COVENTRY
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many firms have failed just after a secret buyer vanishes.
I remeber how Silverjet were going to be saved.
Coventry council may like having an airport to its name but it will get more from the land as something else. Anyone with an intrest must look at the accounts. it only costs £1 and could save you from being a creditor.
the airport trades as West Midlands international Airport. The Company number is 3442017. The site to check is WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information
I am sure any one who may wish to buy would also see the 2008 accounts
I remeber how Silverjet were going to be saved.
Coventry council may like having an airport to its name but it will get more from the land as something else. Anyone with an intrest must look at the accounts. it only costs £1 and could save you from being a creditor.
the airport trades as West Midlands international Airport. The Company number is 3442017. The site to check is WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information
I am sure any one who may wish to buy would also see the 2008 accounts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
befree, do you realise how borringly repetitive you are? I suspect that whoever is looking to buy WMIA will not be seeking advice from some internet nerd with a grudge against the airport and a determination to get everyone to spend a £1.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am boring and I am a bit of an internet nerd. I also know how dreadful the 2007 accounts were. The accounts clearly state that the ultimate owner is now Howard Holdings PLC. It is Howard Holdings PLC that has gone under. When people say things that are incorrect guess or inaccurate information passed on by others then I will tell them to look at the official accounts. Boring I know. It is interesting that WMIA were at the point of being wound up by companies house for failing to file the 2007 accounts (see DISS40 notice).
AA 07/05/2009 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/07
DISS40 21/04/2009 DISS40 (DISS40(SOAD))
363a 20/04/2009 RETURN MADE UP TO 17/03/09; NO CHANGE OF MEMBERS
GAZ1 07/04/2009 First Gazette
288b 20/02/2009 DIRECTOR RESIGNED CHRISTOS ORPHANOU
AA 07/05/2009 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/07
DISS40 21/04/2009 DISS40 (DISS40(SOAD))
363a 20/04/2009 RETURN MADE UP TO 17/03/09; NO CHANGE OF MEMBERS
GAZ1 07/04/2009 First Gazette
288b 20/02/2009 DIRECTOR RESIGNED CHRISTOS ORPHANOU
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2009 they were almost wound-up for not filling the 2007 accounts. I cannot see how the 2008 accounts can be submit with them stating that the airport is a going concern. My view is the airport is a dead man walking.
Another source of boring data is the CAA airtransport movements. In addition to Coventry losing the schedled traffic the other flights seem a lot lower as well.
have a look at july 08
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport..._Movements.pdf
and July 09
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport..._Movements.pdf
That is 515 movements down to 110!
Another source of boring data is the CAA airtransport movements. In addition to Coventry losing the schedled traffic the other flights seem a lot lower as well.
have a look at july 08
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport..._Movements.pdf
and July 09
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport..._Movements.pdf
That is 515 movements down to 110!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is your interest in Cov anyway? Your constant gloating on a board frequented by airport employees is fairly bad taste. Your limited understanding of airports and airport finance doesn't actually add anything to the debate.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your limited understanding of airports and airport finance
You state that I have limited understanding but would like to know how the airport can live on 110 movements per month when it made a big loss on 515 movements per month?
It will have massively cut costs but the fixed overheads need covering. I am sure you will be happy that I will shut up for a while but please do your research.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Befree doesnt have to explain who he is, any more than you do - its an anonymous forum.
I suggest you answer his question - what do you think he has got wrong?
The airport is clearly up the creek financially and a discussion on their financial viability seems like a valid subject to talk about to me
I suggest you answer his question - what do you think he has got wrong?
The airport is clearly up the creek financially and a discussion on their financial viability seems like a valid subject to talk about to me
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the downside of an anonymous forum is that people can make mischief to suit their own purposes. Times are tough and any number of airports are struggling to stay afloat, yet I don't see the kind of morbid fascination with them as I do Coventry. The airport management have stated on numerous occasions that they are going through a process of change with respect to their business plan, this will take time and as we now know a change of ownership. There is clearly relevance in their previous accounts, but virtually none in the fact that they've struggled to submit them in time. Healthy debate is fine, but when the livelihoods of a large number of professional people is at stake a little bit of decorum and respect wouldn't go amiss.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
danieloakworth
Might I suggest that you check out befree's previous posts on Coventry?
As far as I can see he has been correct in his concerns regarding the business viability of the airport.
The previous management seems to have been replaced and I have to say that the utterances and claims by Chris Orphanou the departed CEO were pretty optimistic to say the least.
As for the 'livelihoods of a large number of professional people being at stake' there are probably more people being made redundant just up the road at BHX this year than made up the total workforce at CVT at its peak.
Might I suggest that you check out befree's previous posts on Coventry?
As far as I can see he has been correct in his concerns regarding the business viability of the airport.
The previous management seems to have been replaced and I have to say that the utterances and claims by Chris Orphanou the departed CEO were pretty optimistic to say the least.
As for the 'livelihoods of a large number of professional people being at stake' there are probably more people being made redundant just up the road at BHX this year than made up the total workforce at CVT at its peak.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter what Befree's interest in CVT is, if the figures he quotes are accurate then CVT is in big trouble.
If you check his previous messages you'll see he has an interest in accounts and reads them quite accurately.
S78
If you check his previous messages you'll see he has an interest in accounts and reads them quite accurately.
S78
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if you read every thread on prune there are discussions about Companies/Airlines accounts/viability/impending demise etc etc. Thats just what happens on forums. Complaining that the same is true on this thread is a bit lame.
The problem is that CVT has always made statements that turn out to be untrue (Sorry, Over optimistic). No so far back they were saying that they had several airlines interested in using CVT including a major. If it was true then great for the airport. However, it doesn't look like any of it was an accurate statement of the facts.
CVT employees know that they are hanging on by a thread, that's why most of the 'Professional' employees and many of the rest have been enquiring about vacancies at BHX. Unfortunately its a bad time all round to be looking for jobs in aviation.
BHX have even taken a lot of freight flights from CVT recently. None of this is helping the situation there.
The problem is that CVT has always made statements that turn out to be untrue (Sorry, Over optimistic). No so far back they were saying that they had several airlines interested in using CVT including a major. If it was true then great for the airport. However, it doesn't look like any of it was an accurate statement of the facts.
CVT employees know that they are hanging on by a thread, that's why most of the 'Professional' employees and many of the rest have been enquiring about vacancies at BHX. Unfortunately its a bad time all round to be looking for jobs in aviation.
BHX have even taken a lot of freight flights from CVT recently. None of this is helping the situation there.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current business plan (i.e. Exec Jet) has some merits. However, wheras for places like Oxford the challenge was increasing capability to the required level for Coventry they will have to go the other way. Cost base has to be reduced, some hard questions will need to asked about:
1. How many management really needed.
2. What ATC service must you provide.
3. Can you afford to replace the PSR? If not then get rid and lose some expensive (radar rated) controllers.
Lots more I'm sure, the airfield infrastructure is pretty good, but the aerodrome still seems manned for 24/7 airline ops.
1. How many management really needed.
2. What ATC service must you provide.
3. Can you afford to replace the PSR? If not then get rid and lose some expensive (radar rated) controllers.
Lots more I'm sure, the airfield infrastructure is pretty good, but the aerodrome still seems manned for 24/7 airline ops.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport manning is not the same as it was when there were scheduled passenger operations and as a consequence many good people lost their employment. There were certainly cuts in security, handling and the fire service, not sure about ATC but it has been contracted out since the cutbacks. It is therefore certainly not correct to say the airport is manned for 24/7 airline ops.