DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 5
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabby some excellent posts !
I also wondered as to what planet Bill Dixon was on, I feel that it may be as simple as "open mouth without engaging brain" .
My view is that since 2003 the management of DTV has been totally inept, whether by those appointed to official positions at DTV, or those to whom they were answerable on whatever council committee.
Once they signed the conttact to sell 75% or whatever %age to Peel, they were out of their depth & from that moment on they lost control, just as in any business that once you have 75% control, and are thus able to pass "Special Resolutions".
Upon signing all the councils became ineffective in their ability to have any effective say in the management of DTV, simply that ! there is no conspiracy theory as to their subsequent rolls as some would suggest.
However I feel that there is a great deal that requires explanation as to the events "pre 2003" that led up to the signing of what has proved in retrospect to be a fundamentally flawed sale agreement in particular HL's involvement.
It has been noted on the forum that there are similarities to events "up the road", it should be noted that in this case an attempt to bring those legal representatives advising the airport failed, basically due to the incompetence of certain employees occupying high positions. Unfortunately given the time lapse and potentially that it may not be in the "best interests"
of the councils to go down this road, then nothing will come of this. One can't really say that Peel have now won & obtained delevopment land for virtually nothing.
More like Peel won back in 2003 when the councils signed the contract of sale.
Why did the darlington council leader come out with the comment that if the public dont use the flights what do you expect. Has he become a Peel convert?
My view is that since 2003 the management of DTV has been totally inept, whether by those appointed to official positions at DTV, or those to whom they were answerable on whatever council committee.
Once they signed the conttact to sell 75% or whatever %age to Peel, they were out of their depth & from that moment on they lost control, just as in any business that once you have 75% control, and are thus able to pass "Special Resolutions".
Upon signing all the councils became ineffective in their ability to have any effective say in the management of DTV, simply that ! there is no conspiracy theory as to their subsequent rolls as some would suggest.
However I feel that there is a great deal that requires explanation as to the events "pre 2003" that led up to the signing of what has proved in retrospect to be a fundamentally flawed sale agreement in particular HL's involvement.
It has been noted on the forum that there are similarities to events "up the road", it should be noted that in this case an attempt to bring those legal representatives advising the airport failed, basically due to the incompetence of certain employees occupying high positions. Unfortunately given the time lapse and potentially that it may not be in the "best interests"
of the councils to go down this road, then nothing will come of this. One can't really say that Peel have now won & obtained delevopment land for virtually nothing. More like Peel won back in 2003 when the councils signed the contract of sale.
While those who believe DTV may have been doomed ever since the local Govt sold the airport to Peel, it's worth considering a separate aspect. An airport is simply a transport facility - it does not have a magic right to exist. A passenger airport is sustainable only if there are enough people with enough money who want to fly places. Running and maintaining an airport is expensive - if those costs cannot be funded ultimately from there being lots of passengers paying money to the airport via their tickets, then the airport will slowly shrink and die.
Where are the growth businesses with corporate cash to pay for business fares ? Where are the international corporate headquarters ? Where are the companies selling software to rival silicon valley ? Where are the locals earning over £50k per year with a high propensity to travel ?
I seem to recall reading that Redcar was one of the most vulnerable areas of the UK following the credit crunch in 2008. The NE of England doesn't have anywhere near as many people or as much economic activity as Manchester - to equate the two is just a dream.
Even 10 years ago, there was barely a real need for DTV to exist in addition to NCL. The UK mainland has far more passenger airports than Germany despite its much smaller population and land area; there are simply too many passenger airports in the UK, and economics has simply asserted itself over time.
Where are the growth businesses with corporate cash to pay for business fares ? Where are the international corporate headquarters ? Where are the companies selling software to rival silicon valley ? Where are the locals earning over £50k per year with a high propensity to travel ?
I seem to recall reading that Redcar was one of the most vulnerable areas of the UK following the credit crunch in 2008. The NE of England doesn't have anywhere near as many people or as much economic activity as Manchester - to equate the two is just a dream.
Even 10 years ago, there was barely a real need for DTV to exist in addition to NCL. The UK mainland has far more passenger airports than Germany despite its much smaller population and land area; there are simply too many passenger airports in the UK, and economics has simply asserted itself over time.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davidjohnson6
You may be correct in the fundamentals, though dual existence or not, is now largely irrelevant. What you totally miss is that one can have far fewer number of airports supporting far larger areas of population as long as they are served by a fully integrated transport structure, something the North East as a whole has failed abysmally in this respect, then any comparison with Germany in particular is meaningless !!
As a starter for ten consider their road & rail transport infra structure.
Even 10 years ago, there was barely a real need for DTV to exist in addition to NCL. The UK mainland has far more passenger airports than Germany despite its much smaller population and land area; there are simply too many passenger airports in the UK, and economics has simply asserted itself over time
As a starter for ten consider their road & rail transport infra structure.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Durham
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt mainland UK has a lot fewer passenger airports than Germany. If you drew up a list of German airports Ryanair has flown to in recent years there are plenty in a similarly category to MME - Lubeck, Weeze, Altenburg, Erfurt etc. Spain and France have probably even more surplus airports.
At the risk of thread drift...
Germany (26) - RLG, SXF, TXL, LEJ, DRS, CSO, LBC, HAM, BRE, DTM, DUS, PAD, FMO, SCN, ZQW, CGN, NRN, FRA, HHN, FKB, STR, HAJ, FMM, MUC, NUE, ERF
German population - 80 million
German land area - 357,000 sq km
German GDP - $3.23 trillion
England (25) - BHX, BLK, BOH, BRS, DSA, MME, EMA, EXT, HUY, LBA, LPL, LCY, LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN, STN, MAN, MSE, NCL, NQY, NWI, SOU, CBG, GLO
Scotland (6) - ABZ, EDI, GLA, PIK, INV, DND
Wales (2) - CWL, VLY
N Ireland (3) - BFS, BHD, LDY
UK total - 36
UK population - 63 million
UK land area - 244,000 sq km
UK GDP - $2.49 trillion
I'm ignoring airports that are very remote / on small islands, or which have extremely low levels of commercial passenger service (e.g Lydd in Kent)
The UK has almost 38% more airports yet it also has 21% less population, 32% less land area and 23% less GDP
I really believe that DTV is just one of those airports which comes under the "too many airports" category
Spain is not a good example for deciding how many airports to have. Look up Castellon, Ciudad Real, Lleida and other airports to get an idea as to why
Germany (26) - RLG, SXF, TXL, LEJ, DRS, CSO, LBC, HAM, BRE, DTM, DUS, PAD, FMO, SCN, ZQW, CGN, NRN, FRA, HHN, FKB, STR, HAJ, FMM, MUC, NUE, ERF
German population - 80 million
German land area - 357,000 sq km
German GDP - $3.23 trillion
England (25) - BHX, BLK, BOH, BRS, DSA, MME, EMA, EXT, HUY, LBA, LPL, LCY, LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN, STN, MAN, MSE, NCL, NQY, NWI, SOU, CBG, GLO
Scotland (6) - ABZ, EDI, GLA, PIK, INV, DND
Wales (2) - CWL, VLY
N Ireland (3) - BFS, BHD, LDY
UK total - 36
UK population - 63 million
UK land area - 244,000 sq km
UK GDP - $2.49 trillion
I'm ignoring airports that are very remote / on small islands, or which have extremely low levels of commercial passenger service (e.g Lydd in Kent)
The UK has almost 38% more airports yet it also has 21% less population, 32% less land area and 23% less GDP
I really believe that DTV is just one of those airports which comes under the "too many airports" category
Spain is not a good example for deciding how many airports to have. Look up Castellon, Ciudad Real, Lleida and other airports to get an idea as to why
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 30th Oct 2013 at 13:47.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire cover
Where are you going with this? It would seem you have an issue with the police helicopter.
I often see numerous helicopters at public events, a racecourse being a good example, they don't have fire facilities & it isn't a big deal, so why make it out to be?
Where are you going with this? It would seem you have an issue with the police helicopter.
I often see numerous helicopters at public events, a racecourse being a good example, they don't have fire facilities & it isn't a big deal, so why make it out to be?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will it come back on Peel if there is a crash involving ploddy on a night and there is no fire cover at DTV? Wonder if the local PCC's know or even care if its legal??
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 30th Oct 2013 at 17:06.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Durham
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'masterplan' confirmed. Small planes and small terminal only. Durham Tees Valley Airport confirms end of charter flights (From The Northern Echo)
Durham Tees Valley Airport scraps ALL mainstream holiday flights - Gazette Live
Can't believe there will be much demand for shopping.
Durham Tees Valley Airport scraps ALL mainstream holiday flights - Gazette Live
Can't believe there will be much demand for shopping.
Last edited by apaul; 30th Oct 2013 at 16:25.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These will enable us to work towards expanding and diversifying our aviation and non-aviation activities across a broader base and grow back passenger services
The fact that the Jersey is to continue but not the Balkan or Thompson seems to firmly point to this being a cost cutting measure, probably around fire cover - especially if the BE sticks to its mid-afternoon schedule, slap bag in the middle of the gap between the morning and evening KLM, so you can't even lock uo the terminal for the duration (do you even need the terminal building any more for less than 100 pax at a time - couple of posh portakabins?)
Also only pax flights (those on an AOC with over 19 pax?) need fire cover, otherwise at your own risk.
Also only pax flights (those on an AOC with over 19 pax?) need fire cover, otherwise at your own risk.
The issue raised is why do other airline operators need fire cover to fly into DTV at NIGHT and plod don't when the airport is closed and there is nobody around?
YS
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the MOD large aircraft charters moved elsewhere? This must be a bit of business worth hanging on to, I expect they must need a high category fire cover.
Any potential new operators will have seen how TOM/BGH have been treated and won't touch the place now I wouldnt have thought.
MOD charters
They will bribe the firemen to come in for these,it's happened before.
They are on call anyway...if they had any sense they would look elsewhere,but that's easy for me to say.
It's a shambles and really it would guess most of us are lost for words.would you in your right mind book a jersey flight or any flight for that matter from such an unprofessional place?
It's reputation in the airline/aviation world must be rock bottom now...
Let's hope eastern and klm think the same as peel or else it's curtains
They are on call anyway...if they had any sense they would look elsewhere,but that's easy for me to say.
It's a shambles and really it would guess most of us are lost for words.would you in your right mind book a jersey flight or any flight for that matter from such an unprofessional place?
It's reputation in the airline/aviation world must be rock bottom now...
Let's hope eastern and klm think the same as peel or else it's curtains
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Teesside
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much more to add
I think everything has pretty much been said but my concluding thoughts on this week's fiasco is such.
I remain convinced the owners needed a radical change of direction to create a sustainable future and any decision was likely to have been met with disappointment. So, no major surprises in that this week and there is a chance their plan could work.
BUT
The way this whole thing has been handled has been horrendous. Take away the merits of the decision, there has been little in the way of explanation; the way the airlines and passengers have been treated mean the decision is almost irreversible; all the publicity was made by everyone else before the airport got their act together; the damage done to the confidence of KLM and its passengers remains to be seen and throughout all this, we're barely any wiser as to what the master plan is, despite the articles today.
An operational and PR balls up of the highest order!!
I remain convinced the owners needed a radical change of direction to create a sustainable future and any decision was likely to have been met with disappointment. So, no major surprises in that this week and there is a chance their plan could work.
BUT
The way this whole thing has been handled has been horrendous. Take away the merits of the decision, there has been little in the way of explanation; the way the airlines and passengers have been treated mean the decision is almost irreversible; all the publicity was made by everyone else before the airport got their act together; the damage done to the confidence of KLM and its passengers remains to be seen and throughout all this, we're barely any wiser as to what the master plan is, despite the articles today.
An operational and PR balls up of the highest order!!
the damage done to the confidence of KLM and its passengers remains to be seen and throughout all this, we're barely any wiser as to what the master plan is, despite the articles today.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*IF* Peel can pull it off, what Mr Gill describes as the future direction of the airport in the Northern Echo article sounds fair enough, providing they can start bringing in the extra business.
At the end of the day, it's a business that isn't making money, they've identified the area that's not making money, and done something about it. It's not like they haven't tried to gain more holiday flights, but they're not forthcoming and that's not likely to change given the state the industry is in, so they've taken action. Sure Peel may have very deep pockets, but there is only so long you can justify sustaining a £2m annual loss.
As for the way it's been handled, a fiasco as P330 put it, well this forum could well be to blame for that, I've heard this news was to be announced as part of the masterplan but someone working at the airport leaked it on here, the press picked it up and Peel's hand was forced.
I know I'll get shot down for trying to defend Peel (believe me I often wonder why I bother) but the fact remains that 8 in every 10 posters on here are 'arm-chair CEOs' who think they know best but simply don't know the full facts of any given situation.
At the end of the day, it's a business that isn't making money, they've identified the area that's not making money, and done something about it. It's not like they haven't tried to gain more holiday flights, but they're not forthcoming and that's not likely to change given the state the industry is in, so they've taken action. Sure Peel may have very deep pockets, but there is only so long you can justify sustaining a £2m annual loss.
As for the way it's been handled, a fiasco as P330 put it, well this forum could well be to blame for that, I've heard this news was to be announced as part of the masterplan but someone working at the airport leaked it on here, the press picked it up and Peel's hand was forced.
I know I'll get shot down for trying to defend Peel (believe me I often wonder why I bother) but the fact remains that 8 in every 10 posters on here are 'arm-chair CEOs' who think they know best but simply don't know the full facts of any given situation.