COVENTRY
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat, as far as I understand the situation, the 2 million passenger upper limit was to be imposed for the building at Coventry Airport South.
Below is an extract from the public Inquiry in to the local plan for Warwick district:
-The two million passenger per year limit only applies to operations from airport south, operations from airport north and airport west are excluded.
Im not 100% certain of how the boundaries lie over the Airport between Warwick District Council and Coventry City Council (Coventry City Council are allegedly in favour of controlled expansion)...so if the Airport might go to the city council and apply to build on some of their land, then there could be a small possibility.
In my opinion, any such request would have to be at Airport North, as Airport West would involve traffic driving through Baginton village (although this did happen at the start of operations when the passenger car park was there, and passengers were ferried by bus to Airport South) and I think a little something to in some way appease the residents of Baginton would not go amiss.
Not quite sure which triangle you mean by the Tollbar roundabout? If its the one directly off the second small roundabout in the Middlemarch Business park, then Im afraid Enterprise rent a car are now based there.
Below is an extract from the public Inquiry in to the local plan for Warwick district:
-The two million passenger per year limit only applies to operations from airport south, operations from airport north and airport west are excluded.
Im not 100% certain of how the boundaries lie over the Airport between Warwick District Council and Coventry City Council (Coventry City Council are allegedly in favour of controlled expansion)...so if the Airport might go to the city council and apply to build on some of their land, then there could be a small possibility.
In my opinion, any such request would have to be at Airport North, as Airport West would involve traffic driving through Baginton village (although this did happen at the start of operations when the passenger car park was there, and passengers were ferried by bus to Airport South) and I think a little something to in some way appease the residents of Baginton would not go amiss.
Not quite sure which triangle you mean by the Tollbar roundabout? If its the one directly off the second small roundabout in the Middlemarch Business park, then Im afraid Enterprise rent a car are now based there.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly may I offer sympathies to anyone affected by the decision to deny the planning permission.
I was born and live in the Coventry area but work at BHX. I see a lot of Boo hoo it's because it's Birmingham arguments on here. Well surprise, in Birmingham it's always 'Boo hoo it's because it's in London'. The conspiracy theories will always abound.
Very little is ever mentioned on here about Coventry city council being shareholders in BHX. They don't seem to mind the dividend payout. The fact that over half the population of Coventry can reach BHX as quick if not quicker than CVT seems to be irrelevant to some.
CVT is suffering from not investing in the airport many years ago. This is a problem also being experienced at BHX although at a different level. BHX is now turning that around with expansion that makes the CVT £50 million look like pretty small potatoes.
Please lets not get carried away with Coventry needing the airport for it's development overall. Business' are not locating here because there is a Low cost leisure airport at Baginton. Business realise that BHX is nearer to Coventry than many other airports are to their adopted city.
If you are lucky Tfly will remain for a while and may be content with size of the operation within the airport limits. Although nothing is certain with the mergers taking place and the savings being made. Having TUI's HQ here may help. Having said that, the HQ is probably equidistant from both airports (this highlights the problem that CVT has).
Good luck for the future whatever that holds.
I was born and live in the Coventry area but work at BHX. I see a lot of Boo hoo it's because it's Birmingham arguments on here. Well surprise, in Birmingham it's always 'Boo hoo it's because it's in London'. The conspiracy theories will always abound.
Very little is ever mentioned on here about Coventry city council being shareholders in BHX. They don't seem to mind the dividend payout. The fact that over half the population of Coventry can reach BHX as quick if not quicker than CVT seems to be irrelevant to some.
CVT is suffering from not investing in the airport many years ago. This is a problem also being experienced at BHX although at a different level. BHX is now turning that around with expansion that makes the CVT £50 million look like pretty small potatoes.
Please lets not get carried away with Coventry needing the airport for it's development overall. Business' are not locating here because there is a Low cost leisure airport at Baginton. Business realise that BHX is nearer to Coventry than many other airports are to their adopted city.
If you are lucky Tfly will remain for a while and may be content with size of the operation within the airport limits. Although nothing is certain with the mergers taking place and the savings being made. Having TUI's HQ here may help. Having said that, the HQ is probably equidistant from both airports (this highlights the problem that CVT has).
Good luck for the future whatever that holds.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call100, I think you are missing one of the key points. A few years ago there was a discussion document sent out in advance of a white paper being issued. There were forecasts that in 30 years there was going to be (and I can't remeber the exact figures), but something like 3 times as manay people flying as now, and how was the UK airports industry going to deal with this increase?
One of the suggestions (as previously mentioned above) was a mammoth new airport in the Rugby area - a complete red herring - others were for a 2nd runway at BHX, a 2nd runway at EMA, and alls sorts of expansions at other airports outside the Midlands.
Coventry was sitting there seriously under-used. BMA had moved on, Ryanair had too, and there were few if any scheduled services taking place from an airport that had had them previously for many decades. It was suggested that if Coventry was developed to take maybe up to 10m pax (OK, that would require a lot of development, including a short runway extension, parallel taxiways, big terminal etc. but no second runway and no land-grab), then BHX and EMA would not need their 2nd runways and major land-grabs (and MAJOR objections, especially in Solihull), and overall Coventry would be helping the resolve the problem of the increase in pax over the next 30 years.
Now before you all start arguing that this and that couldn't be done, it is important to bear in mind that this argument was made to allow Coventry at least to be a part of the process and not forgotten about. There was no expectation that there would be a sudden development, but there would be a gradual one, one sufficient to cope with the increased demand.
Whilst all this was going on I was working for an airline that was negotiating with the airport operators to start a low cost operation that never happened, but should have done. It was beautifully thought out, but ultimately the finance could not be raised. (That's another story for another day.) But I did get to know what was hoped for at CVT at the time. No idea what the owners are planning right now, but having bought the place for over £20m, and losing money at a fast rate, I think they will be thinking very hard.
One of the suggestions (as previously mentioned above) was a mammoth new airport in the Rugby area - a complete red herring - others were for a 2nd runway at BHX, a 2nd runway at EMA, and alls sorts of expansions at other airports outside the Midlands.
Coventry was sitting there seriously under-used. BMA had moved on, Ryanair had too, and there were few if any scheduled services taking place from an airport that had had them previously for many decades. It was suggested that if Coventry was developed to take maybe up to 10m pax (OK, that would require a lot of development, including a short runway extension, parallel taxiways, big terminal etc. but no second runway and no land-grab), then BHX and EMA would not need their 2nd runways and major land-grabs (and MAJOR objections, especially in Solihull), and overall Coventry would be helping the resolve the problem of the increase in pax over the next 30 years.
Now before you all start arguing that this and that couldn't be done, it is important to bear in mind that this argument was made to allow Coventry at least to be a part of the process and not forgotten about. There was no expectation that there would be a sudden development, but there would be a gradual one, one sufficient to cope with the increased demand.
Whilst all this was going on I was working for an airline that was negotiating with the airport operators to start a low cost operation that never happened, but should have done. It was beautifully thought out, but ultimately the finance could not be raised. (That's another story for another day.) But I did get to know what was hoped for at CVT at the time. No idea what the owners are planning right now, but having bought the place for over £20m, and losing money at a fast rate, I think they will be thinking very hard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call 100, I'm well aware of Brum's issues with London, these sentiments will be echoed in regional cities the world over.
On that point, we have to accept that, for better or worse, London is our primate city, but even despite that, when it comes to transport networks, we're way better off than other regional cities in countries dominated by a single city - for example, try comparing Brum's network to Lyon, Krakow, Osaka, Busan, Thessaloniki, St Petersburg, Rotterdam etc. In that respect, we are both quite well off.
The presence of BHX has undoubtedly weighed against CVT's expansion -that isn't to be questioned, the report mentions it several times. Nor do I think there is any foul play involved - as Skypartners rightly says, when it comes to environmental issues, the evidence can be used in whatever way is needed to reach a conclusion.
So to say that CVT will cause an un-needed increase in odours or noise pollution is a fair conclusion to draw. What it doesn't explain is whether or not any kind of relative weighting was considered - again, look at a map, and it can't be disputed that an aircraft taking off from BHX flies over significantly more homes than a similar aircraft does from CVT.
Public transport was always CVT's achilles heel, but is that acceptable as the main grounds for refusal? If this was a standalone reason, then any airport with hopes of expansion that doesn't have an onsite station should give up now. This decision will have considered the relative differences between CVT and BHX, and BHX is undeniably further ahead in this respect.
I would still argue that expansion upto 2m pax per year at CVT is both reasonable, and not a threat to BHX. However, the inspectors have seen the evidence, and drawn a different conclusion. This is still somewhat surprising to me, considering how much to-ing and fro-ing there has been between the airport and WDC, in order to make their proposals acceptable.
Now we have the prospect of a high court ruling, or another submission. More money will be spent talking about it, no progress will be made. If surface access is the real sticking point, then a fraction of this talking shop money could have gone a long way towards solving the problems. If noise or pollution is the problem, then why aren't these nimby groups asking for some of the extra APD to go towards insulation grants, or other mitigation schemes? Just doesn't grab headlines I'm afraid.
With regards to Tfly, they went to huge lengths to make sure that they launched on schedule back in March 04. Since then, things have been fairly steady, but I can't see them moving away. There might well be a drive towards cutting costs, but there is also a strong movement towards pushing the seat only loco model. Thomsonfly have made this work, First Choice haven't. A move to Brum or EMA would throw them against more competitors, and they would lose cost advantage. In the unlikely event that TOM did move out, there would be a vacant space, which would look very attractive to another carrier, especially as EMA is a bit crowded right now with 3 loco players.
It is more worrying for the airport operators, especially as they bought the airport on the understanding that they would get approval for expansion - but this risk will no doubt have been factored in to the purchase cost.
I am not so sure as to what extent (if any) there is a dialogue between the PI and the relevant ministers, prior to the decision being announced. I can certainly see how the pro-BHX lobby, together with the anti-CVT lobby, combined with the layout of political interests in the area, could have made this decision very attractive to the ministers concerned, but have understood that the PI itself should be more impartial than that. Again, this isn't to suggest that anything underhand is going on - the evidence can always be interpreted in whichever way is needed to suit the decision maker. We know that the DfT & BAA get on like best chums, so is there any reason to suspect that a similar relationship doesn't exist between BHX & the DfT?
On that point, we have to accept that, for better or worse, London is our primate city, but even despite that, when it comes to transport networks, we're way better off than other regional cities in countries dominated by a single city - for example, try comparing Brum's network to Lyon, Krakow, Osaka, Busan, Thessaloniki, St Petersburg, Rotterdam etc. In that respect, we are both quite well off.
The presence of BHX has undoubtedly weighed against CVT's expansion -that isn't to be questioned, the report mentions it several times. Nor do I think there is any foul play involved - as Skypartners rightly says, when it comes to environmental issues, the evidence can be used in whatever way is needed to reach a conclusion.
So to say that CVT will cause an un-needed increase in odours or noise pollution is a fair conclusion to draw. What it doesn't explain is whether or not any kind of relative weighting was considered - again, look at a map, and it can't be disputed that an aircraft taking off from BHX flies over significantly more homes than a similar aircraft does from CVT.
Public transport was always CVT's achilles heel, but is that acceptable as the main grounds for refusal? If this was a standalone reason, then any airport with hopes of expansion that doesn't have an onsite station should give up now. This decision will have considered the relative differences between CVT and BHX, and BHX is undeniably further ahead in this respect.
I would still argue that expansion upto 2m pax per year at CVT is both reasonable, and not a threat to BHX. However, the inspectors have seen the evidence, and drawn a different conclusion. This is still somewhat surprising to me, considering how much to-ing and fro-ing there has been between the airport and WDC, in order to make their proposals acceptable.
Now we have the prospect of a high court ruling, or another submission. More money will be spent talking about it, no progress will be made. If surface access is the real sticking point, then a fraction of this talking shop money could have gone a long way towards solving the problems. If noise or pollution is the problem, then why aren't these nimby groups asking for some of the extra APD to go towards insulation grants, or other mitigation schemes? Just doesn't grab headlines I'm afraid.
With regards to Tfly, they went to huge lengths to make sure that they launched on schedule back in March 04. Since then, things have been fairly steady, but I can't see them moving away. There might well be a drive towards cutting costs, but there is also a strong movement towards pushing the seat only loco model. Thomsonfly have made this work, First Choice haven't. A move to Brum or EMA would throw them against more competitors, and they would lose cost advantage. In the unlikely event that TOM did move out, there would be a vacant space, which would look very attractive to another carrier, especially as EMA is a bit crowded right now with 3 loco players.
It is more worrying for the airport operators, especially as they bought the airport on the understanding that they would get approval for expansion - but this risk will no doubt have been factored in to the purchase cost.
I am not so sure as to what extent (if any) there is a dialogue between the PI and the relevant ministers, prior to the decision being announced. I can certainly see how the pro-BHX lobby, together with the anti-CVT lobby, combined with the layout of political interests in the area, could have made this decision very attractive to the ministers concerned, but have understood that the PI itself should be more impartial than that. Again, this isn't to suggest that anything underhand is going on - the evidence can always be interpreted in whichever way is needed to suit the decision maker. We know that the DfT & BAA get on like best chums, so is there any reason to suspect that a similar relationship doesn't exist between BHX & the DfT?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Again
I am not anti CVT but for years it has been neglected. It doesn't matter what was planned only what was actioned. Even with the planned new terminal it was hardly an airport to be proud of for the City.
How exactly do the council square their conflict of interest issues? Coventrians are still major customers at BHX. I think they should now get behind the expansion there and treat it as their own. Maybe suggest a name change to reflect the region rather than the cities. (All OK of course as long as you are not selling to America who have difficulties with UK geography.)
I'll just go and put my tin hat on.....
I am not anti CVT but for years it has been neglected. It doesn't matter what was planned only what was actioned. Even with the planned new terminal it was hardly an airport to be proud of for the City.
How exactly do the council square their conflict of interest issues? Coventrians are still major customers at BHX. I think they should now get behind the expansion there and treat it as their own. Maybe suggest a name change to reflect the region rather than the cities. (All OK of course as long as you are not selling to America who have difficulties with UK geography.)
I'll just go and put my tin hat on.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WARWICKSHIRE
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry
Riverboat
I think you may be missing a point, the second runway at BHX seems to have been put on the back burner and a lot has happened in the world since the white paper.
Two airports in close proximity to another are not needed for the West Midlands region, BHX has the infrastructure and Governmental backing so lets see the region backing Brum.
Call 100 keep on in there and keep your head down !!
Good luck everyone, it's only a short life so lets try & enjoy it !!
I think you may be missing a point, the second runway at BHX seems to have been put on the back burner and a lot has happened in the world since the white paper.
Two airports in close proximity to another are not needed for the West Midlands region, BHX has the infrastructure and Governmental backing so lets see the region backing Brum.
Call 100 keep on in there and keep your head down !!
Good luck everyone, it's only a short life so lets try & enjoy it !!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat, youve got me all intrigued now about that airline that never started, please tell more.
Regarding the region getting behind Birmingham, Im all for the Midlands as a whole getting some national recognition, particularly considering this London-mad Government...unfortunately though 600,000 passengers at Coventry will obviously not necessarily mean all those passengers decamping to Brum...those to the south of Coventry Airport might head off to Luton (Easyjet and Ryanair), those to the east: to Nottingham East Midlands (again the Easy and Ryanair influence).
Personally, for me, I too shall be heading off down the M1 to Luton were the passenger flights to discontinue at Coventry. At the end of the day I (personally) have found Luton easier than Birmingham...and believe it or not, actually quicker. Others possibly have differing views.
Regarding the region getting behind Birmingham, Im all for the Midlands as a whole getting some national recognition, particularly considering this London-mad Government...unfortunately though 600,000 passengers at Coventry will obviously not necessarily mean all those passengers decamping to Brum...those to the south of Coventry Airport might head off to Luton (Easyjet and Ryanair), those to the east: to Nottingham East Midlands (again the Easy and Ryanair influence).
Personally, for me, I too shall be heading off down the M1 to Luton were the passenger flights to discontinue at Coventry. At the end of the day I (personally) have found Luton easier than Birmingham...and believe it or not, actually quicker. Others possibly have differing views.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've watched this thread with interest for a while and find the differing views fascinating. I don't have a 'dog in this fight', I'm just a customer who flies on a very regular basis. Living in close proximity to BHX I've traditionally used it as my local. However, I've become sick of the hours I waste on the M42 (normally between the M40 Jct and the airport) and the general superior attitude of the staff at the airport (pretty much across the board). Coventry is a great little airport in my book, it meets all my needs and the people who work there are excellent. BHX's attitude throughout the enquiry reflects their feeling of 'god given right' to a Midlands monopoly. I will continue to support Coventry with my business and hope the management find a way to reverse this protectionist decision.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
groveaviation
I understand what you are saying. However, I'm afraid that happens when the small local grows. Thats not an excuse just a fact. We are trying hard to change the attitudes of the handling agents etc. Had CVT got its terminal it would have probably made its way in that direction.
The problem is that as a passenger you probably come into contact with very few people actually employed by BHX. Another victim of the LOCO ops.
I must defend BHX's attitude during the enquiry. The fact is that any expansion and increase in flights at CVT actually impacts on the business at BHX. They only did what any other business would have done. It's a bit short sighted and naive to think it should have been any other way.
I understand what you are saying. However, I'm afraid that happens when the small local grows. Thats not an excuse just a fact. We are trying hard to change the attitudes of the handling agents etc. Had CVT got its terminal it would have probably made its way in that direction.
The problem is that as a passenger you probably come into contact with very few people actually employed by BHX. Another victim of the LOCO ops.
I must defend BHX's attitude during the enquiry. The fact is that any expansion and increase in flights at CVT actually impacts on the business at BHX. They only did what any other business would have done. It's a bit short sighted and naive to think it should have been any other way.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a dwell on that point. I am a senior manager of a large company in a very competitive industry. If one of our competitors opened up in in close proximity, trying to take my customers then I cannot see any grounds on which I would be able to object. At the end of the day the customer has the choice, I generally choose Coventry because the product is better. If Coventry want to enhance their offering to me then what right have BHX got to interfere?
I appreciate that aviation is not quite as straightforward as this, however I fail to see what right BHX have to be protected by the government. If the airport is so great then it should beat Coventry on merit, not through the back door. Presumably some of this would have been influenced by a long term aspiration for BHX to expand their controlled airspace into an area that Coventry might also want to use.
I appreciate that aviation is not quite as straightforward as this, however I fail to see what right BHX have to be protected by the government. If the airport is so great then it should beat Coventry on merit, not through the back door. Presumably some of this would have been influenced by a long term aspiration for BHX to expand their controlled airspace into an area that Coventry might also want to use.
Last edited by groveaviation; 21st Jun 2007 at 08:33.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one of your competitors had to gain planning permission and an enquiry was held then you would try and stop the competition in its tracks. (Come on you know you would!). The fact that your area of business probably doesn't have that opportunity does not make what BHX did unfair in this case.
I don't think the planning was rejected on the grounds that BIA put forward as much as the protest groups/green lobby. As none of the LOCO airlines at BHX were even thinking of CVT and Ryan air patching up its differences at BIA to some extent the competition business wise was not so much of a consideration. That would be more of a consideration for the competing airlines. In fact, as I said, BHX had done its business plans with CVT running 2 million pax. The surprise went both ways. BHX would love to be protected by the Government. Sadly, this is not the case.
If it makes people in Coventry feel better to think that big bad ol' Brum has ruined their chances then fine.
Small airports always offer better service. I've been at BHX long enough to remember when it was fun. Unfortunately when they grow thats the first thing that goes. Leave CVT small and keep that which you admire. Expansion will, I guarantee, lose it.
I don't think the planning was rejected on the grounds that BIA put forward as much as the protest groups/green lobby. As none of the LOCO airlines at BHX were even thinking of CVT and Ryan air patching up its differences at BIA to some extent the competition business wise was not so much of a consideration. That would be more of a consideration for the competing airlines. In fact, as I said, BHX had done its business plans with CVT running 2 million pax. The surprise went both ways. BHX would love to be protected by the Government. Sadly, this is not the case.
If it makes people in Coventry feel better to think that big bad ol' Brum has ruined their chances then fine.
Small airports always offer better service. I've been at BHX long enough to remember when it was fun. Unfortunately when they grow thats the first thing that goes. Leave CVT small and keep that which you admire. Expansion will, I guarantee, lose it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
emiratesdxb (adam)...the time i personally have saved in getting from London Luton to my residence over getting from Birmingham to my home, is approximately 15 minutes...this is from landing (collecting baggage etc.). For myself, I can easily access the M45, and then straight on to the M1...instead of having to pass through the 50mph, then 60mph, then 40mph...traffic lights at Canley, and finally 60mph speed limits along the A45. As i said, this is for me personally...I am sure that for others from Allesley/Keresley areas of Coventry as such then Birmingham is obviously quicker to get to than London Luton...also, as a matter of choice, my preference is London Luton over Birmingham even regardless over the small amount of time saved.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seamus,
I agree with you that from your location at the extreme south of Coventry at peak time you may just be quicker. At others I doubt it.
I live North Coventry and get to work at BHX in 20 mins at rush hour and 14 mins at other times, (Record 11mins
). Thats door to door. I also have three different routes I can take. When I lived south Coventry. Toll bar area the journey times were 30mins peak and 20 mins others.
Theres no way I would want to tackle Toll Bar island at rush hour.
The transport problems are a national one. Not necessarily any fault of either airport.
By the way, I also like Luton. I also find EMA good to get through.
I agree with you that from your location at the extreme south of Coventry at peak time you may just be quicker. At others I doubt it.
I live North Coventry and get to work at BHX in 20 mins at rush hour and 14 mins at other times, (Record 11mins
). Thats door to door. I also have three different routes I can take. When I lived south Coventry. Toll bar area the journey times were 30mins peak and 20 mins others.Theres no way I would want to tackle Toll Bar island at rush hour.
The transport problems are a national one. Not necessarily any fault of either airport.
By the way, I also like Luton. I also find EMA good to get through.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic faults are national, but given the awful state of the M42 don't see how BHX can reasonably grow much more without bringing the road to a standstill. BHX is the only airport I've missed flts from depsite giving myself obscene amounts of flex.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree its a major problem. Unfortunately the Government in its wisdom(?) has decided that we cannot mention too much about road links when talking planning. The planned diversion and tunnelling of the A45 is about as far as they are prepared to allow. BHX has adopted a green transport plan. (This apparently avoids automobiles???) Not out of any want, but, out of necessity.
In my opinion the traffic system has improved things on the M42. That said, its not at its best and standstills do still occur at peak times..
In my opinion the traffic system has improved things on the M42. That said, its not at its best and standstills do still occur at peak times..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been castigated for being somewhat incoherent, probably through rage, and of seeing plots where there are none can I present some evidence that Coventry was done down at the hands of Birmingham is an opinion thats is held more widely than just by yours truely.
Bob Ainsworth a Coventry MP and former transport minister in charge of air travel has branded Birmingham Airport's opposition to Coventry's expansion plans as quite disgraceful. He is quoted in the local press as saying ' I think it was a preposterous and ludicrous decision. Birmingham has lobbied hard to stop this and its really quite disgraceful. There are a number of people in the region who think we should only have one regional airport and that should be Birmingham. I don't think Coventry will ever be a competitor to Birmingham bur equally I do not accept that it stands in the way of Birmingham. I've seen no technical argument that says Coventry cannot run alongside Birmingham therefore why deny competition, why remove choice. Why have the dead hand of regional planning imposed upon us where airports are and where pasengers can fly from.'
Bob Ainsworth a Coventry MP and former transport minister in charge of air travel has branded Birmingham Airport's opposition to Coventry's expansion plans as quite disgraceful. He is quoted in the local press as saying ' I think it was a preposterous and ludicrous decision. Birmingham has lobbied hard to stop this and its really quite disgraceful. There are a number of people in the region who think we should only have one regional airport and that should be Birmingham. I don't think Coventry will ever be a competitor to Birmingham bur equally I do not accept that it stands in the way of Birmingham. I've seen no technical argument that says Coventry cannot run alongside Birmingham therefore why deny competition, why remove choice. Why have the dead hand of regional planning imposed upon us where airports are and where pasengers can fly from.'
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Ainsworth is just protecting his vote. He is miffed that all his so called influence. (If indeed he tried) failed. He is a typical bandwagon jumper so prevalent in the current Government.
Read the report. The reason for refusal was a sop to the Green lobby. In standing with the Governments policies of being afraid of the greens. Yes it's sad that the planning didn't go Coventry's way, but, lets not get carried away and make Birmingham airport to be the all powerful devil Ainsworth and his ilk are making it out to be.
You don't seem to have any understanding of how cut throat the airport business has become. Fickle, Low Cost airlines with no Loyalty are forcing the airports to compete in ways they have not needed to in the past.
Birminghams opposition was not only understandable but business wise the only choice it had. This was however only a small part of the opposition to the growth.
Coventry will grow a little now. It has some spare capacity. All you here about is how nice and friendly it is. Do you honestly believe that expansion would not have killed this. It's not the disaster to Coventry everyone is making it out to be.
Read the report. The reason for refusal was a sop to the Green lobby. In standing with the Governments policies of being afraid of the greens. Yes it's sad that the planning didn't go Coventry's way, but, lets not get carried away and make Birmingham airport to be the all powerful devil Ainsworth and his ilk are making it out to be.
You don't seem to have any understanding of how cut throat the airport business has become. Fickle, Low Cost airlines with no Loyalty are forcing the airports to compete in ways they have not needed to in the past.
Birminghams opposition was not only understandable but business wise the only choice it had. This was however only a small part of the opposition to the growth.
Coventry will grow a little now. It has some spare capacity. All you here about is how nice and friendly it is. Do you honestly believe that expansion would not have killed this. It's not the disaster to Coventry everyone is making it out to be.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call 100
I suspect we are never going to agree on this issue as I still believe Birmingham's intervention was fundemental in determining the outcome of this inquiry. Birmingham didn't object to 1million it was granted, Birmingham did object to two million it wasn't.
I cannot recall an airport previously objecting to development at a competitor be it in this case a minor one. In my opinion in achieving the outcome it did Birmingham has set an unfortunate precedent for future planning applications at airports. There is for example considerable speculation at Coventry that if the airport does not go for an appeal or a fresh application or even if it does that Coventry will seek to have a say in Birminghams forthcoming application for a runway extension. The rumour has it that Coventry will use the same arguments that Birmingham used against it , complimentary roles as invisaged in the white paper, closeness of the airports etc but in reverse to seek a section 106 agreement that caps Birmingham's dedicated executive and freight traffic at their current levels and direct any growth in traffic to Coventry.
I suspect we are never going to agree on this issue as I still believe Birmingham's intervention was fundemental in determining the outcome of this inquiry. Birmingham didn't object to 1million it was granted, Birmingham did object to two million it wasn't.
I cannot recall an airport previously objecting to development at a competitor be it in this case a minor one. In my opinion in achieving the outcome it did Birmingham has set an unfortunate precedent for future planning applications at airports. There is for example considerable speculation at Coventry that if the airport does not go for an appeal or a fresh application or even if it does that Coventry will seek to have a say in Birminghams forthcoming application for a runway extension. The rumour has it that Coventry will use the same arguments that Birmingham used against it , complimentary roles as invisaged in the white paper, closeness of the airports etc but in reverse to seek a section 106 agreement that caps Birmingham's dedicated executive and freight traffic at their current levels and direct any growth in traffic to Coventry.