COVENTRY
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How basic a service are they likely to start off with - surely no radar service? In fact could it as basic as just FISO service alone? If you've got three bodies in the tower all day, seven days a week from say early morning to late at night for the freight ops, it's going to cost an absalute fortune - to cover holidays, sickness, SCRATCO limitations etc. that's say 10-12 full timers?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect it will be a combination of both Avioactive. In order to attract the buisness you have to offer minimum levels of service, its a cost based analysis that has to be done and there are alot of limitations. Everyone has their ore in this one, the airport, the company providing the service (Marshall's arn't going to want to provide just FISO they arn't interested in that alone being a big company), the CAA (i.e. they want radar units for saftey etc...), Birmingham (ain't going to want to be doing radar for coventry traffic unless someone is going to pay them).
Its a pretty complex subject.
Its a pretty complex subject.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Not close enough to my aircraft !
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon me for saying "I told you all so" but on the 23rd Feb I stated the Marshalls position. Nothing has changed since then.
"Mr Grumpy" of Marshalls is digging his heels in and unless CCC decide to stump up some cash, my source at CCC says this will all flat on its face !
CCC cannot stump up the cash as it is ratepayers cash they just don't have. ....... could be a bit of a problem here.
"Mr Grumpy" of Marshalls is digging his heels in and unless CCC decide to stump up some cash, my source at CCC says this will all flat on its face !
CCC cannot stump up the cash as it is ratepayers cash they just don't have. ....... could be a bit of a problem here.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its simple... If they want Marshall's to be involved they have to pay. Marshalls must have had a competitive rate against the other companies like Serco in the first place when the first contract was ever put up for bidding. The fact that it is expensive to run air traffic control seems to shock alot of you. I wouldn't say that Marshalls have a Mr Grumpy and are being pains in the arse because lets be fair they arn't there for charity are they? They make money and run a professional organisation and have to be competitive against the other guys.
If they are digging their heels in its because they have lost alot of money and Sir P isn't making them confident that they will get enough of it back to be worth their investment. If they don't want to be involved because they are scared of getting bitten again then thats up to them. You can understand their predicament, you've got a chap who really doesn't have a massive clue who has less money or experience than the last investors and seeminly needs them to help it get up and running. They will probably then find they are on a short contract because once its going he will want to bring it in house to try reduce his costs further. In which case they are back to having lost money.
If they are digging their heels in its because they have lost alot of money and Sir P isn't making them confident that they will get enough of it back to be worth their investment. If they don't want to be involved because they are scared of getting bitten again then thats up to them. You can understand their predicament, you've got a chap who really doesn't have a massive clue who has less money or experience than the last investors and seeminly needs them to help it get up and running. They will probably then find they are on a short contract because once its going he will want to bring it in house to try reduce his costs further. In which case they are back to having lost money.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Given the fragility of the economics and the apparently careful, not-too-ambitious approach being taken by this Sir Peter chappie, I wonder why they don't start with just AFISO. It would of course mean no radar and no instrument approaches, but perhaps they could get CAA approval for a company-only procedure e.g. for Atlantic if they wanted to come back in.
Failing that, having full ATC but without radar would also save a shed-load of money. Coventry IFR traffic could get a radar service from Birmingham or Brize until approaching the CT.
NS
Failing that, having full ATC but without radar would also save a shed-load of money. Coventry IFR traffic could get a radar service from Birmingham or Brize until approaching the CT.
NS
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth its a nice idea but it has a few flaws. With your AFISO service you seriously limit your traffic, i don't know what SirP wants but maybe it would work for him, your other problems would be if he wants ILS, NDB instrument approaches to keep your training schools happen, if you want to maintain the buisness your going to need those because Coventry is well known for them. You can't offer those with just an AFISO service all the time.
As for farming radar off to Birmingham, similarly it won't happen. NATS have in the past told controllers at Birmingham not to work Coventry traffic because they arn't getting paid for it and they arn't interested, so long as no one enters their airspace they don't care (company viewpoint). They also don't want their controllers being distracted from the work they are actually being paid for which is their own traffic at Birmingham, nor are Birmingham airport going to want to be paying for air traffic control services for Coventry. Yes controllers being controllers are trying to help everyone but they certinatlly arn't going to be offering radar services to everyone and it won't be consistent, when they are busy they will not offer anything to anyone other than what they are paid for. That is unless they want to agree a contract with NATS to provide Coventry radar, which would obviously come at significant cost as NATS would have to get another few controllers in just to work Coventry.
Which leads you all the way back to if your going to be running your own Tower then you might as well run your own radar...
Also unless proceedures change another radar unit can't vector someone onto another airfield's ILS as they have no idea of what state the ILS is in that they are vectoring onto, which means you have to have an agreed procedure, if you do agree a proceedure then your setting it in stone that someone is going to have to work your traffic and hence the money gets back involved.
As for farming radar off to Birmingham, similarly it won't happen. NATS have in the past told controllers at Birmingham not to work Coventry traffic because they arn't getting paid for it and they arn't interested, so long as no one enters their airspace they don't care (company viewpoint). They also don't want their controllers being distracted from the work they are actually being paid for which is their own traffic at Birmingham, nor are Birmingham airport going to want to be paying for air traffic control services for Coventry. Yes controllers being controllers are trying to help everyone but they certinatlly arn't going to be offering radar services to everyone and it won't be consistent, when they are busy they will not offer anything to anyone other than what they are paid for. That is unless they want to agree a contract with NATS to provide Coventry radar, which would obviously come at significant cost as NATS would have to get another few controllers in just to work Coventry.
Which leads you all the way back to if your going to be running your own Tower then you might as well run your own radar...
Also unless proceedures change another radar unit can't vector someone onto another airfield's ILS as they have no idea of what state the ILS is in that they are vectoring onto, which means you have to have an agreed procedure, if you do agree a proceedure then your setting it in stone that someone is going to have to work your traffic and hence the money gets back involved.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coventry
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If by any chance an agreement could not be reached with Marshalls, does anyone know how long it would take Coventry Airport or another ATC provider to get the necessary licenses?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess Coventry could work like Cranfield does;
Procedural APP, no radar ,conspicuity squawks, single frequency, two freqs when traffic requires.
Only difference is the proximity of Brum's airspace- don't know if that would mess things up.
Procedural APP, no radar ,conspicuity squawks, single frequency, two freqs when traffic requires.
Only difference is the proximity of Brum's airspace- don't know if that would mess things up.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere hot
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys where are you all???
Cov man, Nav3, Leofric, jennyB, what has happened to all the info??????
hasn't anyone got any info?
has everything dried up?
so many questions..................
somebody must know what is going on
Cov man, Nav3, Leofric, jennyB, what has happened to all the info??????
hasn't anyone got any info?
has everything dried up?
so many questions..................
somebody must know what is going on
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Not close enough to my aircraft !
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys but only hearsay from inside CCC at present as not been down the Oak for a while. For what it is worth, CCC are bricking themselves at the fact it is not a done deal yet and getting very scared that Peter Rigby is still in the bath with the water getting rather tepid and that the plug may soon become dislodged !!
The warmth is draining away and unless Marshalls are going to get a kick back or some sort of recompense from CCC then it still may all fall apart.
Word from the residents meeting with PR 10 days ago was that he said "in all probablility, prices will have to go up to make it all viable and that there would be some new developments with related business in a new area of the field".
In the meantime sitting in the Aero club carpark over this weekend I was amazed at how many 'joy riders' there have been over the airwaves this weekend on SafetyCom . I am sure BHX will be a little nervous at the movements there a short hop away from their territory ! The sooner 'old moaner' at Marshalls comes off the fence the better for everyone. However, the feeling inside CCC is one of total despair and they are becoming increasingly more scared. They don't have the funds to back it up this ATC problem as it is ratepayers money and no way they can be seen to use that money to pay Marshalls off.
The warmth is draining away and unless Marshalls are going to get a kick back or some sort of recompense from CCC then it still may all fall apart.
Word from the residents meeting with PR 10 days ago was that he said "in all probablility, prices will have to go up to make it all viable and that there would be some new developments with related business in a new area of the field".
In the meantime sitting in the Aero club carpark over this weekend I was amazed at how many 'joy riders' there have been over the airwaves this weekend on SafetyCom . I am sure BHX will be a little nervous at the movements there a short hop away from their territory ! The sooner 'old moaner' at Marshalls comes off the fence the better for everyone. However, the feeling inside CCC is one of total despair and they are becoming increasingly more scared. They don't have the funds to back it up this ATC problem as it is ratepayers money and no way they can be seen to use that money to pay Marshalls off.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Yorks
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nav3......YOU TALK ****! I Know, I Know Mr Andy Brown that no one can read my post's, but I'm happy.....are you?
Last edited by piky; 28th Mar 2010 at 23:25. Reason: Because I forgot to mention WWW = 3xWANKER
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose at the end of the day Marshalls are a business and not in the game of doing something for nothing. If the boot was on the other foot CCC would be shouting from the roof tops about being owed money.
Hopefully they can overcome it but Marshalls shouldn't be blamed if it's not......
Hopefully they can overcome it but Marshalls shouldn't be blamed if it's not......