Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.


Old 2nd Mar 2007, 19:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 51

EZY and FR interested:

Europe's largest low-cost airlines easyJet and Ryanair have said that they would look favourably on using a Cambridge Airport if the Marshall Group decided against selling the site for housing, the Business Weekly newspaper reports.
easyJet revealed that it was enjoying regular dialogue with Marshall and added that it was continuously vetting potential new hubs and felt that 'any leading carrier would become interested if a Cambridge regional airport became a reality.'
Ryanair said it was also 'willing to look at any proposals' involving Cambridge - especially in light of its ongoing battle to see more competition injected into the ownership of South East airports dominated by BAA's three London airports.
The airlines' expressions of interest add a new twist to the saga of whether Marshall should stay put or move to RAF Mildenhall and leave the airport site in Cambridge to be developed for new homes. Sources close to the company believe RAF Mildenhall is the only viable alternative site but estimates of the cost of moving the entire operation are already shifting northwards from 300m to nearer 500m.
While the revival of plans for a Cambridge Airport would spark a planning battle and public inquiry, senior UK government officials are understood to believe that such an airport would act as a catalyst for substantial growth locally, the newspaper reports.
Cambridge Airport has a long runway, a highly capable wide-area radar, state-of-the-art control tower and ancillary facilities capable of handling the big jets. A fairly modest terminal upgrade has already been mapped out. The airport has seen a strong upsurge in executive jet aircraft traffic in recent months.
For easyJet and Ryanair, the possibility of establishing a bolthole from Stansted located in the technology heartland of Europe holds considerable appeal. They wouldn't have to abandon their hubs at Stansted but would be able to divert some routes cost-effectively - especially if plans for a second runway at Stansted brings higher landing fees.

Very interesting about the Stansted transfers!
jet2_at_blk is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2007, 21:16
  #2 (permalink)  
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
a highly capable wide-area radar
Aren't they primary only?
foghorn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2007, 21:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 51
Havn't the foggiest!

Came from other website.
jet2_at_blk is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2007, 22:53
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 59
Posts: 451
How long is the runway at Cambridge, and what aircraft could it take?
johnnychips is online now  
Old 2nd Mar 2007, 23:39
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
1) the runway at Cambridge is just under 2000m long, capable of handling empty B747s for maintenance, but only just on limits for the Ryanair & EZY fleet, both of whom demand a 2000m runway for their Ops.
2) Agreed that the airport is prime building land, but the south side of the airfield has very poor drainage and the local authority have already stated that it will never get approval for building land.
3) The only taxiway to the "Terminal" is entirely unsuitable for B737 and the like aircraft, it would have to be rebuilt at considerable cost to someone.
The "terminal" is very small, unable to meet with the demands of any high volume operation, and it too would require significant investment to expand, equip and staff it.
4) Major expenditure would have to take place on the approach road and car parking, as it stands, Cambridge is entirely unsuited to high volume passenger op's.
5) The board of Marshalls, as I understand it, have always resisted any "major commercial development" on the grounds that all the airport revenue is derived from maintenence and executive op's. Their thinking being that commercial ops come and go overnight, whereas maintenance and the executive op's are a more predictable source of revenue stream.
6) Marshall's would only ever move from Cambridge if whoever bought the airport paid their full relocation costs to elsewhere in addition to the price of the airport.

That's just about it - Marshall and Cambridge will remain together for the forseeable future.
niknak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 06:25
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Isle Du Cyber
Posts: 933
Angel Cambridge for RYR of ESY?

A lot of work to the interstructor would have to be done to make things work there.
Who would pay for all that certanlly not Mike o l and his bunch and Easy would not want to plow Millions in to even make the airport viable.

With Cambriges just UP the motor way from Stansted I would have thought this would be a non starter I could be wrong.

Marshalls have eyed up other airfields to move to, at the end of the day it all comes down to money.

Take the area of the airfield at cambridge and you can get a couple of estates on there with out a problem.

North Wealde south of stansted is another airfield marked for housing so lots of building to happen in that are.
GBALU53 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 07:04
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 125
The threat of building on North Weald has receeded following the Planning Inspectors recommendation that it should not be built on and remain an aviation facility. Final confirmation that the Inspector's report recommendations have been accepted is expected from the appropriate Government Department in the near future.
G-APDK is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 07:56
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 51
Could the Low Cost airport group that is City Hopper do something about it?

Thay have turned BLK into a thriving regional airport - fastest growing in the UK. They are working on Wolverhampton at the moment, whats to say they don't fancy Cambridge?

BAA, MAG and Peel Holdings maybe joined by another growing airport group!
jet2_at_blk is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 09:08
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: STN
Posts: 258
Cambridge played a huge roll as operational airport for Ryanair
and GO/Easyjet when Stansted played host to the hijacked afgan
aircraft, flights Arr/Dep Cambridge with full loads so the runway is not a problem as far as I can see, however the flights were all checked in and boarded onto busses at Stansted. Arrivals were fun with the one tiny 3-4 foot long baggage reclaim belt and they only had one set of a/c steps
for the B737.

If and its a huge if, FR or EZY were to move some/all operations from Stansted to cambridge this would be a very long way off and would also free up some much needed slots at Stansted, I cant see any airline giving up these prime slot at a major London airport with good road and rail links to the city.
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 09:31
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 51
I don't think anybody was suggesting that they move ALL operations.

Shortly, STN will reach it's current maximum capacity of 25m pax per annum. If FR, EZY or AB are wanting to expand further from the airport, they may have to move some to of their servies.

Personally, I don't see what is wrong with LTN, but if Cambridge can offer the goods, I am sure EZY etc would take it.

Maybe FR will move it's domestic services such as BLK, NQY, PIK and Londonderry to the airport. This would free up alto of slots at STN, as BLK flies (x2), NQY (X1), PIK (x5) and Londonderry (x2).

IF FR were to go into long haul, then 10 turnaround slots would be great for starters!

Base two a/c, with the PIK aircraft operating the PIK flights.

Would you have ever guessed this at Blackpool Airport:

*Final call for Ryaniar flight 2757 to Cambridge.*

Especially with a 738!!!!!

Anyway, will probably never happen!
jet2_at_blk is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 10:22
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 948
Frankly, if FR or other airlines were thinking of using any airport with a similar driving distance from London, KIA Manston would offer both longer runway and totally different catchment area...
eu01 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 15:41
  #12 (permalink)  
Buzz off with BAF!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Essex England
Posts: 223
KIA Manston?!! It's a different catchment area alright, it's just that
there is nobody in it!!

Perhaps Marshall International could sustain a low level loco operation,
but neither EZY or RYR do anything at low level.
tilewood is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2007, 23:05
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 94
Living in Cambridge for a long time now I believe that with the power that the university has in this town then such plans for the airport would take a lot to materialise. Also it is mentioned that the runway is 2000m however there is no more room to expand the runway as there are roads leading into town at either end which maybe a problem.
In my opinion great idea but will never happen
xxx5572 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2007, 07:27
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,947
City Hopper and Wolverhampton

Apologies for straying off topic, but what are they up to at Wolverhampton??
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 4th Mar 2007, 07:41
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Isle Du Cyber
Posts: 933
Angel Cambridge Schedules

It as sounds possible.

The inferstrructure would have to be put in place like security being a major player in this.

Customs we as mensioned if it was for domestic ops customs not required but would customs see it like that?

At the end of the day to get to regular operations who would be willing to foot the bill Marshalls? I don,t think so it would be an outsider.

Cambridge was never an airfield way back in the seventies that had and sort of commercial movement I remember Intra daks and Viscounts down to the Channel Islands during the Summer months two of three times a week but not much else.
GBALU53 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2007, 08:17
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 56
Posts: 3,137


Odd this but if the link works it is dated October 2005: -

However I thought it was last year, there must be a follow story in respect of attracting airlines. Basically it said no current plans to
improve facilities to attract lo cost airlines.

Sorry to be vague

OltonPete is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 15:03
  #17 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 44
Posts: 1,946
"1) the runway at Cambridge is just under 2000m long, capable of handling empty B747s for maintenance, but only just on limits for the Ryanair & EZY fleet, both of whom demand a 2000m runway for their Ops."

Would guess there'd be quite a vocal noise lobby at the southern end of the runway, but the airport's proximity to the city could also be a real advantage in terms of surface access.

Surely this has to be BE's territory above all else? Quick check in times, minimal ground delays both airside and landside, could even offer some bike taxis to keep traffic objectors quiet. Only problem would be that Q400s might get drowned out by the noise of the objectors. Has to be a more affluent / accessible catchment than SEN?
jabird is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2007, 18:17
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Sir Arthur Marshall - R.I.P.

TRIBUTES to Cambridge legend Sir Arthur Marshall, who died yesterday (Friday, 16 March) at the age of 103, have been pouring in.

For almost half-a-century he ran Marshall of Cambridge, the aerospace and garage empire founded by his father, David.

"He inspired a close relationship between Marshall and the university which is manifested in what is nowadays called the Sir Arthur Marshall Institute for Aeronautics."

For nearly half-a-century, he ran the aerospace and garage empire his father David founded, and even after his retirement, in his eighties, he continued to play a leading role in the community as well as working seven days a week.

As a young man he was mad keen on what was then a relatively new form of transport
* flying. And having obtained his pilot's licence in 1928, he and his father bought their first aircraft the following year, a de Havilland Gipsy Moth.

Soon after buying the aircraft, Mr Marshall senior snapped up a swathe of land near the family home in Newmarket Road - Whitehill Farm, which duly became Cambridge's first aerodrome.

Arthur combined his work in the family garage with giving flying instruction in his spare time, and an expansion of the aviation business led to the purchase of more land just outside Cambridge in 1935, on which the present Cambridge Airport was developed.

He started giving flying lessons after completing only 70 hours himself, and he was made a Master Instructor by the Guild of Air Pilots in 1931.

His first pupil was Norman de Bruyne, a junior bursar at Trinity College, who subsequently developed specialised glues and bonding for aircraft such as the Mosquito.

When the Second World War came along, Marshall's played a came along, Marshall's played a key role in training pilots and flying instructors. It became Britain's biggest Elementary Flying Training School, turning out more than 20,000 pilots and instructors. Guided by Sir Arthur, the firm also became the UK's largest aircraft repairer, fixing or converting 5,000 aeroplanes during the war years.

Sir Arthur became chairman of the company after his father's death in 1942, and stayed in the top job until he retired in 1989.

He established a vehicle body building division, Marshall Specialist Vehicles, which grew to become a major supplier to the Ministry of Defence, and also developed the aircraft business, Marshall Aerospace, into one of the leading firms in its field.

In the 1960s, Marshall's was involved in the construction of Concorde, and in 1982, when Argentina invaded the Falklands, the firm was drafted in to re-equip the RAF's workhorse aeroplane, the Hercules.

Sir Arthur received many honours during his life. He was made an OBE in 1948, and in 1969 was appointed High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire.

Five years later came his knighthood, for services to the aviation industry
* and in 1988, he was made an honorary Fellow of his old college, Jesus.
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2007, 20:01
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Busy GA Airfield!

Spent a couple of days in Cambridge recently, and was surprised just how busy Cambridge airfield was.
On the Friday afternoon the circuit was constantly in use, with singles, business twins and helicopters.
Again on the Sunday whilst being a "tourist" at Angelsey Abbey, situated under the approach to runway 23, the circuit was constantly busy with varied GA traffic.
Not that Marshalls would necessarily want to extend the runway, but from the road back into Cambridge that passes close to the 23 thresh-hold, it looked to me that an extension to the North-East would be quite feasible, but of course expensive, with road diversions or tunnels, but otherwise open countryside.

Lets hope it remains an active airfield, and is not turned into a housing estate.
As another poster mentioned, the Uni's have much power in Cambridge, and I would not be surprised if one of the Colleges actually owns the land. They own much land in and around Cambridge. (And if they do so own, may well have a say in what happens there).

EGCA is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2007, 23:32
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Marshalls own every inch of Cambridge Airport and a significant amount of the surrounding land.
The runway will never be extended and there's little chance in the immediate to long term future of the airport becoming housing, for the reason's already given.

God bless Sir Arthur, without him it all never would have happened, all aspects of Aviation owe him a siginficant debt of honour..
niknak is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.