DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 5
Why would Jet2 want to have bases at Newcastle, DTV and Leeds ?
Costs a fair bit of cash, incurs management time and adds overall complexity to an airline's business to have an additional base.
Anyone living in Middlesbrough is more than capable of travelling to NCL or LBA for their summer holiday. Why should Jet2 cut their profit margins when they can make the customers come to NCL / LBA instead ?
Costs a fair bit of cash, incurs management time and adds overall complexity to an airline's business to have an additional base.
Anyone living in Middlesbrough is more than capable of travelling to NCL or LBA for their summer holiday. Why should Jet2 cut their profit margins when they can make the customers come to NCL / LBA instead ?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Newcastle
Age: 48
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE] Anyone living in Middlesbrough is more than capable of travelling to NCL or LBA for their summer holiday.[QUOTE]
This is why this airport is in the state it is.
This is why this airport is in the state it is.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davidjohnson6, I understand what you mean, and with the risk that MME would be it could prove to be more costly, hopefully not but still...
To be fair, however, if you look at the locations of Jet2's bases, especially their 3 largest, EMA, LBA and MAN, they are all within 50nm of each other. So they must know what they're doing.
Great Circle Mapper,
To be fair, however, if you look at the locations of Jet2's bases, especially their 3 largest, EMA, LBA and MAN, they are all within 50nm of each other. So they must know what they're doing.
Great Circle Mapper,
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one don't believe that Peel can't close the airport any time soon. In reality a skeleton service of KL / Eastern & the low pax volumes are simply going to cause more problems than solutions. Running a "part time" airport with "part time" staff is fraught with potential problems. As an example how to deal with delayed flights is one particular example.
As for the terminal, then errecting a wall to reduce the available area and attributable costs says nothing of the passenger experience, believe it or not a fact that often seems overlooked, is that pax travelling through any airport do not enjoy the experience !, however many cafe's/pubs/fancy goods shops are on offer to absorb the waiting time.
Anyhow if they are proposing to close part of the terminal, then why not close part of the runway as well, after all with the largest aircraft likely to be F100's / EMB's then you don't need more than 5,000ft. I'm sure that Peel would seize on such an oportunity when they work it out, it would simply reflect progress on their grand scheme to run the place down.
Finally as to accessibility then the road access to anyone living away from the "A66 corridor" is awful, & the reality is that the only people DTV was ever going to serve were local, incidentally, when driving down the A1 yesterday & I notice there are still signs to "Teesside Airport" drew my attention, though I expect they won't be needed in any form, so there's a cost saving no need to get any paint out.
As for the terminal, then errecting a wall to reduce the available area and attributable costs says nothing of the passenger experience, believe it or not a fact that often seems overlooked, is that pax travelling through any airport do not enjoy the experience !, however many cafe's/pubs/fancy goods shops are on offer to absorb the waiting time.
Anyhow if they are proposing to close part of the terminal, then why not close part of the runway as well, after all with the largest aircraft likely to be F100's / EMB's then you don't need more than 5,000ft. I'm sure that Peel would seize on such an oportunity when they work it out, it would simply reflect progress on their grand scheme to run the place down.
Finally as to accessibility then the road access to anyone living away from the "A66 corridor" is awful, & the reality is that the only people DTV was ever going to serve were local, incidentally, when driving down the A1 yesterday & I notice there are still signs to "Teesside Airport" drew my attention, though I expect they won't be needed in any form, so there's a cost saving no need to get any paint out.
I notice there are still signs to "Teesside Airport" drew my attention, though I expect they won't be needed in any form, so there's a cost saving no need to get any paint out
Interesting to look at the pax stats for August 2003 (year Peel took over) - figures from the excellent DTVM website.
Int schedule - 18,411 - bit more than now! still KLM AMS plus RYR DUB
Dom schedule - 14,439 - mainly BD to LHR (give or take a few this is the same as Aug 13 total throughput!)
Int Charter - 46,669 - totally collapsed to less than 2,000 in Aug 13.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MME
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Int Charter - 46,669 - totally collapsed to less than 2,000 in Aug 13.
All of my friends and family are taking more trips than ever before, sadly having to travel to LBA/NCL now.
staff cuts
my mate says almost all the assistants are getting the pucsh and a quarter of the controllers...so how does that leave us placed for ant sudden expansion it takes quite a while I think to train a contoller??
also fire will have to be cut as no need for the bigger fire category?
also fire will have to be cut as no need for the bigger fire category?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tea green golf club
Age: 33
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funding
Durham tees has been suggested to try and get more funding, but surely they need to use this to expand. If so why did they only 3 days ago axe more flights from the airport? Durham Tees Valley Airport should go for Government cash a third time, claims Sedgefield MP - Gazette Live
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FoDTVA
Are people really so ignorant that they think FoDTVAs duties are limited to snow clearing, and that said snow clearing isn't beneficial/appreciated?? Come on wake up man.
They have the respect of the airport, and they are quick to make sure they're not being taken advantage of, as said before, they're not stupid people. They have a solid Chairman who is respected across the airport and a 3-figure strong following, which for a relatively new scheme with little advertising is not bad at all.
Want to help the airport improve? You've got a damn sight greater chance as a FoDTVA member than as a poster on a seedy forum.
They have the respect of the airport, and they are quick to make sure they're not being taken advantage of, as said before, they're not stupid people. They have a solid Chairman who is respected across the airport and a 3-figure strong following, which for a relatively new scheme with little advertising is not bad at all.
Want to help the airport improve? You've got a damn sight greater chance as a FoDTVA member than as a poster on a seedy forum.
DTVAirport - while FoDTVA's aims are likely laudable, the same aims have not been communicated well, either on this forum or the FoDTVA website. The website talks about litter picking, snow clearing and baggage handling, all activities which airports would normally handle on their own account and be unlikely to delegate to a volunteer group, particularly when the airport is substantially owned, controlled and operated in the commercial interests of a for-profit private sector company rather than being majority owned by a community / public sector entity.
Perhaps you could ask someone in FoDTVA to edit the website, to better state why FoDTVA exists, and provide clear convincing reasons as to why it should not be regarded as a free labour source for commercial gain ? And no, a simple claim that you're not just there to act as a free labour or that "no we are not stupid" is insufficient - you need to give clear reasons for why you undertake unpaid activities like baggage handling or snow clearing for a private sector company.
Communicate better as to who you are, what you do and why you exist, and you'll get more respect from non-members.
Perhaps you could ask someone in FoDTVA to edit the website, to better state why FoDTVA exists, and provide clear convincing reasons as to why it should not be regarded as a free labour source for commercial gain ? And no, a simple claim that you're not just there to act as a free labour or that "no we are not stupid" is insufficient - you need to give clear reasons for why you undertake unpaid activities like baggage handling or snow clearing for a private sector company.
Communicate better as to who you are, what you do and why you exist, and you'll get more respect from non-members.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 3rd Nov 2013 at 01:52.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Teesside
Age: 38
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where has this fascination with FoDTVA snow clearing come from all of a sudden?
Similar Friends groups are set up at numerous airports around the country but don't seem to get a slating like the guys at DTV!
As said above, these guys are not stupid, they have a brain of their own and would be quick to see if ever they were being taken advantage of.
If you have spare time, some people would prefer to put it to good use instead of withering away behind a computer screen.
Similar Friends groups are set up at numerous airports around the country but don't seem to get a slating like the guys at DTV!
As said above, these guys are not stupid, they have a brain of their own and would be quick to see if ever they were being taken advantage of.
If you have spare time, some people would prefer to put it to good use instead of withering away behind a computer screen.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davidjohnson6 - point taken and I'll be sure to feed that back to FoDTVA, but my original post is still valid.
Beafer - FoDTVA haven't and never will effect the amount of people employed at the airport, careful steps are taken to ensure that remains the case.
The Friends group was formed largely from efforts by the existing and very well respected Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. As for having no say in plans, well, you'd be very surprised.
If you're going to criticise at least make it constructive like davidjohnson6, as opposed to taking the
. At least they're doing something.
Beafer - FoDTVA haven't and never will effect the amount of people employed at the airport, careful steps are taken to ensure that remains the case.
The Friends group was formed largely from efforts by the existing and very well respected Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. As for having no say in plans, well, you'd be very surprised.
If you're going to criticise at least make it constructive like davidjohnson6, as opposed to taking the
. At least they're doing something.
Last edited by DTVAirport; 3rd Nov 2013 at 17:36.
Eight pages since the first posts about Thomson and Balkan being binned, but don't seem to have seen an explanation why a Dash-8 on a Saturday afternoon is OK, and an A320 on a Monday morning isn't - sure it must be cost based, but what is the actual difference?
SWBKCB the Jersey flight was an Emb 175 this year, does that thicken your plot, perhaps its only got to do with profit per passenger.
Poor Doris, wiped out, presume the rest of the burger flippers garbadge is staying though.
Poor Doris, wiped out, presume the rest of the burger flippers garbadge is staying though.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for having no say in plans, well, you'd be very surprised.
From a business perspective, having a willing group of enthusiastic volunteers willing to do the donkey work for nothing is a gift. I am assuming anyone handling customer baggage for free is also CRB checked as per Dft guidelines? My local airport was PIK but they managed to make money with only Ryanair as they had a management who cut costs to the bone then went looking for charter business. This went terribly wrong once the airport was sold to a more "commercial" operator who added costs galore because frankly they didn't understand what made the business make money in the first place.
Management at MME are turning business away because they say they can't afford to handle them. This then sends a signal to the airline business, loud and clear that MME is off limits for charters, and also anything adhoc, last minute or outwith the wee box they've built for themselves. No management would do this accidentally, this is intentional. It took PIK years to remind the wider business that the airport hadn't closed when BAA sold the business off. This is an intentional two fingers in the air to new business, go elsewhere, NCL or LBA will help you. This is not about stemming losses, this about a managed run down and closure of commercial passenger operations, it is astonishing to me that people are not seeing this.
So bearing that in mind, what say in the plans for the future of this business do the "Friends" have. The Americans have an expression, stop drinking the Kool Aid. It's time.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 3rd Nov 2013 at 22:00.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes "Skipness" as you suggest there are undoubtedly a number of posters on this forum in denial, I have to assume that they are awaiting salvation in the publication of the new "grand plan" which I suspect is being rewritten on a daily basis on the misguided basis that Peel can somehow blag their way through to a blameless total run down of commercial aviation activity.
As for the FoDTVA then good luck to them if they choose to throw free labour in support of what seems to be a hopeless and lost cause. However I really suggest to any of those individuals reading this that they look to obtain some form of comfort / assurance that they are not simply allowing themselves to become an uneccessary distraction in the greater scheme of things.
As for the FoDTVA then good luck to them if they choose to throw free labour in support of what seems to be a hopeless and lost cause. However I really suggest to any of those individuals reading this that they look to obtain some form of comfort / assurance that they are not simply allowing themselves to become an uneccessary distraction in the greater scheme of things.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Teesside
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lively board...
Wow – this must be one of the most populated and used threads on this site. Just goes to show the amount of emotion our little airport stirs up.
I want to add something on the “deliberately run into the ground” theory. I see three possibilities and likely outcomes:
1) The airport is being deliberately run into the ground and the owners are simply going the long way around to close it.
2) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, however the consequences of their actions last week mean it will be very difficult to expedite as confidence ebbs away from the core business (customers and airlines).
3) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, and, because the plan could be focussing more and more on non-passenger revenue, there is a chance that any consequences could be limited and it could work.
If I was a betting man, I’d suggest outcome 2 is probably the most likely, with scenarios 1 and 3 having even weight.
However, another dimension to consider; who is the management? My gut feel is that the local management; i.e. the ones we hear and see on the TV; the ones who come up with the plans; the ones who interact with the community/FODTVA are actually a bunch of folks with the best of intentions; trying hard to make the airport a success. However, if there is to be some question marks about “intent” and “ambition”, maybe that should be directed at the ultimate owners; those who we don’t see and who, potentially, could find a more lucrative way to earn off the land should the airport not remain.
As for FODTVA; I think some of the comments are unfair. An enthusiastic group of people who want to help; coupled with local management who need as much community help and support as they can get. I don’t see any wrong in that. Are they being taken advantage of? Well, I suspect they are big enough to look after themselves. Is it morally right? Well, both parties are consenting so who are we to dispute?
I also don’t think another RGF bid is necessary. That ship has sailed. RGF success requires solid business plans which promise growth and local jobs. RGF is also supposed to be a “catalyst” – i.e. the business plan should state that without RGF support, the business plan wouldn’t work – with RGF, it would – it isn’t meant to be just ‘free money’. This in theory ensures the money goes to plans where the government believes the money would catalyse success. (i.e. transform). This is a big requirement and the fact that they’ve been turned down twice tells you something.
As for the constant questions about Peel, special handshakes, council deals etc… these questions have been posted countless times now and we must be running out of new ways to ask the same question. So, for those interested in finding out the answers; why not investigate yourselves; take it to the local media or the local council. I’m struggling to understand what asking the same question time and time again here adds?
I want to add something on the “deliberately run into the ground” theory. I see three possibilities and likely outcomes:
1) The airport is being deliberately run into the ground and the owners are simply going the long way around to close it.
2) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, however the consequences of their actions last week mean it will be very difficult to expedite as confidence ebbs away from the core business (customers and airlines).
3) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, and, because the plan could be focussing more and more on non-passenger revenue, there is a chance that any consequences could be limited and it could work.
If I was a betting man, I’d suggest outcome 2 is probably the most likely, with scenarios 1 and 3 having even weight.
However, another dimension to consider; who is the management? My gut feel is that the local management; i.e. the ones we hear and see on the TV; the ones who come up with the plans; the ones who interact with the community/FODTVA are actually a bunch of folks with the best of intentions; trying hard to make the airport a success. However, if there is to be some question marks about “intent” and “ambition”, maybe that should be directed at the ultimate owners; those who we don’t see and who, potentially, could find a more lucrative way to earn off the land should the airport not remain.
As for FODTVA; I think some of the comments are unfair. An enthusiastic group of people who want to help; coupled with local management who need as much community help and support as they can get. I don’t see any wrong in that. Are they being taken advantage of? Well, I suspect they are big enough to look after themselves. Is it morally right? Well, both parties are consenting so who are we to dispute?
I also don’t think another RGF bid is necessary. That ship has sailed. RGF success requires solid business plans which promise growth and local jobs. RGF is also supposed to be a “catalyst” – i.e. the business plan should state that without RGF support, the business plan wouldn’t work – with RGF, it would – it isn’t meant to be just ‘free money’. This in theory ensures the money goes to plans where the government believes the money would catalyse success. (i.e. transform). This is a big requirement and the fact that they’ve been turned down twice tells you something.
As for the constant questions about Peel, special handshakes, council deals etc… these questions have been posted countless times now and we must be running out of new ways to ask the same question. So, for those interested in finding out the answers; why not investigate yourselves; take it to the local media or the local council. I’m struggling to understand what asking the same question time and time again here adds?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Teesside
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear...
Cabby - are you and North related?
Same questions, different day. Why don't you ask Peel if they are trading illegally? Why don't you ask Peel if they have the necessary insurance? If you believe they are - report it.
Whilst some valid questions are being asked, I don't see the validity of repeating them? Or is the thought that if you ask them enough times, someone will give you the answer?
Let's move on....or ask the people that can give you the answer....Peel or the Media.
In the meantime, anyone care to give an educated guess as to what is in the Masterplan?
Same questions, different day. Why don't you ask Peel if they are trading illegally? Why don't you ask Peel if they have the necessary insurance? If you believe they are - report it.
Whilst some valid questions are being asked, I don't see the validity of repeating them? Or is the thought that if you ask them enough times, someone will give you the answer?
Let's move on....or ask the people that can give you the answer....Peel or the Media.
In the meantime, anyone care to give an educated guess as to what is in the Masterplan?