COVENTRY
Just a numbered other
twostroke,
Nope, no-one knows a thing about this, so I would guess it's just a bit of journalistic license (=bollocks)
Having read the case put forward by CVT for more CAS, I think they will be hard pressed to prove need. All that disruption for a couple of 737s which could and should be based at a real airport. (like BHX or EMA)
Nope, no-one knows a thing about this, so I would guess it's just a bit of journalistic license (=bollocks)
Having read the case put forward by CVT for more CAS, I think they will be hard pressed to prove need. All that disruption for a couple of 737s which could and should be based at a real airport. (like BHX or EMA)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another airprox to add to the Coventry/thomsonfly collection. Has the airspace around Coventry really has had the safety margins reduced?
Date: 21 March 2006
An Aircraft Proximity (Airprox) report has been filed involving a Boeing 737 and a light aircraft. The incident took place 11 miles south of Coventry on 21 January 2006 at 1240 hours.
The B737 was en-route to Barcelona and was receiving an air traffic service from Birmingham Airport. The incident took place at approximately 5,000 feet.
Date: 21 March 2006
An Aircraft Proximity (Airprox) report has been filed involving a Boeing 737 and a light aircraft. The incident took place 11 miles south of Coventry on 21 January 2006 at 1240 hours.
The B737 was en-route to Barcelona and was receiving an air traffic service from Birmingham Airport. The incident took place at approximately 5,000 feet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just got the report through from the first inquiry, which I'm trying to make sense out of.
Looks like the expected result has been given, i.e. that planning permission was needed, and that it has been granted. There do seem to be some very onerous restrictions in the event that the airport breaches any of the terms of the agreement, but I hope to digest these later.
Looks like the expected result has been given, i.e. that planning permission was needed, and that it has been granted. There do seem to be some very onerous restrictions in the event that the airport breaches any of the terms of the agreement, but I hope to digest these later.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Leamington Courier:
Coventry Airport has been found to have acted unlawfully in building its Thomsonfly terminal - but it will be allowed to stay.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made the ruling today (Friday) following a six-month inquiry held last year.
The airport's managers had insisted the terminal did not need planning permission - but Warwick District Council disagreed, prompting a bitter dispute that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.Mr Prescott has now decided that the district council was correct on that matter, but has nevertheless granted permission for the building to remain.
So it was an illegal development, the council were quite right to enforce against it, its cost taxpayers a fortune to do so, but now its got retrospective planning permission, everyones happy. Its a funny old world...
Coventry Airport has been found to have acted unlawfully in building its Thomsonfly terminal - but it will be allowed to stay.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made the ruling today (Friday) following a six-month inquiry held last year.
The airport's managers had insisted the terminal did not need planning permission - but Warwick District Council disagreed, prompting a bitter dispute that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.Mr Prescott has now decided that the district council was correct on that matter, but has nevertheless granted permission for the building to remain.
So it was an illegal development, the council were quite right to enforce against it, its cost taxpayers a fortune to do so, but now its got retrospective planning permission, everyones happy. Its a funny old world...
Just a numbered other
Did Thomson have it oput up quickly on a Friday afternoon by gypsies?
That's how they get around planning law.
It seems the 'airprox' concerning gliders took place during the Junior World Champs at HB last summer.
The controller apperently turned a 737 towards a puddlrjumper, rather than towards HB. The gliders, at the time, were on the ground.
That's how they get around planning law.
It seems the 'airprox' concerning gliders took place during the Junior World Champs at HB last summer.
The controller apperently turned a 737 towards a puddlrjumper, rather than towards HB. The gliders, at the time, were on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Coventry
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know whether there are any plans for TOM to expand out of CVT in the forseeable future? Whilst there are obvious terminal & ramp restrictions which would likely impede basing additional aircraft at the airport, surely it would be an opportunity to either further utilise the aircraft (although potentially angering residents by flying earlier & later) or encouraging TUI's European partners to consider flights. I cannot believe that HLX would introduce BHX-CGN rather than reattempt CVT. Whilst there were problems initially, not least because of a lack of public transport to/from the airport, and literally no advertising, flights to Germany would be a real boost for the airport.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my mole, further and future large scale expansion at Coventry seems unlikely since a renewed interest being shown by TUI at Luton. Remember, the UK HQ of TUI is located just beyond the perimeter fence since their relocation from north London a short while ago.
TUI were anxious to distance themselves finally from the planning issues at Coventry, by selling the control of that airport recently.
The lack of different airlines commencing scheduled services from Coventry means that with East Midlands, Birmingham and Luton in proximity, it does not have the sophisticated transport infrastructure required from an airport. The independent bus from the city centre is hardly an 'on-site' railway station?
Coventry will have a future, once it gets competion from another airline. Too many eggs in one basket, if Thomson decided to pull out, what then?
TUI were anxious to distance themselves finally from the planning issues at Coventry, by selling the control of that airport recently.
The lack of different airlines commencing scheduled services from Coventry means that with East Midlands, Birmingham and Luton in proximity, it does not have the sophisticated transport infrastructure required from an airport. The independent bus from the city centre is hardly an 'on-site' railway station?
Coventry will have a future, once it gets competion from another airline. Too many eggs in one basket, if Thomson decided to pull out, what then?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Coventry
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did always wonder why Luton & Manchester in 2003, when the Thomsonfly idea was first dreamed up, were not right at the top of the list for having scheduled flights considering that these are major bases, but also that LTN is the home of the actual airline. Similarly EMA has our training centre, and the airline could have got in there whilst bmibaby was still in its infancy & before Ryanair got in there as well. There were rumours a few months ago of the 737s moving to other airports, but TOM has a nice toehold at CVT with a mix of fairly interesting routes despite being in something of a rut. They need to decide whether CVT is a nice little money earner the way it is, or if there is more potential elsewhere, so CVT can move on & so can TOM.
Coventry's biggest problem outside of the existing terminal, are the public transport links. There is one shuttle bus an hour, which do not run all the way through the operating hours of the airport. Add to this the debacle over parking, and generally surface links seem to be really holding the airport back.
Coventry's biggest problem outside of the existing terminal, are the public transport links. There is one shuttle bus an hour, which do not run all the way through the operating hours of the airport. Add to this the debacle over parking, and generally surface links seem to be really holding the airport back.
MGP
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry
Regarding competition at Coventry for Thomson. It is primarily because it is a cut-price airline that it has acheived the passenger figures that it has. Over the years a number of airlines have tried to operate scheduled services from Coventry but all have been unsuccesful due to closeness of BHX with its marketing image.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TUI uk HQ is in Luton (Wigmore House, Wigmore Lane) since the move from Greater London House which happened in March. Most if not all of the operations - crewing etc have now moved to Wigmore House.
BYCREWLGW
BYCREWLGW
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomson is based at Wigmore Place in Luton, as is the commercial department of the scheduled lo-cost and mixed model arm of Thomsonfly, but TUI UK and Northern Europe, including Thomsonfly marketting and the Thomsonfly call centre are based at Columbus House I and Columbus House II in Coventry.
Re Thomsonfly pulling out of CVT, this will not happen, once the lease on the 737-500s ends ths year, several 737-300s from Doncaster are being based at CVT. That shows some commitment to the airport
Re Thomsonfly pulling out of CVT, this will not happen, once the lease on the 737-500s ends ths year, several 737-300s from Doncaster are being based at CVT. That shows some commitment to the airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke,
You are never going to get accurate information about Coventry Airport from the Leamington Courier, unless you just want to continue your one-sided anti-CVT rant.
I fully agree with Buster about the lack of public transport, and the airport were quite rightly slated for this in the inquiry report - to the extent that this was deemed as the most significant area for planning concern, not noise.
"Coventry Airport has been found to have acted unlawfully in building its Thomsonfly terminal"
Wrong on two counts, but what do we expect from a paper who's editor lives in Ryton and whose chief reporter has such a clear bias on the issue?
Breach of planning control is not the same thing as an illegal operation, which is why the enforcement notices were ultimately quashed. Terminal and operator are no longer the same entity. As for wasting tax payers' money, since WDC ended up doing a U-turn anyway, they could have saved a great deal of hassle by being more amenable to negotiations much earlier, and if their officials had communicated the need for this better with the committee. Naturally, the locals still aren't happy, but they never will be.
MOP - just exactly what is the "marketing image" of BHX? Granted, it has more developed facilities, but much of today's market is driven by cost, where CVT still has an advantage, combined with convenience for those who want to drive and park their own cars.
You are never going to get accurate information about Coventry Airport from the Leamington Courier, unless you just want to continue your one-sided anti-CVT rant.
I fully agree with Buster about the lack of public transport, and the airport were quite rightly slated for this in the inquiry report - to the extent that this was deemed as the most significant area for planning concern, not noise.
"Coventry Airport has been found to have acted unlawfully in building its Thomsonfly terminal"
Wrong on two counts, but what do we expect from a paper who's editor lives in Ryton and whose chief reporter has such a clear bias on the issue?
Breach of planning control is not the same thing as an illegal operation, which is why the enforcement notices were ultimately quashed. Terminal and operator are no longer the same entity. As for wasting tax payers' money, since WDC ended up doing a U-turn anyway, they could have saved a great deal of hassle by being more amenable to negotiations much earlier, and if their officials had communicated the need for this better with the committee. Naturally, the locals still aren't happy, but they never will be.
MOP - just exactly what is the "marketing image" of BHX? Granted, it has more developed facilities, but much of today's market is driven by cost, where CVT still has an advantage, combined with convenience for those who want to drive and park their own cars.
MGP
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry
Jabird, please don't think that I am against greater use of Coventry. I flew professionally from Coventry for some fifteen years and I am pleased to see the developments that have been going on, particularly since Air Atlantique took up residence. However, the fact is that BHX has a far greater catchment area than CVT aand that is a major factor for the airlines.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbottle, If catchment area is the poulation in the area within say a 1 hour journey time, then birmingham's catchment is far far bigger than than coventry's, I would have thought
JA - CVT failed in their appeal that the development didnt need planning permission. They also failed in the 'permitted development' argument. They were told the terminal was indeed greater than the 500 sq m that only they (and you) ever thought was true. However they did succeed in getting retrospective planning permission but only subject to a raft of conditions, none of which would ever have been offered if WDC hadnt taken the enforcement action. So a reasonable middle ground result all round, I'd say
JA - CVT failed in their appeal that the development didnt need planning permission. They also failed in the 'permitted development' argument. They were told the terminal was indeed greater than the 500 sq m that only they (and you) ever thought was true. However they did succeed in getting retrospective planning permission but only subject to a raft of conditions, none of which would ever have been offered if WDC hadnt taken the enforcement action. So a reasonable middle ground result all round, I'd say
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVT failed in their appeal that the development didnt need planning permission. They also failed in the 'permitted development' argument.
Were these not one and the same argument.
Were these not one and the same argument.