bully" in this industry?
Nothing to do with TUI. A simple part of the original Section 106 agreement governing the Parcelforce site, which dictated that the terminal was moved over to the south side of the airport.
To the best of my knowledge, no passenger numbers were ever mentioned in the previous outline applications.
Looking through the history of this, it would appear that several factors have come together to make the scare story far worse than the reality of the operations we have today:
1) The White Paper, which suggested that CVT could handle upto 9m pax per year - which makes central government's refusal for 2m even more bizarre.
2) The whole Rugby Airport hoax - which created a huge fighting force, many of whom then had nothing to do when they got their faux victory. The "scrapping" of this project was announced on the same day that Thomsonfly announced plans to set up base. In hinsight, I'm not so sure that this was the best timing, but TUI's logic has to be understood from within the industry context.
3) Tfly announcing base plans overnight - other airports had seen incremental growth, but CVT went from 0 to 4 based aircraft overnight.
4) The ability of well-funded local opponents to whip up media sympathy against the "giants" of TUI, which made 2m pa sound like a massive figure. Relative to zero, I guess it always was. Relative to BHX, or the proposed Rugby, or the UK industry as a whole, it always has been a drop in the ocean.
I am guessing that these factors, together with the airport's inability to put together a convincing ASAS and the presence of you-know-who just up the road, have all ultimately worked against the airport.
Plaskitt must be rubbing his hands with glee right now - after all, his seat is very marginal, and we know how much he can now parade his climate caring credentials.
Of course, we all know this to be a total farce - but since when has any politician or media outlet had any sense of proportion? The government gets to continue to push forward plans for vast expansion at STN, BHX etc, whilst getting to look nice and green in Coventry.
All they have really done is pick on a very easy target. But who can ever cry "bully" in this industry?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all sure the government will look at all green in the medium or long term after this decision. There is a wealth of difference between the environmental mitigation package that resulted from the 1 million approval and that that was on offer for the two million terminal. If the airport decide to stick with what they have got and develop other aspects of the business I can forsee howls of outrage from the nimbys. Night training facilities anyone?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVT person,
Let me put on Plaskitt's thinking cap for one moment (but remind me to take it straight off again before I shut computer down and go for a swim).
Let me put on Plaskitt's thinking cap for one moment (but remind me to take it straight off again before I shut computer down and go for a swim).
"4 wheels bad, 2 wings worse - especially if they over-fly my constituents, and even more so if they are on their way into BHX, but I can pass the blame off to CVT.
I hope the general public won't question my rhetoric about telling people not to drive too much. I know I posed all smiling when I took the train to that big boys club in Westminster for the first time, but the voters don't know that I only spend £200 per year (4 Leamington-London returns) on train tickets. They won't even be able to question my travel habits any more now, because the FOIA no longer applies to us. Whoopy do, I am all happy now.
Right, Coventry is a big bad airport, who needs it when we have Birmingham just up the road, and East Midlands nearby. The pollution they cause is a problem for other MPs, not me. I know about evil Coventry's long term expansion plans - once they get 2 million, they will want 9 million, then they will want to build a second runway on the old factory in Ryton. That only made evil cars anyway, so I really put in my best efforts to save it.
They can take their chuheaphurrrrh flights if they want, but the environment is pwriceless. For everything else there's mastercard."
Oh dear, that really is scary. Thinking cap off, swimming hat on.
I hope the general public won't question my rhetoric about telling people not to drive too much. I know I posed all smiling when I took the train to that big boys club in Westminster for the first time, but the voters don't know that I only spend £200 per year (4 Leamington-London returns) on train tickets. They won't even be able to question my travel habits any more now, because the FOIA no longer applies to us. Whoopy do, I am all happy now.
Right, Coventry is a big bad airport, who needs it when we have Birmingham just up the road, and East Midlands nearby. The pollution they cause is a problem for other MPs, not me. I know about evil Coventry's long term expansion plans - once they get 2 million, they will want 9 million, then they will want to build a second runway on the old factory in Ryton. That only made evil cars anyway, so I really put in my best efforts to save it.
They can take their chuheaphurrrrh flights if they want, but the environment is pwriceless. For everything else there's mastercard."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is taken from the iccoventry website.
COVENTRY AIRPORT boss Chris Orphanou has vowed to fight to expand the airport despite the latest setback.
Yesterday he was reeling from the shock of the government refusing planning permission for a new terminal.
But he said he had no intention of giving up ambitions to have two million passengers a year going through Coventry.
He's got lawyers poring over the details of the decision by Secretaries of State Ruth Kelly and Douglas Alexander which was announced yesterday.
He said he had not ruled out taking the fight all the way to the High Court - or putting in a completely fresh planning application to Warwick District Council.
Mr Orphanou said: "If that's what it takes, yes, yes, absolutely.
"We believe Coventry and Warwickshire have a need for an airport the size of Coventry.
"There's no way, no way I'd give up. We need to do it right. We need to be good neighbours.
"Right now, there are some issues and we need to address those."
Admitting he felt emotional about the decision, he said: "I'm not from Coventry, but had I been from Coventry, I would probably have been creating World War Three today."
He added: "Coventry isn't talking about becoming a hub, another Heathrow, Dallas or Amsterdam.
"We're looking at two million passengers a year to generate the prosperity Coventry and Warwick-shire deserves and needs."
The planning refusal comes after a long public inquiry last year.
The inspector felt a bigger airport at Coventry was not necessary when Birmingham Airport was nearby.
It has established public transport links, and offers flights to similar destinations.
He also felt that extra flights to and from Coventry would lead to more noise, pollution and significant disturbance to people living near the airport or under flight paths.
The ruling was greeted with dismay from some people and jubilation from others.
Coventry North-east MP Bob Ainsworth, who was once a junior minister with responsibility for air travel, said it was a ludicrous decision.
And Louise Bennett, chief executive of the Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, described it as a "bolt from the blue".
She said: "We believe there were compelling economic and other benefits in having a limited expansion of the airport, which has, after all, been there for a great many years.
Tory city council leader Councillor Ken Taylor was "appalled, annoyed, very disappointed."
He criticised the government for wanting to put 44,000 more homes in the city, but at the same time, refusing permission for both a regional casino and a bigger airport.
Cllr Taylor said: "We have been very badly treated by this government."
But some people were delighted.
Coventry South MP Jim Cunningham said he'd never believed the airport should be expanded because it was in the wrong place.
And Warwick and Leamington MP James Plaskitt, who's campaigned against expansion, said: "Many local residents have been enjoying cheap flights on their doorstep.
"But I would point out that economy airlines operate from Birmingham, which is only a few miles further away."
My hope would be that an application for a permanent 980,000 passenger terminal will be put in to WDC, with certain mitigation measures in place, and hopefully "an airport teh size of Coventry" will not be needed.
The situation does not look as though it is over yet...
Yesterday he was reeling from the shock of the government refusing planning permission for a new terminal.
But he said he had no intention of giving up ambitions to have two million passengers a year going through Coventry.
He's got lawyers poring over the details of the decision by Secretaries of State Ruth Kelly and Douglas Alexander which was announced yesterday.
He said he had not ruled out taking the fight all the way to the High Court - or putting in a completely fresh planning application to Warwick District Council.
Mr Orphanou said: "If that's what it takes, yes, yes, absolutely.
"We believe Coventry and Warwickshire have a need for an airport the size of Coventry.
"There's no way, no way I'd give up. We need to do it right. We need to be good neighbours.
"Right now, there are some issues and we need to address those."
Admitting he felt emotional about the decision, he said: "I'm not from Coventry, but had I been from Coventry, I would probably have been creating World War Three today."
He added: "Coventry isn't talking about becoming a hub, another Heathrow, Dallas or Amsterdam.
"We're looking at two million passengers a year to generate the prosperity Coventry and Warwick-shire deserves and needs."
The planning refusal comes after a long public inquiry last year.
The inspector felt a bigger airport at Coventry was not necessary when Birmingham Airport was nearby.
It has established public transport links, and offers flights to similar destinations.
He also felt that extra flights to and from Coventry would lead to more noise, pollution and significant disturbance to people living near the airport or under flight paths.
The ruling was greeted with dismay from some people and jubilation from others.
Coventry North-east MP Bob Ainsworth, who was once a junior minister with responsibility for air travel, said it was a ludicrous decision.
And Louise Bennett, chief executive of the Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, described it as a "bolt from the blue".
She said: "We believe there were compelling economic and other benefits in having a limited expansion of the airport, which has, after all, been there for a great many years.
Tory city council leader Councillor Ken Taylor was "appalled, annoyed, very disappointed."
He criticised the government for wanting to put 44,000 more homes in the city, but at the same time, refusing permission for both a regional casino and a bigger airport.
Cllr Taylor said: "We have been very badly treated by this government."
But some people were delighted.
Coventry South MP Jim Cunningham said he'd never believed the airport should be expanded because it was in the wrong place.
And Warwick and Leamington MP James Plaskitt, who's campaigned against expansion, said: "Many local residents have been enjoying cheap flights on their doorstep.
"But I would point out that economy airlines operate from Birmingham, which is only a few miles further away."
My hope would be that an application for a permanent 980,000 passenger terminal will be put in to WDC, with certain mitigation measures in place, and hopefully "an airport teh size of Coventry" will not be needed.
The situation does not look as though it is over yet...
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making the best of it
I agree with those who believe Coventry should make the best of the 1m planning approval it already has. Efficient use of this is the most powerful argument for expansion to 2m later.
Having carried out a detailed survey of Coventry's facilities, it is clear that these facilities are very poorly used. The airport surface needs to be restructured and better use made of its facilities to attract more business. This would be good for all concerned.
Coventry could either go for its own traffic zone, perhaps rearranging its approach and departure routes to remove conflicts with BHX (avoiding Leamington would be very popular), OR very strong representations should be made to BHX to improve ATC coordination. This is the simplest solution.
At present, Coventry traffic has to await a gap in the BHX stream due to the conflicting departure routes. In effect, BHX is restricting CVT traffic unfairly, as it prioritises its traffic over Coventry's. This is at odds with the principle of free access. I know it annoys the hell out of Thomsonfly who suffer routine delays on departures.
Simple improvements such as runway end loops would also reduce delays.
ILS facilities should be replaced, radar improved, multilateration introduced.
Above all, the airport needs a serious development plan to radically reorganise its facilities and attract new business. At present, Coventry seems more preoccupied with car parking revenue.
Having carried out a detailed survey of Coventry's facilities, it is clear that these facilities are very poorly used. The airport surface needs to be restructured and better use made of its facilities to attract more business. This would be good for all concerned.
Coventry could either go for its own traffic zone, perhaps rearranging its approach and departure routes to remove conflicts with BHX (avoiding Leamington would be very popular), OR very strong representations should be made to BHX to improve ATC coordination. This is the simplest solution.
At present, Coventry traffic has to await a gap in the BHX stream due to the conflicting departure routes. In effect, BHX is restricting CVT traffic unfairly, as it prioritises its traffic over Coventry's. This is at odds with the principle of free access. I know it annoys the hell out of Thomsonfly who suffer routine delays on departures.
Simple improvements such as runway end loops would also reduce delays.
ILS facilities should be replaced, radar improved, multilateration introduced.
Above all, the airport needs a serious development plan to radically reorganise its facilities and attract new business. At present, Coventry seems more preoccupied with car parking revenue.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I'd like to question, and jabird might be the man to know, is does the current planning approval state categorically that 1.0m is the limit to the number of pax that may use the airport? The current facilities could hardly handle 1.0m properly, so I wonder if some are jumping to a conclusion that 1.0m is the stated limit. It may seem a bit academic, but it isn't, because if there is no actual legally-binding 1.0m limit, then a remote terminal, as once previously envisaged by Air Atlantique, and in Coventry's planning area, could be added to the current facilities and thus allow for an increase in traffic.
I imagine that if Coventry CC had to consider (for instance) a planning application for a small terminal on the triangle near the big roundabout, suitable, perhaps to handle 1.0m in its own right (Terminal 2 !), they might be inclined to grant it. Or the Coventry Parkway terminal on the railway line I mentioned a couple of days ago, which would seem to be very desirable for a number of reasons.
OK, yes, it probably IS academic, but being certain that there is a current limit of 1.0m, and that it is not just an assumprion, is germane.
I imagine that if Coventry CC had to consider (for instance) a planning application for a small terminal on the triangle near the big roundabout, suitable, perhaps to handle 1.0m in its own right (Terminal 2 !), they might be inclined to grant it. Or the Coventry Parkway terminal on the railway line I mentioned a couple of days ago, which would seem to be very desirable for a number of reasons.
OK, yes, it probably IS academic, but being certain that there is a current limit of 1.0m, and that it is not just an assumprion, is germane.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Coventry could either go for its own traffic zone, perhaps rearranging its approach and departure routes to remove conflicts with BHX (avoiding Leamington would be very popular), OR very strong representations should be made to BHX to improve ATC coordination. This is the simplest solution."
ATC co-ordination between the 2 units is as good as ATC co-ordination between any other units, it is done by telephone, actions are agreed between the two units which result in the SAFE transit of aircraft through the airspace
"At present, Coventry traffic has to await a gap in the BHX stream due to the conflicting departure routes. In effect, BHX is restricting CVT traffic unfairly, as it prioritises its traffic over Coventry's. This is at odds with the principle of free access. I know it annoys the hell out of Thomsonfly who suffer routine delays on departures."
We do not prioritse our traffic over coventrys, we were subject to restrictions placed by London, and a gap was made for the CVT departure after all traffic that had ALREADY STARTED AND PUSHED and BHX. The coventry controller co-ordinates a departure window for the CVT departure. Now this has changed, CVT traffic is not subject to the same restrictions as BHX and this should result in fewer delays.
ATC co-ordination between the 2 units is as good as ATC co-ordination between any other units, it is done by telephone, actions are agreed between the two units which result in the SAFE transit of aircraft through the airspace
"At present, Coventry traffic has to await a gap in the BHX stream due to the conflicting departure routes. In effect, BHX is restricting CVT traffic unfairly, as it prioritises its traffic over Coventry's. This is at odds with the principle of free access. I know it annoys the hell out of Thomsonfly who suffer routine delays on departures."
We do not prioritse our traffic over coventrys, we were subject to restrictions placed by London, and a gap was made for the CVT departure after all traffic that had ALREADY STARTED AND PUSHED and BHX. The coventry controller co-ordinates a departure window for the CVT departure. Now this has changed, CVT traffic is not subject to the same restrictions as BHX and this should result in fewer delays.