DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 5
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Police heli ops are non public transport and so do not need fire cover, just like a pure freight flight do not need fire cover. Unless the 'company' flight manual says fire cover needed then non public transport can land take off with zero AFS CAT!
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point N707ZS. I've now re-phrased it as a comment specific to DTV as under.
I understand that British police helicopters are flown by non-police officers most, perhaps all, former military helicopter pilots as was the case in the recent Glasgow tragedy.
I presume the police helicopter pilots using DTV are such people.
Given that they are professional pilots and highly experienced it's most unlikely in my view that they would be prepared to fly if they believed that fire or other regulations were not being met.
I understand that British police helicopters are flown by non-police officers most, perhaps all, former military helicopter pilots as was the case in the recent Glasgow tragedy.
I presume the police helicopter pilots using DTV are such people.
Given that they are professional pilots and highly experienced it's most unlikely in my view that they would be prepared to fly if they believed that fire or other regulations were not being met.
Last edited by MerchantVenturer; 3rd Jan 2014 at 10:56. Reason: syntax
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Highwideandugly
Seems to me there is a significant drift off topic, relevant as the continued operation of the police helicopter may be, it seems to me to be a complete sideshow.
Surely the main issue has to to be as to whether the operation of DTV as an active airport can remain viable is the fundamental issue.
Now I have seen all this "propaganda" put out by Peel as to the master plan, but what one isn't shown is the BUSINESS PLAN to support this viability. This should be a pretty simple task for Peel, after all the variance in the likely no. of flights & pax for the future YoY is somewhere "arround Nil" based on current 150k pax p.a. level. Thus as regards future revenue then this is likely to be fairly fixed, as airport charges are known & future overheads & staffing presumably also now identifiable.
Thus leaving out the finance costs (incl Peel Group overhead charges
), then Peel should be able to put out a commercial case to support their stated interest in keeping the airport in operation as a viable entity in itself. Indeeed it is they who continue to state that this is the purpose of downsizeing.
My guess is that the figures don't add up & in reality there is a substantial subsidy required to eliminate an obvious operating loss.
Which goes right back to the beginning to the question "Why would an aggressively commercial organisation such as Peel throw any subsidy into a loss making activity?, if there are
other options open to them.
Figures therefore will stay around the same 150K ish or maybe a slight drop(no holiday flights)
More controversy over the Peel master plan.
More controversy over the Peel master plan.
Surely the main issue has to to be as to whether the operation of DTV as an active airport can remain viable is the fundamental issue.
Now I have seen all this "propaganda" put out by Peel as to the master plan, but what one isn't shown is the BUSINESS PLAN to support this viability. This should be a pretty simple task for Peel, after all the variance in the likely no. of flights & pax for the future YoY is somewhere "arround Nil" based on current 150k pax p.a. level. Thus as regards future revenue then this is likely to be fairly fixed, as airport charges are known & future overheads & staffing presumably also now identifiable.
Thus leaving out the finance costs (incl Peel Group overhead charges
), then Peel should be able to put out a commercial case to support their stated interest in keeping the airport in operation as a viable entity in itself. Indeeed it is they who continue to state that this is the purpose of downsizeing.My guess is that the figures don't add up & in reality there is a substantial subsidy required to eliminate an obvious operating loss.
Which goes right back to the beginning to the question "Why would an aggressively commercial organisation such as Peel throw any subsidy into a loss making activity?, if there are
other options open to them.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Here there and everywhere!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beafer, you do spout some crap on here. If you're that interested in how the Police Air Support Unit operate, instead of asking the man in the village who is so far behind the latest CAP documents, why not give them a call and ask them. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to put your mind at ease and you'll get the answer from the horses mouth rather than the horses arse.
To answer one of your questions; yes there is someone at DTVA who monitors what goes on at night. They are more than competent in calling 999 and having the local authority RFFS attend any incident.
As above RFFS would have done naff all for the Glasgow incident.
To answer one of your questions; yes there is someone at DTVA who monitors what goes on at night. They are more than competent in calling 999 and having the local authority RFFS attend any incident.
As above RFFS would have done naff all for the Glasgow incident.
More lost traffic..
To go along with all the losses from the last few months..it looks like the MOD have also had their fill of DTV. The usual Calgary flight operated from Newcastle today..the end of an other era??
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be correct there highwideandugly, but it's worth noting Newcastle have always had the occasional MoD charter as well.
Must admit though, my first thought was should that have been ours. Still, it's a charter flight and charter flights we no longer handle sadly.
Must admit though, my first thought was should that have been ours. Still, it's a charter flight and charter flights we no longer handle sadly.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northbound A1, OldManJoe's comments are as valid as any on here, he talks more sense than most.
Given the near-identical tone and style of your posts, dare I suggest that you and Beafer are in fact one and the same??
Given the near-identical tone and style of your posts, dare I suggest that you and Beafer are in fact one and the same??
I read the article in the Echo. I can understand local concerns about school places and the GP surgery. However, the situation remains that DTV airport is in a dire state and unlikely to last as a commercial passenger airport for much longer - it's certainly not going to see big growth in passenger numbers. Demand for freight seems low (especially with no Govt money being forthcoming) and fees from a police helicopter are pretty small.
What would the residents of Middleton St George like to see happen to the airport and the land it currently occupies ? Please give a realistic answer - either Peel will want to develop it into an alternate use or sell it to a developer who will do the same. It's not credible and not in the local interest to say that the land should just be left vacant.
What would the residents of Middleton St George like to see happen to the airport and the land it currently occupies ? Please give a realistic answer - either Peel will want to develop it into an alternate use or sell it to a developer who will do the same. It's not credible and not in the local interest to say that the land should just be left vacant.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care enough about this forum to create a second account, frankly, I don't know why I bother keeping this one half the time! Keep clutching at straws Beafer!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Here there and everywhere!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Beafer, only one account on here for me. I couldn't give a flying f*** what you think, or your man in the village or the kitchen for that matter.
Best not get too 'abrasive' or the mods might jump
Best not get too 'abrasive' or the mods might jump
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Police heli ops are non public transport and so do not need fire cover, just like a pure freight flight do not need fire cover. Unless the 'company' flight manual says fire cover needed then non public transport can land take off with zero AFS CAT!
No different to your business man, who has his own helicopter parked next to his house.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Middlesbrough U.K.
Age: 86
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never trust a hippie! You mean one who has become a billionaire who builds profitable companies then sells them on and makes more more money. Surely better than a company who appears to want to run an airport into the ground in order to make more money by selling it down the line for housing to make a rich man even richer, or so it seems unless someone knows better.
The response (if there is one) from Beardie will be that he's focussing very much on transforming Virgin into being a world class rival to BA but thinks DTV is an excellent project *for someone else to engage in*
Why even bother imagining anything will come of talking to Branson... ?
Why even bother imagining anything will come of talking to Branson... ?
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 11th Jan 2014 at 05:52.