DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 4

[onion]

There is not only a business case for a parallel taxiway there is a safety issue as well. MATS 1 states that an active runway should not be used as a taxiway, but this happens all the time at MME. ATC has to increase separation on final approach to allow for this.
In terms of a business case the future plans for the airport include a parallel taxiway. This linked to the fact that airlines would prefer a parallel taxiway means that there is business case for it. Currently anything over the size of a 737-800 has to backtrack and quite often smaller aircraft will backtrack due to the conditions of the taxiways. A parallel taxiway would solve all this and make MME a more effficent airport and more attractive to the airlines.

[dumdumbrain]

I'll tell you what would make it more attractive to airlines, is pax and lots of them. I just don't think the airport at the momrnt would attract the volumes large airlines would wish for, give it time you never know.

Lee

[skyman771]

So what is the business case for a parallel taxiway i.e how would the investment generate extra revenue/profit?

Despite Onions representations, there is as ever a lot more to it. The safety & time spent back tracking etc. and that ecconomic savings can be achieved are obvious. Linking this into an a development plan is a trifle more subjective. It ONLY becomes a justifiable business case where the particular expenditure is justifiable in terms of amount of investment available, providing a greater return than other projects currently proposed within the plan. The cost of such a taxiway is likely to be significant and at this time the main beneficiaries appear to be GA related as opposed to Airline having regards to the previous postings on movement categories.
I would suggest that DTV have significantly more pressing projects to take on to make the airport more attractive to both the Airlines and the general public

[Get me some traffic]

Such as Skyman?

[onion]

Skyman and Dumdumbrian to get pax through the doors you need to get the airlines in to offer the destinations, to get the airlines in they need to be convinced that the pax are there. It is a vicious circle but it isn't that clear cut there are things the airport can do to try and attract the airlines such as providing a parallel taxiway, building a new terminal and providing airbridges etc. The airport has to do everything in its ability to tip the scales in its favour and at the moment it doesn't seem to be doing anything to help itself.
Skyman the airports biggest single comercial user is FRA which as it happens is GA. They provide more business than any of the airlines at MME. Yes the beneficiaries for the moment will be GA but as I say above the parallel taxiway will aid the airports ability to attract airlines.

[dumdumbrain]

You did get the routes from baby, but it didn't work out, hence why baby did so badly last year. Im I just don't think you have the pax in the local area. An airline don't pull out for no reason, it don't really matter turning round and going back down the runway in such a small airport (which lets face it, it ain't a busy airport), many smaller airports that Ryanair fly into you have to do this ie LIG, LCJ....... Luton managed for along time before it became a problem. Anyway its simple the airport had its chance and it didn't work out, may do in a few years. Right im off as im flying today.

Lee

[skyman771]

Such as Skyman?

If you read the recent postings on this thread then it will avoid repetition in that you actually don't need me to tell you

:....airports biggest single comercial user is FRA which as it happens is GA. They provide more business than any of the airlines at MME.

Onion it is not a sound argument to suggest prioritising any potential development project within DTV's budget just to appease volume GA movements at DTV. Putting it another way, do you imagine that even if this were practical that GA or FRA as you note would be more happy to pay significantly higher landing fees over the minimal inconvenience due to occasional peak traffic volumes.
Is it not that the lower operating costs are a primary reason as to why FRA are at DTV at all ?
Where you are is in a vicious circle, it's revenue generation specifically from pax that is needed to fund development in airport concessions etc., not expecting that you will be more attractive to airlines by increasing their landing fees to pay for the provisision of a taxiway whereby there may, dependent upon wind direction, be a minimal delay in taxi time.

[Bol Zup]

Righto Skyman, lack of a parallel taxiway only significantly delays GA and schedules/charters are only subject to minimum delays are they?
Any pushback from stands 5 and 5R (and aircraft size/push direction dependant from 4) physically impede egress from the 'B' taxiway. Pushbacks from any stand blocks access to the 'c' and 'd' taxiways to any aircraft east of that point taxiing out. Pushbacks from any stand blocks access to 'B' and 'A' taxiways to any taxiing out aircraft west of that point.
Furthermore, unlike that which has been stated before, acceptance of the 'C' and 'D' taxiway by 737/A320 size aircraft seems to be operator dependant. Some will take it, some won't.
Let me give you a scenario.
Aircraft 1 is on 10 mile final.
Aircrafts 2 and 3 call for start and push.
All aircraft must use the'B' taxiway.
Aircraft 2 when ready can taxi to holding point 'B'. Dependant on where 1 is, 2 will either have to wait at 'B' until 1 has past 'B' on its landing roll or 1 will have to hold on the runway until 2 has cleared the intersection.
3 can't go anywhere until 1 vacates the runway and parks up.
3's delay so far is at least 5 mins.
3 taxis to 'B', by that time aircraft 4 (which also has to backtrack) is on 5 mile final. Another 7 mins delay to aircraft 3.
Aircraft 3 is on a slot time and has to return to stand awaiting a 2 hour slot time delay.
Granted this uncommon now. However, the pax no. hurdle before the parallel taxiway will be implemented no doubt will mean a lot of head scratching and, dare I say, crisis management solutions when the inevitable gridlock ensues. This scenario does not encapsulate any further deterioration of the taxiways.
Invest now for the future and let's not have the usual "Trumpton" embarassments when lack of foresight pervades.
I agree a parallel taxiway will not entice more pax through the door but once inside they will probably expect to go somewhere shortly.

[Luke0705]

Charter Airlines 2008

Thomsonfly Are definitely Dropping out right?

Well do you thing MME will get another charter airline In, Just thinking FCA Dont fly many Flights of there own out of the Norht east ?

Im Just thinking They could be a Posibility

[CentreFix25]

I think with the big mergers you'll find more consolidation than anything else. I even think summer only bases might be few and far between from now on due to the costs involved with setting up. Lots of foreign operators me thinks with the aircraft being based at the other end.

[skyman771]

Bol zup Fascinating insight into the workings at DTV. At first glance it even appears busy 'aircraft 4' !
Anyhow clearly your DTV air traffic knowledge is commendable and way ahead of mine. You have certainly put a case for an improved taxiway from the ATC perspective, still unconvinced that it adds sufficient to the business case unless sufficient commercial traffic volume is present. We then get back into the circle of attracting the aircraft to bring the pax to pay for the taxiway to attract the aircraft....

[DTVAirport]

I heard that management see FRA as a nuisance! Onion, you'll have probably heard that as well?

I think we need a new MD who's not freightened to grab the bull by the horns and shake things up a lot.

Going back to an earlier post in the thread - you're not seriously suggesting that the airport would draw up plans and submit them for approval with no intention whatsoever of going ahead with those plans???

On a much brighter note, tonight is the airport police/security-enthusiast/spotter meeting, hopefully we'll get ID badges in return for providing the airport with an extra pair of eyes/ears.

There will be an article about it on BBC Look North tonight so I'm told and there was also one a week or two ago (Hugh Lang told them that the airport had arranged this, which is complete bks as we went to the airport after one of the spotters was taken by airport security and grilled in an interview). The DTVA Yahoo Group that I run has been very much involved in the whole process, if anyone wants the link please PM me. Unfortunately I can't make the meeting as I'm in Tunisia.

[groundhand]

Onion, your passion for DTV shines through but there is a need for some reality here.

"In terms of a business case the future plans for the airport include a parallel taxiway. This linked to the fact that airlines would prefer a parallel taxiway means that there is business case for it."

Just because someone would like something does not make a business case. The airlines would prefer lower airport fees; does this justify the business case for reducing the current fees?

The airport is a business and the Board has responsibility to it's shareholders.
Investing in the speculative wish list developments you mention in the hope that they might attract additional airlines and, therefore hopefully, additional passengers, the Board would be seen as negligent in exercising their responsibilities.

[onion]

Groundhand did you not listen to Bol Zup's point on the airport grinding to a halt? On a number of occasions the airport has been very close to grinding to a halt. There is a case for the parallel taxiway, this is not a speculative wish list. The parallel taxiway is part of the long term plan for the airport. Why not build it now before the problems get out of hand and the airport has serious problems with delays.
You have to remember you have to speculate to accumulate. On top of this is the councils who own 25% have a duty to provide a well run resource for the community.
Talking about speculative wish list, Peel had one of the biggest and so far I think DSA has done well for them. Let me see now lets build a new commercial airport in a region with 3 established airports for competion. Now lets provide it with a terminal with plenty of space to develop and lets do all this without an established passenger base.
Regarding FRA I hadn't heard that the managment see them as a nusiance but could quite imagine it FRA are an integtal part of th airport and do more than their fair share of paying the managments wages.

[Britannia]

On a much brighter note, tonight is the airport police/security-enthusiast/spotter meeting, hopefully we'll get ID badges in return for providing the airport with an extra pair of eyes/ears.

With regard to that, will it still be possible to park up and watch the airshow movements this weekend? Cheers, Chris.

[DTVAirport]

I assume you mean at the layby at the end of the runway by the rail line? Should be, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[groundhand]

Onion, your version of grinding to a halt and what constitutes a delay is based on DTV; I suspect most of the commercial operators do not find the operating restrictions onerous. I accept that a parallel taxyway will be a bonus, I was at NCL when they opened theirs and the difference in ground movement flow was substantial. The issue fior DTV is what would all the GA do if the airport increased their charges by the amount they would need to to fund such a development? The majority of movements are GA, therefore it would not be an unreasonable assumption to make that they would have to bear a proportion of the cost?
I doubt whether the council will prioritise funding for the airport ahead of essential services to their community at large.

The BIG advantage that DSA has, and why the risks of development were very different, is their catchment area. Not something DTV is blessed with unfortunately. Yes they had competition from HUY and LBA, not sure which other you are counting - EMA I assume. HUY has it's own problems, in many ways similar to DTV. LBA is a G*d awful place to get to if you live on the South side of LBA or in the Barnsley, Rotherham or Sheffield areas; and DSA is a better bet for this area than EMA.

I like DTV (although I hate the new pretentious name and Durham is equi-distance between DTV and NCL), I've worked there, flown from there and know people who still work there. I wish you well but please don't build your hopes up too high.

[DTVAirport]

Afternoon all,

For information:- I've been informed that some of the key points raised at last nights police-spotter meeting included the following:

-Police and airport fully on our side

-An excellent turnout, with 45+ people attended

-Some form of ID for spotters, with police and airport having our details

-We're expected to feedback anything suspicious, as well as informing the airport of when we're going to be there, where abouts, for how long, and our vehicle registrations etc

-New terminal building work will commence in 12-18 months and is likely to include an indoor terrace/restaurant on the upper floor which is landside, so we'll have views similar to the old rooftop terrace

-It was suggested that the earth that is being moved to make way for the business park be made into a mound for spotters similar to a one at Manchester, the airport made a note of this.

That's all I've heard for now.

Regards,

Chris

[skyman771]

-New terminal building work will commence in 12-18 months and is likely to include an indoor terrace/restaurant on the upper floor which is landside, so we'll have views similar to the old rooftop terrace

Would appreciate if you could elaborate as to what they are actually planning in terms of anticipated max pax volumes, checkin desks & facilities etc. Other than creating a restraunt & catering for the 'reggies' (something that those up the road have passed over), is the work to involve increasing the size of terminal or just more effective use of available space?

[DTVAirport]

Not sure, what I put above is all I know at this moment in time.