DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 5
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear for DTV's future as a passenger handling airport. Does it still have the trooping flights as well as the other operations mentioned? Soon it might become uneconomic to employ security staff/offer customs services etc for just the AMS flights. Is there much business traffic via executive flights?
Last edited by Jamesair; 10th Oct 2013 at 22:56.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always said it and I will say it again. Peel are a property development company and they will do whatever with the land that will give them the best return. And they will apply for as many government handouts as part of that process.
It wouldn't take much to make Teeside GA friendly but its quite obvious that they haven't even made any effort in that direction either.
It wouldn't take much to make Teeside GA friendly but its quite obvious that they haven't even made any effort in that direction either.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That winter a couple of years ago an error was made which caused the large-scale closures, it was a one off.
DTVA are perfectly capable of keeping the airport open during snow, as proved last winter and the ones prior to 2010. When we do close, we're usually not alone and others are also!!
DTVA are perfectly capable of keeping the airport open during snow, as proved last winter and the ones prior to 2010. When we do close, we're usually not alone and others are also!!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hartlepool
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DTV I think the world be watching this winters DTV operations with interest.
One point that has been brought up a number of times on this thread is what was contained in the Peel DTV purchase contract with the councils?
With it being kept so quiet about what was in the document one can only summise that it may have a clause which some ex bosses made money out of the deal?
Before someone thinks such a thing is impossible, I draw your attention to the latest £6m bonus which was paid to the ex newcastle board director under a special contract clause.
Newcastle failed to claw the money back in court.
Newcastle Airport Loses Multi-Million Pound High Court Battle - Sky Tyne and Wear
It did make me wonder?
Quote from the court case -
"Furthermore it adds that the real reason Newcastle Airport suffered loss was because its non-executive directors failed to carry out their obligations to the company."
Have any of the ex DTV directors got holiday homes in the Maldives or has the original DTV sale contract been shredded?
I find it very odd that Peel managed to place the share hand over clause if the councils didnt come up with more money than Peel paid for DTV in the first place?
Can the MP's find out before DTV closes its doors?
One point that has been brought up a number of times on this thread is what was contained in the Peel DTV purchase contract with the councils?
With it being kept so quiet about what was in the document one can only summise that it may have a clause which some ex bosses made money out of the deal?
Before someone thinks such a thing is impossible, I draw your attention to the latest £6m bonus which was paid to the ex newcastle board director under a special contract clause.
Newcastle failed to claw the money back in court.
Newcastle Airport Loses Multi-Million Pound High Court Battle - Sky Tyne and Wear
It did make me wonder?
Quote from the court case -
"Furthermore it adds that the real reason Newcastle Airport suffered loss was because its non-executive directors failed to carry out their obligations to the company."
Have any of the ex DTV directors got holiday homes in the Maldives or has the original DTV sale contract been shredded?
I find it very odd that Peel managed to place the share hand over clause if the councils didnt come up with more money than Peel paid for DTV in the first place?
Can the MP's find out before DTV closes its doors?
So what now? If Peel do pull the plug which most people think will happen, what if anything can the minority share holders do about it, anything? or just wring their hands and shake their heads?
Brilliant..
Cabby says it all...where are all the investigative journalists?
The whole thing smells and points to one thing. Closure..
New government policies re the housing market are playing right into peels hands,
Build it and they will come....or maybe. Bide your time and riches will be ours!!!
The whole thing smells and points to one thing. Closure..
New government policies re the housing market are playing right into peels hands,
Build it and they will come....or maybe. Bide your time and riches will be ours!!!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at a map of the Teesside area, there are plenty of places where houses could be built that are closer to the centres of Stockton, M'boro & Darlo, so I'm not sure it actually is prime building land. Even if it was, the airfield is so large that Peel could flog off large parts of it and still have enough room to run a busy airport (and build a 747-size hangar if needed).
Is the airfield south of the runway still owned by the airport?
Is the airfield south of the runway still owned by the airport?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jensdad - Sunderland Airfield was one of the most successful airfields of its size back in the day, and there was more than one location around Sunderland that was much better suited to a car manufacturing operation, so I don't think location would make a difference.
N707ZS - 500k is nothing to Peel, they have that kind of money to throw away, I don't understand accounting but I think I could be accurate in saying they probably made it a tax write-off?
Peel won't pull the plug on the airport because they can't, for reasons I'm not prepared to go into as it's been discussed to death on here, the terminal however, in my opinion, is doomed
N707ZS - 500k is nothing to Peel, they have that kind of money to throw away, I don't understand accounting but I think I could be accurate in saying they probably made it a tax write-off?
Peel won't pull the plug on the airport because they can't, for reasons I'm not prepared to go into as it's been discussed to death on here, the terminal however, in my opinion, is doomed
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"To change the use of the land they'd need to get planning permission from ???"
Well, yes, from the local planning authority (council), except that:
1/ a housing development would offer substantial council tax income, as would industrial when the new business rate regs come into force.
2/ there would have to be very good valid planning reasons to refuse permission, or risk the expense of a planning appeal, which would certainly be lost if there weren't good planning reasons for refusal.
3/ as a nominally regional facility, any application might be "called-in" by the Sec of State (currently Mr Pickles) for determination by him rather than the councils.
Well, yes, from the local planning authority (council), except that:
1/ a housing development would offer substantial council tax income, as would industrial when the new business rate regs come into force.
2/ there would have to be very good valid planning reasons to refuse permission, or risk the expense of a planning appeal, which would certainly be lost if there weren't good planning reasons for refusal.
3/ as a nominally regional facility, any application might be "called-in" by the Sec of State (currently Mr Pickles) for determination by him rather than the councils.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
LRW mention DTV passenger figures of a million, which Peel also do on their own company websites so Peel may be providing the passenger information to LRW
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beafer
I think you perhaps omitted the most telling para :-
The key point not stressed is support what ?, In retrospect there would appear to be a clear case that Peel never had any intention, at least on the civil aviation side, of developing DTV. This is supported by the lack of investment and commitment demonstrated by Peel.
A simple analogy, if one were to acquire a shop on the "High Street" requiring investment in the building, stock, marketing & management, but instead do nothing i.e. carry out none of these, and simply open the doors for business. Then then upon noting that no one is coming in to purchase, shout out loud and clear attributing blame everywhere else instead of looking in the mirror......
Obviously a more rational explanation to the above is that they are both property developers who see a much greater return on demolition & rebuilding of the site...........
I think you perhaps omitted the most telling para :-
The message is clear: we will endeavour to keep the airport open but it will require local business, councils’ and the residents’ support.
A simple analogy, if one were to acquire a shop on the "High Street" requiring investment in the building, stock, marketing & management, but instead do nothing i.e. carry out none of these, and simply open the doors for business. Then then upon noting that no one is coming in to purchase, shout out loud and clear attributing blame everywhere else instead of looking in the mirror......
Obviously a more rational explanation to the above is that they are both property developers who see a much greater return on demolition & rebuilding of the site...........
Peel brought in bmiBaby who then pulled out because they could make more money elsewhere, Peel brought in Globespan who went bust and nobody came in to pick up the pieces - the likely alternatives were established at LBA and NCL, who have now expanded to fill any gap.
Sure Peel know how to develop land - look what they've done at LPL, a better comparison for DTVA than Sheffield that people bang on about (underused airport, plenty of land, major rival just up the road), just at different points in the economic cycle.
Plenty of space at DTVA for development and Peel will probably make more if it is centred around an active airport, but where's the market for flights? The 900k in 2006 have now moved elsewhere and even at those levels the airlines weren't making money (or enough money!)
Sure Peel know how to develop land - look what they've done at LPL, a better comparison for DTVA than Sheffield that people bang on about (underused airport, plenty of land, major rival just up the road), just at different points in the economic cycle.
Plenty of space at DTVA for development and Peel will probably make more if it is centred around an active airport, but where's the market for flights? The 900k in 2006 have now moved elsewhere and even at those levels the airlines weren't making money (or enough money!)
My understanding is it is a book adjustment to the value of the company, but hopefully somebody who's knowledge of accountancy is a bit more up to date than mine will confirm.
When a company buys an asset, they will record the value of the asset on their balance sheet as an asset. That asset, like a piece of land, over time can increase or decrease in value. If the company can prove the piece of land increased in value under their ownership it can be recognised as a profit in the annual accounts. Equally a piece of land that declines in value should likely be recorded as a loss in the annual accounts - also known as an impairment charge. If a company legally sells ownership of the piece of land, they must formally calculate the difference between what they thought it was worth and how much they actually received from the new owner.
Impairment charges are typically 'non-cash' items, meaning they are used by companies to allow shareholders to get a fair picture of what's going on with the company even if no cash has actually changed hands.
As an example, suppose you had bought a house in 2007 for £100k at the height of the boom and then spent £50k doing it up but its value in 2009 was just £110k. Even if you still retained ownership of the house, you would have spent £150k to end up with a house worth £110k and so made a loss of £40,000 on your investment of buying a house and the cost of doing it up, even if house ownership had not changed between 2007 and 2009. That loss in value of your house (ie £40k) is the impairment charge.
Impairment charges are typically 'non-cash' items, meaning they are used by companies to allow shareholders to get a fair picture of what's going on with the company even if no cash has actually changed hands.
As an example, suppose you had bought a house in 2007 for £100k at the height of the boom and then spent £50k doing it up but its value in 2009 was just £110k. Even if you still retained ownership of the house, you would have spent £150k to end up with a house worth £110k and so made a loss of £40,000 on your investment of buying a house and the cost of doing it up, even if house ownership had not changed between 2007 and 2009. That loss in value of your house (ie £40k) is the impairment charge.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 13th Oct 2013 at 23:19.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Here there and everywhere!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they ever did decide to dig up DTVA, they'll have to wait a long time.
What's buried under there won't be allowed to be simply shoveled away. It would take an age to excavate what lies under the South Side!!
I've spoken at length to the guy who buried them!!
What's buried under there won't be allowed to be simply shoveled away. It would take an age to excavate what lies under the South Side!!
I've spoken at length to the guy who buried them!!