Carlisle
Decision on planning permission now likely 3 August (?)
News & Star | News | 'New Carlisle airport plans should be scrapped' - farmer
This link also has some relevance!
News & Star | News | Business | New trains to ease overcrowding on Carlisle-Manchester Airport route
News & Star | News | 'New Carlisle airport plans should be scrapped' - farmer
This link also has some relevance!
News & Star | News | Business | New trains to ease overcrowding on Carlisle-Manchester Airport route
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Cumbrians can now fly down to Southend and visit London, or transfer to EZY flights to Europe. Surely quicker to troll along to Glasgow or Blackpool....? Or perhaps not - those Cumbrian roads are a tad slow going.....
I think there would be a fair demand from South Essex to fly up to Carlisle for a Lake District holiday though. I know I'm going to use that service if it ever starts.
I think there would be a fair demand from South Essex to fly up to Carlisle for a Lake District holiday though. I know I'm going to use that service if it ever starts.
I'm sure those in Cumbria are delighted with this decision, and it must be welcome in a part of the country where there is little work.
But hasn't the UK got enough airports? Look at the well-documented problems in Coventry, Plymouth, Manston and Teesside to say nothing of Cardiff, Blackpool, Robin Hood, Prestwick and others.
Stobarts have done well at Southend, but Essex is very different to Cumbria.
Despite my reservations, I wish them well.
But hasn't the UK got enough airports? Look at the well-documented problems in Coventry, Plymouth, Manston and Teesside to say nothing of Cardiff, Blackpool, Robin Hood, Prestwick and others.
Stobarts have done well at Southend, but Essex is very different to Cumbria.
Despite my reservations, I wish them well.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
can anyone tell me if the flight path will go over Carlisle
What bothers me - and I can't see any evidence that anyone's raised it - is commercial passenger transport aircraft regularly flying within a mile of the Spadeadam range boundary and in an area where high energy manoeuvring by military fast jets is the main aviation activity. And all this to an airport with no radar, next to a military range that has radar but doesn't normally provide air traffic services to civil aircraft.
NS
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
next to a military range that has radar but doesn't normally provide air traffic services to civil aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
There's a similar situation at Southend with the D138 complex
NS
(Still) going nowhere fast...
The city council this week received a solicitor’s letter, sent on behalf of objector Gordon Brown, demanding that it revisits the decision to grant planning permission. consent has yet to be signed off because one of the conditions set has still to be fulfilled. The letter from Dickinson Dees argues that, where consent has not been confirmed, the council can reconsider its decision if “new material of relevance” comes to light.
The thrust of the letter is that councillors passed what planning officers said was a “finely-balanced” application because they were swayed by Aer Arann’s promise of scheduled passenger flights. The airline wrote in support of Stobart’s scheme, saying it would station a 48-seater ATR42 aircraft at Carlisle to provide twice-daily flights to London Southend and a daily Dublin service.
Dickinson Dees points to Aer Arann’s recent decision to withdraw from Waterford Airport in Ireland. The three routes from Waterford carried 66,756 passengers in the year to October, roughly the same as the projections for passenger numbers from Carlisle. The letter says: “If the 66,756 passengers carried by Aer Arann on the Waterford routes were insufficient to sustain those routes....passenger numbers from Carlisle will not be able to sustain the proposed routes.The cessation of all services at Waterford Airport by Aer Arann is clearly a material consideration.”
The letter warns that, if the council confirms planning consent without taking account of this new information, its decision “would clearly be susceptible to challenge by way of judicial review”.
The thrust of the letter is that councillors passed what planning officers said was a “finely-balanced” application because they were swayed by Aer Arann’s promise of scheduled passenger flights. The airline wrote in support of Stobart’s scheme, saying it would station a 48-seater ATR42 aircraft at Carlisle to provide twice-daily flights to London Southend and a daily Dublin service.
Dickinson Dees points to Aer Arann’s recent decision to withdraw from Waterford Airport in Ireland. The three routes from Waterford carried 66,756 passengers in the year to October, roughly the same as the projections for passenger numbers from Carlisle. The letter says: “If the 66,756 passengers carried by Aer Arann on the Waterford routes were insufficient to sustain those routes....passenger numbers from Carlisle will not be able to sustain the proposed routes.The cessation of all services at Waterford Airport by Aer Arann is clearly a material consideration.”
The letter warns that, if the council confirms planning consent without taking account of this new information, its decision “would clearly be susceptible to challenge by way of judicial review”.
News & Star | Fresh doubts about Carlisle airport redevelopment plans
News & Star | News | Business | Airline shake-up
Last edited by SWBKCB; 2nd Dec 2012 at 07:38.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting point but it's not just about numbers but yield, what fares are being charged, load factors, I've just done a quick calculation on the presumption that with 12 services of 48 seats weekly in each direction to/from SEN that's 1,152 seats per week, 40,000 divided by 52.14 weeks per year = 767 passengers per week with equates to expected, first year, load factors of 66.5% which I would suggest to be bl00dy excellent figures on such a route and in the first year.
Of course objector(s) don't want to listen to such reasoning!
Of course objector(s) don't want to listen to such reasoning!
Of course, the people raising the issue don't want the development to happen.
But it's a fair point - you base your business case for the airport on 60,000 passengers, but then shortly afterwards shut down a base with a higher figure.
The questions there to be answered.
But it's a fair point - you base your business case for the airport on 60,000 passengers, but then shortly afterwards shut down a base with a higher figure.
The questions there to be answered.