Plymouth City Airport protected til 2021!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plymouth City Airport protected til 2021!
Today the City Council passed the notion of safeguarding Plymouth City Airport from development til 2021, with possibility of increasing til 2031. They are protecting it as long as legally possible. And also are lobbying to Central Government to make it a national asset and state ownership. This would make it easier to take the lease away from SHH.
I think its the first step in a long path that will hopefully see PLH reopen
Very happy today, the airport should never have closed and was run down with the intention of development.
There are people with backing who want to take the airport on, its the lease that has become the problem. The city is fighting for its Airport and im dam proud they are!
I think its the first step in a long path that will hopefully see PLH reopen
Very happy today, the airport should never have closed and was run down with the intention of development. There are people with backing who want to take the airport on, its the lease that has become the problem
. The city is fighting for its Airport and im dam proud they are!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance of GA returning as an unlicenced facility?
The developers must be wetting themselves as it will put quite a blight on the houses. Anyone looking to buy a new housewould not be expecting to be next to an active airfield.
Interesting ...
The developers must be wetting themselves as it will put quite a blight on the houses. Anyone looking to buy a new housewould not be expecting to be next to an active airfield.
Interesting ...
Last edited by robin; 25th Sep 2012 at 09:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well its there own fault! They shouldn't have held up the other side of the bargain. I would guess GA would be welcome.
Here is more info and a video:
Councillors vote to make airport a national asset | Westcountry - ITV News
Here is more info and a video:
Councillors vote to make airport a national asset | Westcountry - ITV News
While I understand that the council is not likely to grant planning permission for redevelopment any time soon, at what stage does this week's motion become enforceable in any way and what exactly is the legal impact ? I'm trying to decide if this is just hand-wringing for votes or if it means anything would really happen
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 25th Sep 2012 at 10:10.
It may be protected from development but doesn't stop the digging up of the runway and taxiway does it ?
It could be a Pyrrhic victory unless there are real plans to develop it with the cash.
A desire for having an airport is good but not convinced local tax payers may feel the same way if they have to pay for it when services elsewhere being cut.
It could be a Pyrrhic victory unless there are real plans to develop it with the cash.
A desire for having an airport is good but not convinced local tax payers may feel the same way if they have to pay for it when services elsewhere being cut.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rumour here in plymouth, is that stobarts are going to be the backers of viable. that would be a game changer!
Good luck to all at Plymouth.
Last edited by JSCL; 25th Sep 2012 at 16:26.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: west of the tamar
Age: 75
Posts: 860
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 37000 people that have signed the petition are so confident the airport is a future profitable business why not stick a hundred quid in each and bingo you have £3.7 million. Better yet stick in a grand each, form a company and all become shareholders and you could buy Newquay as well!
Suddenly I think that 37000 might become a handful.
Suddenly I think that 37000 might become a handful.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: seat 0A
Age: 41
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Count me in as well!
It will take time, but PLH will open again and this is a big step in the right direction.
Well done to viable and everyone who has signed the petition.
It will take time, but PLH will open again and this is a big step in the right direction.
Well done to viable and everyone who has signed the petition.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Stobart have involvement in any way (which I would remain speculative about), it will not be as you word it. It will be a StobartAir operation no doubt a PLH-SEN flight
Which one do you suggest could support a commercial service using the aircraft types which could operate from a re-opened PLH?
As I understand it, the largest is an Atr-42 (or weight restricted Atr-72), so I think SEN (or possibly STN at a stretch) is the best that can be hoped for.
As I understand it, the largest is an Atr-42 (or weight restricted Atr-72), so I think SEN (or possibly STN at a stretch) is the best that can be hoped for.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB, the first step before any commercial services would be a runway extension alowing the airport to handle Embraer 190's, so larger aircraft could be used to the capital or farther afield than the ones you suggest.
Last edited by PlymouthPixie; 26th Sep 2012 at 07:21.
I don't want to be a killjoy but I really cannot see Stobart becoming involved. Surely they have enough on their plate at the moment with continued investment at SEN (the terminal extension) and a large sum needed to redevelop CAX as per the recently granted planning consent. They would need the support of institutional investors if they wanted to add a third airport to their portfolio and I doubt that would be forthcoming.
If they have any spare cash, which I doubt, they would more likely use it to support Aer Arann's ATR-72 re-equipment plans as that would be of direct benefit to both SEN and CAX.
If they have any spare cash, which I doubt, they would more likely use it to support Aer Arann's ATR-72 re-equipment plans as that would be of direct benefit to both SEN and CAX.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the complexities of any runway extension at PLH just how the hell is one going to fill an Embraer 190 when PLH could barely fill a 50 seater without combining it with NQY?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've answered your own question Phileas, via Newquay. Passengers didn't want a 15minute flight plus 15minutes on the ground before even heading towards Gatwick.
Besides, Plymouth only had a number of allocated seats, the other alocations where PAX from Newquay to Gatwick and PAX from Gatwick to Newquay that where already on the aircraft at Plymouth. This left about 20 seats for Plymouth. There have been dozens of reports where people couldn't book because of a lack of seats across their entire network due to this arrangement.
Besides, Plymouth only had a number of allocated seats, the other alocations where PAX from Newquay to Gatwick and PAX from Gatwick to Newquay that where already on the aircraft at Plymouth. This left about 20 seats for Plymouth. There have been dozens of reports where people couldn't book because of a lack of seats across their entire network due to this arrangement.
Last edited by PlymouthPixie; 26th Sep 2012 at 08:25.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pixie,
And in the days when PLH had direct services to/from LGW the route was operated by a DHC6 and with average load factors of some 50-60%, 10-12 punters per 20 seater aircraft.
The successful route was NQY to/from LHR operated by a HPR7 with average load factors of some 70%, 35 punters per 50 seater aircraft, punters don't actually want to go to/from an airport in the West Sussex countryside, they want to travel to/from LHR where they can connect worldwide and preferably on a codeshare such as the codeshare Brymon had with BA.
Then they combined the successful NQY route with PLH, average loads to/from PLH less than 25 punters per flight, then BA 'stole' the LHR slots forcing ASW to an airport in the West Sussex countryside and the rest is history, or so one thought, but now some bright spark has come up with an idea to spend millions lengthening PLH's runway to operate 100 seater jets to accommodate previous load factors of less than 25 punters per flight.
Or have I missed something?
And in the days when PLH had direct services to/from LGW the route was operated by a DHC6 and with average load factors of some 50-60%, 10-12 punters per 20 seater aircraft.
The successful route was NQY to/from LHR operated by a HPR7 with average load factors of some 70%, 35 punters per 50 seater aircraft, punters don't actually want to go to/from an airport in the West Sussex countryside, they want to travel to/from LHR where they can connect worldwide and preferably on a codeshare such as the codeshare Brymon had with BA.
Then they combined the successful NQY route with PLH, average loads to/from PLH less than 25 punters per flight, then BA 'stole' the LHR slots forcing ASW to an airport in the West Sussex countryside and the rest is history, or so one thought, but now some bright spark has come up with an idea to spend millions lengthening PLH's runway to operate 100 seater jets to accommodate previous load factors of less than 25 punters per flight.
Or have I missed something?