MANSTON -2
niknak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not, the current revenue stream does not cover the operating costs of the airport.
Like it or not, the future revenue forecasts do not appear to be able to fund the operating costs of the company.
It's all very well having ideas and asperations of what could happen in the most optomistic quarters of your non commercial fantasies, but the fact is that Manston is costing it's owners a huge amount of cash to operate each month and, with no profit margin upon the horizon, it can't go on this way.
Like any other business that can't justify it's existence, hard decisions have to be made in the boardroom or by the banks - the end is nigh.
Like it or not, the future revenue forecasts do not appear to be able to fund the operating costs of the company.
It's all very well having ideas and asperations of what could happen in the most optomistic quarters of your non commercial fantasies, but the fact is that Manston is costing it's owners a huge amount of cash to operate each month and, with no profit margin upon the horizon, it can't go on this way.
Like any other business that can't justify it's existence, hard decisions have to be made in the boardroom or by the banks - the end is nigh.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end is nigh?
nn
Unless you are on the board of Infratil you will have no idea on the discussions.
The amount of money being lost at MSE at present is a spit in the ocean compared to Inftratils other highly profitable ventures.
There has been lots of talk on this board about how wonderful the prospects at Lydd are, but ZD makes 15 people redundant! This is probably a shot across the bows of the local council to make them consider more quickly the planning applications. But if Lydd is cutting back on staff and Manston is recruiting surely this tells you something is happening at MSE.
Lydd has been lauded for having the environmental impact survey and for trialing 737 landings but why, they are certainly further behind MSE in the race to become a regional airport. And with the redundancies surely this was a misguided publicity stunt and waste of money.
MDIS
Continuation of: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=265868&page=17
Unless you are on the board of Infratil you will have no idea on the discussions.
The amount of money being lost at MSE at present is a spit in the ocean compared to Inftratils other highly profitable ventures.
There has been lots of talk on this board about how wonderful the prospects at Lydd are, but ZD makes 15 people redundant! This is probably a shot across the bows of the local council to make them consider more quickly the planning applications. But if Lydd is cutting back on staff and Manston is recruiting surely this tells you something is happening at MSE.
Lydd has been lauded for having the environmental impact survey and for trialing 737 landings but why, they are certainly further behind MSE in the race to become a regional airport. And with the redundancies surely this was a misguided publicity stunt and waste of money.
MDIS
Continuation of: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=265868&page=17
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weevhearditb4
Very interesting that Infratil has loads of money. Why then has it taken over two years to sort out the business plan so the local authority can sort out the 106 agreement which is some Seven years out of date?
The delays in resolving various issues that pertain to the above 106 is causing problems in the local community and these are not the vocal minority or even the vociferious minority.
An EIA MDIS is an acceptable way to develop an airport and i personally do not care if Lydd survives or not - and that more or less goes for Manston, which employs less people now than it ever did. What the majority of the people of Thanet want is a controlled environment that looks after its wellbeing and currently we do not have that either at the airport or the local infrastructure.
How effective the local authority has been over these issues and others in the local area will be resolved on May the 3...now that is going to be more interesting than Manston or Lydd!
The delays in resolving various issues that pertain to the above 106 is causing problems in the local community and these are not the vocal minority or even the vociferious minority.
An EIA MDIS is an acceptable way to develop an airport and i personally do not care if Lydd survives or not - and that more or less goes for Manston, which employs less people now than it ever did. What the majority of the people of Thanet want is a controlled environment that looks after its wellbeing and currently we do not have that either at the airport or the local infrastructure.
How effective the local authority has been over these issues and others in the local area will be resolved on May the 3...now that is going to be more interesting than Manston or Lydd!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weevhearditb4
I fully agree with you that the local residents deserve a controlled environment that looks after its wellbeing.
I do not know why the business plan is 2 years late,but I dont think its because of finances, however on reading the notes from the local council website the following was found
"Thanet District Council and Planestation, operators at Kent International Airport Manston are renewing the 106 Agreement to keep pace with the Airport's development.
This is a voluntary move on the part of the Airport who have expressed a wish to work in partnership with the Council to reach an Agreement that will provide safeguards for the environment of Thanet and its community"
As this was a voluntary move by Planestation are Infratil bound to renew or renegotiate the agreement? I dont know!
Can you enlighten me on what is happening on May 3rd?
MDIS
I fully agree with you that the local residents deserve a controlled environment that looks after its wellbeing.
I do not know why the business plan is 2 years late,but I dont think its because of finances, however on reading the notes from the local council website the following was found
"Thanet District Council and Planestation, operators at Kent International Airport Manston are renewing the 106 Agreement to keep pace with the Airport's development.
This is a voluntary move on the part of the Airport who have expressed a wish to work in partnership with the Council to reach an Agreement that will provide safeguards for the environment of Thanet and its community"
As this was a voluntary move by Planestation are Infratil bound to renew or renegotiate the agreement? I dont know!
Can you enlighten me on what is happening on May 3rd?
MDIS
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Isle of Thanet
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we start this one again let's look at the facts
"Section 106 agreement
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a land developer over a related issue. The obligation is sometimes termed as a 'Section 106 agreement'.
Such agreements can cover almost any relevant issue and can include sums of money. Possible examples of S106 agreements could be:
the developer will transfer ownership of an area of woodland to a LPA with a suitable fee to cover its future maintenance
the local authority will restrict the development of an area of land, or permit only specified operations to be carried out on it in the future eg, amenity use
the developer will plant a specified number of trees and maintain them for a number of years
the developer will create a nature reserve
S106 agreements can act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on the developers, often requiring them to minimise the impact on the local community and to carry out tasks which will provide community benefits."
So S106s are not airport-specific. A pal of mine at Thanet District Council (for which elections are taking place on May 3rd - pay attention at the back there, MDIS) tells me that the worst body locally for ignoring S106 commitments is the QEQM Hospital.
With a number of significant developments coming up at the airport (not the freight apron extension, which has extant permission) my guess is that Infratil are keeping their powder dry. There's no point in agreeing a S106 without a bucketful of approved schemes, and the too-vociferous micro-minority of MAG-types get in a lather about anything to do with aviation whilst ignoring issues that have a lot more validity.
"Section 106 agreement
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a land developer over a related issue. The obligation is sometimes termed as a 'Section 106 agreement'.
Such agreements can cover almost any relevant issue and can include sums of money. Possible examples of S106 agreements could be:
the developer will transfer ownership of an area of woodland to a LPA with a suitable fee to cover its future maintenance
the local authority will restrict the development of an area of land, or permit only specified operations to be carried out on it in the future eg, amenity use
the developer will plant a specified number of trees and maintain them for a number of years
the developer will create a nature reserve
S106 agreements can act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on the developers, often requiring them to minimise the impact on the local community and to carry out tasks which will provide community benefits."
So S106s are not airport-specific. A pal of mine at Thanet District Council (for which elections are taking place on May 3rd - pay attention at the back there, MDIS) tells me that the worst body locally for ignoring S106 commitments is the QEQM Hospital.
With a number of significant developments coming up at the airport (not the freight apron extension, which has extant permission) my guess is that Infratil are keeping their powder dry. There's no point in agreeing a S106 without a bucketful of approved schemes, and the too-vociferous micro-minority of MAG-types get in a lather about anything to do with aviation whilst ignoring issues that have a lot more validity.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Section 106 agreement at Manston, or rather a renewal of it, could be voluntary.
As stated above a Section 106 agreement is linked to a planning consent. The conditions of a S106 agreement have to relate to that consent. So for example an application for planning for a new advertising hoarding at the Airport couldn't be linked to the need to build a railway spur.
But it would be possible for a planning consent for say a new passenger terminal to say that the airport will not build another one for 10 years. At the end of 10 years the airport could voluntarily agree to extend that agreement for another 5 years, but it would not strictly be a S106 agreement. And the Airport could not be forced to agree such a term.
So if there is a historic S106 agreement it can only be extended if the Airport agrees to do so voluntarily.
Obviously if the airport applies for any planning consent in the future the Council can seek to agree new S106 agreements with them.
Also the airport has the ability to appeal any decision on a planning consent to the government, and if that happens a S106 agreement may not be agreed, or could be superceded. It is therefore in the interest of the COuncil to work with the Airport, and whilst they may not get the best solution (in the view of the Council and local residents) if they didn;t do they could end up with something a lot worse!
As stated above a Section 106 agreement is linked to a planning consent. The conditions of a S106 agreement have to relate to that consent. So for example an application for planning for a new advertising hoarding at the Airport couldn't be linked to the need to build a railway spur.
But it would be possible for a planning consent for say a new passenger terminal to say that the airport will not build another one for 10 years. At the end of 10 years the airport could voluntarily agree to extend that agreement for another 5 years, but it would not strictly be a S106 agreement. And the Airport could not be forced to agree such a term.
So if there is a historic S106 agreement it can only be extended if the Airport agrees to do so voluntarily.
Obviously if the airport applies for any planning consent in the future the Council can seek to agree new S106 agreements with them.
Also the airport has the ability to appeal any decision on a planning consent to the government, and if that happens a S106 agreement may not be agreed, or could be superceded. It is therefore in the interest of the COuncil to work with the Airport, and whilst they may not get the best solution (in the view of the Council and local residents) if they didn;t do they could end up with something a lot worse!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok catflaps, suppose you are in right in what you believe is the correct translation the 106 agreement..... and given your normal anti manston posts it's a big ask, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
What is your problem??
If it is soooo binding as you say it is, why havent the council jumped on this, or shut the airport down, or levied a fine....or something !!!
How can it be that such a big fuss is made over an agreement that one side doesnt agree to?
I appreciate that you are getting your knickers in a twist over this and are quite happy to ramble on post after post about it, BUT it obviously doesnt suit Infratil to enter into this agreement right at this moment in time, because maybe, just maybe they have a PLAN.
Some might even call it a business plan, and maybe, just maybe, by entering into this agreement, this will restrict any negotiations that are currently taking place to ensure that Manston has a future, local people have employment and East Kent has a viable Airport, with a scheduled passenger operation in the next year or so.
Any way thats my 2 peneth worth thrown in, my cocoa is gettin cold and it's time for night night...zzzzzzzzz
What is your problem??
If it is soooo binding as you say it is, why havent the council jumped on this, or shut the airport down, or levied a fine....or something !!!
How can it be that such a big fuss is made over an agreement that one side doesnt agree to?
I appreciate that you are getting your knickers in a twist over this and are quite happy to ramble on post after post about it, BUT it obviously doesnt suit Infratil to enter into this agreement right at this moment in time, because maybe, just maybe they have a PLAN.
Some might even call it a business plan, and maybe, just maybe, by entering into this agreement, this will restrict any negotiations that are currently taking place to ensure that Manston has a future, local people have employment and East Kent has a viable Airport, with a scheduled passenger operation in the next year or so.
Any way thats my 2 peneth worth thrown in, my cocoa is gettin cold and it's time for night night...zzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cf
The fines levied for night flying were charged to Planestation and not Infratil. Would I be correct in suggesting that if some non humanitarian night flights took place now that the council could not impose fines on Infratil?
I agree that a new agreement will be more stringent and will close some of the loopholes and shortcomings of the orignal agreement, therefore why on earth would Infratil want a new tighter agreement, when the current facilities and infrastructure could cope with say 600,000 pax per year.
Even the most optimistic posters are agreeing that this could take 2 years to achieve and the negative group say it will never happen! So if it will never happen why do you want a new agreement? It is not difficult to work out why Infratil dont need to re negotiate at the moment? By demanding this agreement it would suggest that the airport will finally be successful and some posters seem opposed to this.
Also Infratil are not knocking on the door of the local council with their begging bowl as Planestation were. Infratil do actually run airports and therefore have the experience to deal with local councils and will not be bullied by a minority opinion in return for some taxpayers money.
MDIS
The fines levied for night flying were charged to Planestation and not Infratil. Would I be correct in suggesting that if some non humanitarian night flights took place now that the council could not impose fines on Infratil?
I agree that a new agreement will be more stringent and will close some of the loopholes and shortcomings of the orignal agreement, therefore why on earth would Infratil want a new tighter agreement, when the current facilities and infrastructure could cope with say 600,000 pax per year.
Even the most optimistic posters are agreeing that this could take 2 years to achieve and the negative group say it will never happen! So if it will never happen why do you want a new agreement? It is not difficult to work out why Infratil dont need to re negotiate at the moment? By demanding this agreement it would suggest that the airport will finally be successful and some posters seem opposed to this.
Also Infratil are not knocking on the door of the local council with their begging bowl as Planestation were. Infratil do actually run airports and therefore have the experience to deal with local councils and will not be bullied by a minority opinion in return for some taxpayers money.
MDIS
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sittingbourne Kent and at Wimborne Dorset
Age: 37
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toptrumps
So why am I getting an Air Atlanta flight number when trying to book
So why am I getting an Air Atlanta flight number when trying to book
Hi Toptrumps, When I book its comes up with the airline code GSW which is Skywings of Greece. If you have Air Atlanta flight numbers coming up then maybe excel will be leasing an MD 83 from Skywings and fly it for them, Excel did last year lsd an MD off Viking I think and flew it for other charters. not sure.
James
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herne Bay
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manston passenger flight start later this week for the summer season, which I understand are well booked, I think this year will see a major change in the fortunes of the airport, Cargo flights are on the up with more airlines coming in, and more charter flights this year.
I note also that a large Hotel is being built at the Prospect Inn site over 200 beds by the airport, someone thinks, Thanet is worth investing in, with the The Travel Lodge just opened at westwood and second one now being built just down the thanet way., I am sure all these bed are not for holidays at Margate.
Jet engine repair factory being built this year. so much going on.
I note also that a large Hotel is being built at the Prospect Inn site over 200 beds by the airport, someone thinks, Thanet is worth investing in, with the The Travel Lodge just opened at westwood and second one now being built just down the thanet way., I am sure all these bed are not for holidays at Margate.
Jet engine repair factory being built this year. so much going on.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MDH
Age: 32
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am in fact booked on the first week of the firs school summer holiday week with my family 
.
I thin my flight might me full as i tryed to get my parent to go and rung up, with an attendant suggestng that there is only one placment left. I wonder whether most of the flights are like this
.I thin my flight might me full as i tryed to get my parent to go and rung up, with an attendant suggestng that there is only one placment left. I wonder whether most of the flights are like this
