COVENTRY
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. Even if BIA had made no submissions then the planning permission would have still been denied.
I think you will find that Coventry airport will not object to BIA's 'Masterplan'.
Birminghams dedicated freight traffic consists of one flight nightly Mon to Fri. It's strict night flying policy will not see any major increase in freight traffic. Birminghams freight will only increase in the hold's of more long haul passenger flights.
Coventry has all the freight flights that did use BHX. I don't think BHX want them back.
I think you will find that Coventry airport will not object to BIA's 'Masterplan'.
Birminghams dedicated freight traffic consists of one flight nightly Mon to Fri. It's strict night flying policy will not see any major increase in freight traffic. Birminghams freight will only increase in the hold's of more long haul passenger flights.
Coventry has all the freight flights that did use BHX. I don't think BHX want them back.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That of course is an opinion but as such no more valid than any alternative opinion.
I would agree that the inspector and the secretaries of state rejected the argument put forward by the Birmingham camp that development at Coventry would cause airspace conjestion that would restrict their own capacity for growth. To quote from the decision letter ' they consider no overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management' and ' having regard to airspace capacity the proposed development would not conflict with national or regional policies which aim to develop and expand Birmingham Airport as the West Midlands principal airport'
However there were other arguments that eminated from Birmingham that were accepted. To quote once again' The secretaries of state agree with the inspector that there is an alternative airport ( Birmingham) only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations.' 'They have had regard to the fact that if the appeal is dismised virtually all the services would be readily available a relatively short distance away. On that basis they agree with the inspector that on the face of it there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development.' ' the secretaries of state agree with the inspector that in this particular case the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration.'
Then there was the complementary argument, once again to quote from the decision letter ' The secretaries of state have also had regard to the extent to which Coventry is complimentary to Birmingham.' ' They agree with the inspector that for Coventry Airport to be complementary to Birmingham Airport it should add to or make complete what is available at Birmingham Airport. They agree that passenger services at Coventry would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham and that passenger growth at Coventry would also to some extent constrain the growth of cargo where Coventry has an important niche in the market.
To turn to the rumour circulating around Coventry at no point did I say that it intimated that Coventry would object to Birmingham's master plan or even to a planning application for the runway extension I said they might put in a submission to the committee considering the planning application for a runway extension requesting a section 106 agreement when permision was granted. Neither did I say that this section 106 could divert current dedicated freight services or the current level of executive services to Coventry but might seek to cap such services at Birmingham at their current level. The argument would be that if Coventry cannot develop its passenger services because it should fill a complimentary role to Birmingham by developing its freight and executive services as outlined in the white paper then similarly Birmingham should not develop its dedicated freight and executive services but concentrate on passenger services to fulfill a complimentary role to Coventry. Basically its what is good for the goose could be good for the gander!
I would agree that the inspector and the secretaries of state rejected the argument put forward by the Birmingham camp that development at Coventry would cause airspace conjestion that would restrict their own capacity for growth. To quote from the decision letter ' they consider no overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management' and ' having regard to airspace capacity the proposed development would not conflict with national or regional policies which aim to develop and expand Birmingham Airport as the West Midlands principal airport'
However there were other arguments that eminated from Birmingham that were accepted. To quote once again' The secretaries of state agree with the inspector that there is an alternative airport ( Birmingham) only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations.' 'They have had regard to the fact that if the appeal is dismised virtually all the services would be readily available a relatively short distance away. On that basis they agree with the inspector that on the face of it there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development.' ' the secretaries of state agree with the inspector that in this particular case the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration.'
Then there was the complementary argument, once again to quote from the decision letter ' The secretaries of state have also had regard to the extent to which Coventry is complimentary to Birmingham.' ' They agree with the inspector that for Coventry Airport to be complementary to Birmingham Airport it should add to or make complete what is available at Birmingham Airport. They agree that passenger services at Coventry would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham and that passenger growth at Coventry would also to some extent constrain the growth of cargo where Coventry has an important niche in the market.
To turn to the rumour circulating around Coventry at no point did I say that it intimated that Coventry would object to Birmingham's master plan or even to a planning application for the runway extension I said they might put in a submission to the committee considering the planning application for a runway extension requesting a section 106 agreement when permision was granted. Neither did I say that this section 106 could divert current dedicated freight services or the current level of executive services to Coventry but might seek to cap such services at Birmingham at their current level. The argument would be that if Coventry cannot develop its passenger services because it should fill a complimentary role to Birmingham by developing its freight and executive services as outlined in the white paper then similarly Birmingham should not develop its dedicated freight and executive services but concentrate on passenger services to fulfill a complimentary role to Coventry. Basically its what is good for the goose could be good for the gander!
Last edited by cvt person; 26th Jun 2007 at 20:21. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other rejections were based on the Government white paper not necessarily on arguments put forward by BHX
I agree that CVT could use the same argument to protect its freight operation. I doubt this would worry BHX as it has no ambition to increase the freight side of things back to its old level.
BHX dedicated freight operation is limited to one A/C a night. It has no ambition to increase dedicated freight operations. The development of 'Freight West' was ditched a long time ago. Birminghams night flying policy and noise monitoring system would restrict many freight a/c in anycase.
I agree that CVT could use the same argument to protect its freight operation. I doubt this would worry BHX as it has no ambition to increase the freight side of things back to its old level.
BHX dedicated freight operation is limited to one A/C a night. It has no ambition to increase dedicated freight operations. The development of 'Freight West' was ditched a long time ago. Birminghams night flying policy and noise monitoring system would restrict many freight a/c in anycase.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any argument as to what the decisive factor in the determination of the appeal can only be speculation as none of us know what was ultimately significient to the inspector. However I would back up my case that Birmingham's intervention may have been decisive with the fact that the white paper was also in place for the first inquiry that went in Coventry's favour. Indeed the only difference in opposition between the first and second inquiry was that Warwick District Council switched from opposition to support after negotiating a mitigation package that was acceptable to it and Birmingham Airport switched from a neutral position to outright and aggressive opposition including giving evidence beyond the airspace issue.
It is always posible to be cynical about the public pronouncements of MP's but Bob Ainsworth in a letter to today's edition of the Coventry Telegraph writes " what really ought to anger people is the part played by Birmingham Airport and other regional bodies which objected to Coventry's proposals in order to stifle competition and protect their own vested interests.'
I am aware that Birmingham has limited dedicated freight operations and would not be unduly perturbed by any cap Coventry sought to put on such operations, however I suspect that a similar move on dedicated executive operations might prove more contentious.
It is always posible to be cynical about the public pronouncements of MP's but Bob Ainsworth in a letter to today's edition of the Coventry Telegraph writes " what really ought to anger people is the part played by Birmingham Airport and other regional bodies which objected to Coventry's proposals in order to stifle competition and protect their own vested interests.'
I am aware that Birmingham has limited dedicated freight operations and would not be unduly perturbed by any cap Coventry sought to put on such operations, however I suspect that a similar move on dedicated executive operations might prove more contentious.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will have to agree to disagree on the influence BHX had on the outcome. You may be right in your evaluation of the GA traffic situation. However, I am of the opinion that the scenario you envisage will never happen....Only time will tell which of us is correct.
In the meantime......Come on CVT even without the terminal you can have a great operation there. Take it from one who knows...Expansion will change the place you love to work into something quite different. So don't be in too much of a rush..
In the meantime......Come on CVT even without the terminal you can have a great operation there. Take it from one who knows...Expansion will change the place you love to work into something quite different. So don't be in too much of a rush..
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found this comment on the support Cov site, interesting if true!
I see that Bournemouth has gained approval to expand from 1 to 3 million per year. There is very limited public transport to this airport i.e. no railway within miles and a very limited bus service, another airport relatively close and all these extra planes presumably will have an environmental effect. Nice to see a bit of planning consistency across the country--not!!!!
I see that Bournemouth has gained approval to expand from 1 to 3 million per year. There is very limited public transport to this airport i.e. no railway within miles and a very limited bus service, another airport relatively close and all these extra planes presumably will have an environmental effect. Nice to see a bit of planning consistency across the country--not!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Eurofly are operating this years Silverstone related charters to Coventry. In the past they gone to Birmingham, so it seems, even without the proposed new glitzy terminal, Coventry can still attract traffic even if it is just a couple of ad-hoc charter flights.
Fried Chicken
Fried Chicken
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: nr Birmingham
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are at least 6 charters due into Coventry today, all Silverstone related (3x Do328, 1x ATR42, 1x Fokker 100 & the return Eurofly A320 charter plus several corporate jets). With these charters & the start of the Wizz flights later this Month, July's passenger figure should be well up on last years.
I presume Coventry's cheaper charges meant Eurofly (along with some of the others) chose Coventry rather than Birmingham this year?
WNC
I presume Coventry's cheaper charges meant Eurofly (along with some of the others) chose Coventry rather than Birmingham this year?
WNC
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed that last week there were three flights showing on the arrivals screen on the coventry airport website that were coming from Nevers, presumably French Grand Prix charters (2 were eastern airways, one was twin jet...so no huge aircraft).
July statistics should be decent reading...just depends on how much of an impact BMIBaby's Birmingham - Barcelona and Jersey routes have had.
Hopefully the future is not so bleak for Coventry after all, although I personally am still very doubtful over the future of Thomsonfly at the airport...I just hope that the management team are not resting on their laurels, and are vehemently pursuing at least one other carrier (hopefully Globespan)
July statistics should be decent reading...just depends on how much of an impact BMIBaby's Birmingham - Barcelona and Jersey routes have had.
Hopefully the future is not so bleak for Coventry after all, although I personally am still very doubtful over the future of Thomsonfly at the airport...I just hope that the management team are not resting on their laurels, and are vehemently pursuing at least one other carrier (hopefully Globespan)
Last edited by SeamusCVT; 8th Jul 2007 at 13:50. Reason: Misspelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I personally am still very doubtful over the future of Thomsonfly at the airport"
Seamus, why are you so concerned about this?
I'm not going to play the "Tfly have stuck with Cov through thick and thin" line - they are a business, they have commercial reasons to want to make their routes work. But the company is keen to push flight only and dynamic packaging over traditional charters, so this suits the model they have at CVT. They have a nice little niche here, which they wouldn't have at EMA or BHX, and management are well known to resent BHX's high costs & long haul snobbery.
CVT management have stated that they want to bring airlines which complement Tfly, not those which compete against. I don't really see a role for Globespan right now, unless we were to get into a baby @ MME scenario, in which case I woudln't rule out Jet2 either, but that's not really worth considering right now, as long as Tfly stay put.
Hope KRK launch tomorrow goes well.
Seamus, why are you so concerned about this?
I'm not going to play the "Tfly have stuck with Cov through thick and thin" line - they are a business, they have commercial reasons to want to make their routes work. But the company is keen to push flight only and dynamic packaging over traditional charters, so this suits the model they have at CVT. They have a nice little niche here, which they wouldn't have at EMA or BHX, and management are well known to resent BHX's high costs & long haul snobbery.
CVT management have stated that they want to bring airlines which complement Tfly, not those which compete against. I don't really see a role for Globespan right now, unless we were to get into a baby @ MME scenario, in which case I woudln't rule out Jet2 either, but that's not really worth considering right now, as long as Tfly stay put.
Hope KRK launch tomorrow goes well.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that the high cost argument at BHX doesn't float anymore....Even Easy Jet are starting ops in December and Ryanair are increasing the Dublin flights and started a second route. Tfly are a business and have no loyalty to Coventry.....However I believe they will stay while the passenger loads are satisfactory...What Coventry need to be careful of is becoming a one trick pony...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may please add,
The first flights to/from Katowice Airport took off/landed on Friday.
Passenger figures: W6113 (KTW-CVT) 164, W6114 (CVT-KTW) 156.
Bearing in mind Wizz Air brought forward the start date to July 13th "only" 11 weeks before departure, shows healthy reading (hopefully the yield will be just as healthy as the passenger numbers)
Here's hoping for similar loads, and good yields throughout the remainder of the Summer, and throughout Winter...now available to book until end of March.
Also, if Olton Pete's comment about Krakow in post 307 of the attached link is to become reality, maybe Wizzair could take some of those prospective passengers...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...266640&page=16
The first flights to/from Katowice Airport took off/landed on Friday.
Passenger figures: W6113 (KTW-CVT) 164, W6114 (CVT-KTW) 156.
Bearing in mind Wizz Air brought forward the start date to July 13th "only" 11 weeks before departure, shows healthy reading (hopefully the yield will be just as healthy as the passenger numbers)
Here's hoping for similar loads, and good yields throughout the remainder of the Summer, and throughout Winter...now available to book until end of March.
Also, if Olton Pete's comment about Krakow in post 307 of the attached link is to become reality, maybe Wizzair could take some of those prospective passengers...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...266640&page=16
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KRK
SeamusCVT
The BHX-KRK is not officially pulled from the end of October but SkyEurope is supposed to be closing the Krakow base (increasing Vienna).
The only option would be to to route it through one of the other bases (assuming they have KRK services).
Not sure if Wizz operate out of KRK but they are to open a Poznan base
in the New Year however the initial destinations have been announced already, Doncaster was one of those.
Pete
The BHX-KRK is not officially pulled from the end of October but SkyEurope is supposed to be closing the Krakow base (increasing Vienna).
The only option would be to to route it through one of the other bases (assuming they have KRK services).
Not sure if Wizz operate out of KRK but they are to open a Poznan base
in the New Year however the initial destinations have been announced already, Doncaster was one of those.
Pete
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pete,
No WizzAir Krakow operations that I know of. However, bearing in mind the proximity of Katowice to Krakow, the fact that on many posters I have seen (including at Coventry Airport) the destination is being marketted as Katowice-Cracow (similar ploy to the marketting campaign of the route in Poland of Coventry-Birmingham), and the Matuszyk transfer connections and undoubted commission that the airline receives from any booking from Katowice Airport to Krakow city centre, WizzAir would be delighted in more ways than one IF SkyEurope were to cease operations between Krakow and Birmingham. We wait and see...next they might be praying for Norwegian to cease flights between Birmingham and Warsaw...curses to Ryanair's EMA-BUD link though!!
However, reading Jongeman's posting on the Birmingham thread, I suspect that SkyEurope are just waiting to release their Winter 07/08 flights...the Stansted flights too have not yet been released going by the timetable... a possible tactic would be to wait for the competition to release their flights, let them sell their lowest fares, then come in with a slightly inflated "lowest" fare...forcing the competition to price the flights lower and thereby operating at a loss...a la Ryanair launching Alicante and Palma this year.
No WizzAir Krakow operations that I know of. However, bearing in mind the proximity of Katowice to Krakow, the fact that on many posters I have seen (including at Coventry Airport) the destination is being marketted as Katowice-Cracow (similar ploy to the marketting campaign of the route in Poland of Coventry-Birmingham), and the Matuszyk transfer connections and undoubted commission that the airline receives from any booking from Katowice Airport to Krakow city centre, WizzAir would be delighted in more ways than one IF SkyEurope were to cease operations between Krakow and Birmingham. We wait and see...next they might be praying for Norwegian to cease flights between Birmingham and Warsaw...curses to Ryanair's EMA-BUD link though!!
However, reading Jongeman's posting on the Birmingham thread, I suspect that SkyEurope are just waiting to release their Winter 07/08 flights...the Stansted flights too have not yet been released going by the timetable... a possible tactic would be to wait for the competition to release their flights, let them sell their lowest fares, then come in with a slightly inflated "lowest" fare...forcing the competition to price the flights lower and thereby operating at a loss...a la Ryanair launching Alicante and Palma this year.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport lodged an appeal against the rejection:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/6913306.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/6913306.stm