Sheffield City Airport Petition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seaford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winniebago -
Can an A318 get out of LCY at MTOW?
Can an A319 get out of JER at MTOW?
The answer is 'No' in both cases. And yet these airports are used by these aircraft. Why?
The answer is that at low weights, aircraft are capable of using runways which they wouldn't be able to use at MTOW or MLW. It depends whether the airline can reliably get in and out while carrying a viable load and enough fuel to take the passengers where they want to go.
Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD at MTOW? No.
Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD with max passenger load and enough fuel for AMS or CDG? No problem.
Can an A318 get out of LCY at MTOW?
Can an A319 get out of JER at MTOW?
The answer is 'No' in both cases. And yet these airports are used by these aircraft. Why?
The answer is that at low weights, aircraft are capable of using runways which they wouldn't be able to use at MTOW or MLW. It depends whether the airline can reliably get in and out while carrying a viable load and enough fuel to take the passengers where they want to go.
Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD at MTOW? No.
Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD with max passenger load and enough fuel for AMS or CDG? No problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seaford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winniebago -
One more thing. I don't know where you got these ideas about business jets at SZD...
I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.
One more thing. I don't know where you got these ideas about business jets at SZD...
I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 1/2 a mile to the right of 14 top end of Yeadon
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seaford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS32 -
Is this a serious comment?
I don't think anybody suggested using bizjets on airline services until you did.
But it was suggested earlier that only "a few turboprops" would be able to use the SZD - this is demonstrably incorrect.
I'm guessing from your username that you live somewhere just south-east of LBA. If that's the case, then you'll already be aware how many business aircraft are present at airports nowadays.
And if you are involved in commercial aviation on a professional basis (as I am) then you'll know that business aviation is an important sector of the industry nowadays - you'll also be aware of the capabilities of modern business aircraft from short runways.
Is this a serious comment?
I don't think anybody suggested using bizjets on airline services until you did.
But it was suggested earlier that only "a few turboprops" would be able to use the SZD - this is demonstrably incorrect.
I'm guessing from your username that you live somewhere just south-east of LBA. If that's the case, then you'll already be aware how many business aircraft are present at airports nowadays.
And if you are involved in commercial aviation on a professional basis (as I am) then you'll know that business aviation is an important sector of the industry nowadays - you'll also be aware of the capabilities of modern business aircraft from short runways.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman
It aint so much take-off that's the problem, although I'd contest you being able to get a fully loaded Q-400 out of there with fuel and sufficient reserves for AMS as an example, it's the landing distance.
Factor for a wet runway and you've just had it - and it does rain quite a lot up here. Even on a dry runway, you are not going to land with sensible 'minimum' reserves and a full passenger load.
I'd still like to see a list of those airliner types people think could both take-off and land there with a good 80% load factor say, and enough fuel when outbound for perhaps 300-400 miles or so.
On the topic of business jet access the straight-wing Citations and the Falcon 50 have the very best landing performance of all jets and would indeed get in (only just - a great number of pilots would dismiss it out of hand), but strictly on a private basis, never public transport/commercial/charter/air-taxi etc.
The amount of GA and Biz Av traffic one could see going through there would never, ever sustain the costs of running the place and, again, commercial ops are simply not viable with that runway length. Far too constraining.
It aint so much take-off that's the problem, although I'd contest you being able to get a fully loaded Q-400 out of there with fuel and sufficient reserves for AMS as an example, it's the landing distance.
Factor for a wet runway and you've just had it - and it does rain quite a lot up here. Even on a dry runway, you are not going to land with sensible 'minimum' reserves and a full passenger load.
I'd still like to see a list of those airliner types people think could both take-off and land there with a good 80% load factor say, and enough fuel when outbound for perhaps 300-400 miles or so.
On the topic of business jet access the straight-wing Citations and the Falcon 50 have the very best landing performance of all jets and would indeed get in (only just - a great number of pilots would dismiss it out of hand), but strictly on a private basis, never public transport/commercial/charter/air-taxi etc.
The amount of GA and Biz Av traffic one could see going through there would never, ever sustain the costs of running the place and, again, commercial ops are simply not viable with that runway length. Far too constraining.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 1/2 a mile to the right of 14 top end of Yeadon
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman Normal
Not a serious suggestion but I thought that you were advocating the use of Biz Jets, not realising you were replying to a previous posters comments.I agree with you that there are aircraft which could operate from a limited runway but would the operators be prepared to do so.They would be taking a financial risk.What about the existing infrastructure, would it need a major upgrade for commercial operations to restart?
Finally are the majority of the Sheffield public demanding that passenger operations start again or have they got used to travelling to other airports.It was never a bucket and spade airport for people to fly off for their annual holiday.In regard to business aviation I have Multiflight on my doorstep and you only have to look at them and see how their business has expanded in the last 20 years.
Not a serious suggestion but I thought that you were advocating the use of Biz Jets, not realising you were replying to a previous posters comments.I agree with you that there are aircraft which could operate from a limited runway but would the operators be prepared to do so.They would be taking a financial risk.What about the existing infrastructure, would it need a major upgrade for commercial operations to restart?
Finally are the majority of the Sheffield public demanding that passenger operations start again or have they got used to travelling to other airports.It was never a bucket and spade airport for people to fly off for their annual holiday.In regard to business aviation I have Multiflight on my doorstep and you only have to look at them and see how their business has expanded in the last 20 years.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seaford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winniebago -
Bombardier quoted me RTOW 27,541kg, ISA, zero wind. They assume 5% contingency on trip fuel, 100nm alternate and 30min at 1500' at the alternate. ISA en-route, 85% annual winds. With DOW 18,000 and 78 pax, they say the aircraft will do 226nm. BUT, they assume 97kg per pax. In my experience, this is unusual - especially on shorter, business-type sectors. My experience suggests average pax weight will be 90kg max, and more likely less. So immediately the aircraft is going to be at least 500kg below RTOW.
Landing weight? Well, I can't say what the planning/in-flight rules are on the Q400, but I'd be surprised if they differ from the rules on the type with which I am familiar. Maybe you know different?
Not sure which 300-400nm destinations you have in mind? Once you get beyond AMS/BRU/CDG/BHD/DUB/JER and the other close ones, I feel the commercial case may become more 'marginal'. Are you thinking FRA etc?
Regarding the bizjets, you didn't comment on the Hawker or the Lear. And are you saying the newer Falcons and Gulfstreams have inferior performance??
None of these will support SZD on their own. But regional airlines, plus bizjets, plus GA, plus training, plus maintenance... that's different.
ILS32 -
SZD was never about bucket-and-spade. DSA can continue doing that - nobody's calling for DSA to close. But unfortunately for Sheffield's businesses, it's clear that the airlines don't see DSA as a business airport.
Bombardier quoted me RTOW 27,541kg, ISA, zero wind. They assume 5% contingency on trip fuel, 100nm alternate and 30min at 1500' at the alternate. ISA en-route, 85% annual winds. With DOW 18,000 and 78 pax, they say the aircraft will do 226nm. BUT, they assume 97kg per pax. In my experience, this is unusual - especially on shorter, business-type sectors. My experience suggests average pax weight will be 90kg max, and more likely less. So immediately the aircraft is going to be at least 500kg below RTOW.
Landing weight? Well, I can't say what the planning/in-flight rules are on the Q400, but I'd be surprised if they differ from the rules on the type with which I am familiar. Maybe you know different?
Not sure which 300-400nm destinations you have in mind? Once you get beyond AMS/BRU/CDG/BHD/DUB/JER and the other close ones, I feel the commercial case may become more 'marginal'. Are you thinking FRA etc?
Regarding the bizjets, you didn't comment on the Hawker or the Lear. And are you saying the newer Falcons and Gulfstreams have inferior performance??
None of these will support SZD on their own. But regional airlines, plus bizjets, plus GA, plus training, plus maintenance... that's different.
ILS32 -
SZD was never about bucket-and-spade. DSA can continue doing that - nobody's calling for DSA to close. But unfortunately for Sheffield's businesses, it's clear that the airlines don't see DSA as a business airport.
Last edited by Norman Normal; 11th Feb 2013 at 20:38. Reason: messed up attempt to underline first time around
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about who could, or could not, operate from SZD is immaterial unless the airport is sold by the current owner.
Why would Peel sell? The FSB, or anyone else, has not given any suggestion that Peel are willing to sell. A petition and discussion in council meetings is all well and good for PR for their campaign, but Peel are unlikely to give in to a bit of negative PR for them.
Why would Peel sell? The FSB, or anyone else, has not given any suggestion that Peel are willing to sell. A petition and discussion in council meetings is all well and good for PR for their campaign, but Peel are unlikely to give in to a bit of negative PR for them.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am mistaken but, reading through this thread, the FSB are making hot air that perhaps Sheffield City Airport should be re-opened and apparently there is an individual waiting in the wings with money to buy the site.
I haven't actually read that the current owner has been approached and made a realistic offer for the site and that current owner has flatly refused to sell.
Has the current owner been approached and has the current owner refused to sell?
I'd hate to think that people are talking about me on a forum someplace that I've refused to sell my business when nobody's actually made me an offer to buy it!
I haven't actually read that the current owner has been approached and made a realistic offer for the site and that current owner has flatly refused to sell.
Has the current owner been approached and has the current owner refused to sell?
I'd hate to think that people are talking about me on a forum someplace that I've refused to sell my business when nobody's actually made me an offer to buy it!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen anything from the FSB that indicates that Peel have been approached or have intimated that they are willing to sell. Without this, the FSB are wasting a lot of effort and it really should have been the first step before launching the campaign. If Peel's response is a resounding 'No' then the campaign will never succeed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seaford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peel (or Sheffield Business Park, the owners of the site) HAVE been approached according to local media.
Media also report TWO parties expressing interest.
There could be a LOT of negative PR for Peel if they're not careful. They got the airport site for nothing (the £1.00 was never paid as transaction costs would have outweighed the £1.00) and there's a slow dawning of public realisation that the airport might not have been as 'unviable' as was claimed. Peel seem to have 'bet the farm' on Finningley, and we can see how that has worked for them.
There's a risk that they could do real damage to Sheffield's economy by continuing with this current 'strategy'.
Media also report TWO parties expressing interest.
There could be a LOT of negative PR for Peel if they're not careful. They got the airport site for nothing (the £1.00 was never paid as transaction costs would have outweighed the £1.00) and there's a slow dawning of public realisation that the airport might not have been as 'unviable' as was claimed. Peel seem to have 'bet the farm' on Finningley, and we can see how that has worked for them.
There's a risk that they could do real damage to Sheffield's economy by continuing with this current 'strategy'.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt Peel will be concerned about some negative PR.
Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.
Any contract of sale will have a minimum price of £1 (or asset valued at £1 or more) as there has to be a consideration from the purchaser, even though that £1 never actually changes hands. I have sold a business in the past for £1, and never received the £1. It's perfectly normal.
The passenger numbers for SZD are interesting:
1998: 46,000
1999: 75,000
2000: 60,000
2001: 33,000
2002: 13,000
What would be different now to what happened pre-2002 (before the fire cover was reduced)? 75,000 passengers is not a viable figure.
Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.
Any contract of sale will have a minimum price of £1 (or asset valued at £1 or more) as there has to be a consideration from the purchaser, even though that £1 never actually changes hands. I have sold a business in the past for £1, and never received the £1. It's perfectly normal.
The passenger numbers for SZD are interesting:
1998: 46,000
1999: 75,000
2000: 60,000
2001: 33,000
2002: 13,000
What would be different now to what happened pre-2002 (before the fire cover was reduced)? 75,000 passengers is not a viable figure.
Last edited by wb9999; 12th Feb 2013 at 16:24.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.
Way back in the late 80's there was a huge opencast mine. It was being mined by RJ Budge Mining. Restitution involved backfilling, landscaping and building an airport in accordance with the wishes of the landholder.
AF Budge Construction (Owned by RJ Budge's brother and the owner/operator of the very successful Gamston) was employed to develop the airport and the associated business park that would pay for it. The property was one whole. The airport was a part of the grand plan, not an adjunct to offices and warehouses. Without the airport there was no business park.
AF Budge Construction went bust in the recession.
The Sheffield Development Corporation sorted things out and a new developer was found.
The airport was built, the business park went ahead and annual profits of £2-4m (from memory) were enjoyed from the project.
Anyway, as things rumbled on the airport property was put into an SPV owned by the developer. Then an operating company was set up that was part owned by the developer. The OpCo paid rent to the SPV which sent rent profits up to the Developer.
Can you see where this is going?
OpCo shows a loss, but can't make money like the rest of the site by developing the land because that is owned by the SPV, which is owned by the Developer, who has a foot in all camps.
From memory, the last years accounts showed a loss in the OpCo of about £400k, but the ultimate landlord turned a multi million profit.
The multi-million pound profit wouldn't be there without the airport, but through smart division of financial responsibility the clause for getting the rest of the land for a quid kicked in.
There's no blame on the developer, landlord, or even the OpCo team. They did what they do in a commercial marketplace - I'd do the same.
The issues lie with the people who allowed it to happen in the first place. That is why an enquiry is being called for so that the public can understand and that any wrongs found are righted.
Anyone who thinks that CAT pax loads are the point of this saga is missing the point by a country mile.
Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield. We want that back.
Last edited by eltonioni; 14th Feb 2013 at 07:26.
was employed to develop the airport and the associated business park that would pay for it.
The multi-million pound profit wouldn't be there without the airport,
Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An enquiry would explain what happened and why it happened. Why it would reach any different conclusions to the 2005 enquiry, I'm not clear. It would not invalidate the legally binding contracts that were agreed between the various parties so please explain how you go from 'enquiry' to Peel being mandated to hand the site back or reopen it as an airport. That would need action through the courts, to which the questions are
- who would fund the legal costs
- who exactly is being taken to court?
- who would fund the legal costs
- who exactly is being taken to court?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eltonioni, thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of that, and no-one else wasn't forthcoming with it (even the FSB).
You make a comment that "Without the airport there was no business park", but it also sounds like without the business park there was no airport, as you do say that the business park will pay for the airport.
So the FSB's campaign is based around potential shortcomings in a contract drawn up 20 years ago by the SDC. That's not unusual or illegal (public organisations have never been good at getting involved in commercial contracts).
An inquiry wouldn't have the power to right any wrongs, as that would involve changing/revoking perfectly legal contracts that have been signed since then. Only a court would have the power to do that, and a court would only do that if there was criminal activity - which no-one has suggested.
An inquiry would cost hundreds of thousands/maybe millions for everyone involved (including Sheffield City Council, who can hardly afford it at the moment) just to tell people what they knew all along, but with no power to change it. The only winners will be lawyers.
You make a comment that "Without the airport there was no business park", but it also sounds like without the business park there was no airport, as you do say that the business park will pay for the airport.
So the FSB's campaign is based around potential shortcomings in a contract drawn up 20 years ago by the SDC. That's not unusual or illegal (public organisations have never been good at getting involved in commercial contracts).
An inquiry wouldn't have the power to right any wrongs, as that would involve changing/revoking perfectly legal contracts that have been signed since then. Only a court would have the power to do that, and a court would only do that if there was criminal activity - which no-one has suggested.
An inquiry would cost hundreds of thousands/maybe millions for everyone involved (including Sheffield City Council, who can hardly afford it at the moment) just to tell people what they knew all along, but with no power to change it. The only winners will be lawyers.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those publicly funded contracts are what might be called into question. We'll see if there are people and organisations that should be called to account if we get the enquiry.
The airport was the reason for the business park, not the other way around. I happened to be on the development team all those years back so I have more memory of events than most. Since then I've been a tenant at the airport as well as a pilot using the facility, so again, I've had more than a passing interest.
Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.
On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA. There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.
The airport was the reason for the business park, not the other way around. I happened to be on the development team all those years back so I have more memory of events than most. Since then I've been a tenant at the airport as well as a pilot using the facility, so again, I've had more than a passing interest.
Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.
On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA. There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if an inquiry does hold people to account, then what? It still doesn't get the airport re-opened.
BTW I have stated before that I support the airport re-opening. I have flown from there in the past, and it can only benefit GA by having more facilities available, but there appears to be lots of information that isn't yet in the public domain.
BTW I have stated before that I support the airport re-opening. I have flown from there in the past, and it can only benefit GA by having more facilities available, but there appears to be lots of information that isn't yet in the public domain.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eltonioni wrote:
I think that most people here want any airports to succeed, though there is a minority who will always do the 'my local airport's better than yours' thing. A point about this discussion is that many posters have made valid points that a reopened Sheffield airport would have great difficulty in making it a commercial success, whatever has happened in the past.
I find this insulting. This particular thread has been very reasoned. Unreasonable threads get shut down by by the moderators.
Groundloop wrote:
That is a question and it needs answering.
On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA.
There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.
Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.
Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield.
Where is your evidence for this "lots of business"?
Last edited by johnnychips; 14th Feb 2013 at 23:07.