Peel to buy MAN?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read a very informative article by a member of the lancashire aero club regargding peel and barton. Apparently one of the things peel is interested in is a complete redevelopement of all the land round barton including high class lesuire facillitys including golf course, and a horse racing course with landing-refuling facillities
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peel and man
just a few points about manchester and peel.
1 would peel be allowed to own or have a large shareholding in both airports?
2 wouldnt be suprised if peels plan is to make lpl a cargo airport only and have easy and ryanair at man.
3 as a second man airport what about woodford?
4 on the subject of finningley this almost closed 20 years ago due to subsidence from all the mining activity, same problem as burtonwood.
5 if finningley were to open i think lba would probably close.
6 just why was sheffield opened? its multis only, so they get no revenue from the light aircraft fraternity, the phrase white elephant springs to mind!
1 would peel be allowed to own or have a large shareholding in both airports?
2 wouldnt be suprised if peels plan is to make lpl a cargo airport only and have easy and ryanair at man.
3 as a second man airport what about woodford?
4 on the subject of finningley this almost closed 20 years ago due to subsidence from all the mining activity, same problem as burtonwood.
5 if finningley were to open i think lba would probably close.
6 just why was sheffield opened? its multis only, so they get no revenue from the light aircraft fraternity, the phrase white elephant springs to mind!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra, some interesting points! I can't see EZY and RYR moving from LPL and it becoming a cargo airport. As for Finningley opening and LBA closing, not a chance! LBA has a large catchment area but a huge population within 10 miles(Leeds and Bradford together are fairly large) and getting to finningley from Leeds city centre takes almost as long as it does to Manchester!LBA may have its problems georaphically but has grown steadily since the runway was extended and CAT 3 installed. With decent road/rail links it would grow even more rapidly being in the centre of Yorkshires largest populous. Finningley is in the middle of nowhere and the subsidence from mining has already been mentioned. Pehaps Peel would be better making a bid for LBA, it would be cheaper to expand and has huge potential under decent management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peel and man
the thing that makes me think that lba may shut if finningley reopens as a civvy airport is the fact that lba has such low traffic levels. yes it may have a big population in the local area but it has less traffic than inverness!!!!! my point about lpl becoming a cargo port is mainly based on the fact that lpl is of course still a working seaport and the fact that the port is close to lpl and the rail line is not that far, neither is the m62. what i didnt realise until recently was that peel wanted to build a new terminal on the site of where emeralds offices are located, but the land belongs to emerald. i believe peels are negotiating with emerald.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
canberra -
re your point - "[LBA] has less traffic than inverness"
According to the CAA, Inverness currently handles 350,000 pax per annum compared to 1.5 million at LBA. Perhaps your stats are out of date!
Also, your hypothesis on the impacts of Finningley on LBA doesn't show much evidence of actually understanding a) how the Yorkshire market is currently served or b) the mix of traffic using LBA and c) how Peel actually intend to develop Finningley should planning permission be forthcoming.
Ditto your points on LPL You fail to take into account the strategy that Peel are following there. The intention was always to get the low cost and charter operators into LPL by offering them low landing and handling fees in return for a long-term committment to base a/c and develop routes out of the airport. Once securd, Peel then had confidence to construct new terminal facilities to cope with the resultant growth in passengers. Recently completed and with pax numbers approaching 2.4 million, Peel are now in a position to start getting payback on their investment, through concession income from retailers and catering outfits as well as car parking etc. For them to suddenly ditch all this in favour of cargo or is simply nonsense. As is the view that it would be value adding to shift the operation lock, stock and barrel to MAN
682
re your point - "[LBA] has less traffic than inverness"
According to the CAA, Inverness currently handles 350,000 pax per annum compared to 1.5 million at LBA. Perhaps your stats are out of date!
Also, your hypothesis on the impacts of Finningley on LBA doesn't show much evidence of actually understanding a) how the Yorkshire market is currently served or b) the mix of traffic using LBA and c) how Peel actually intend to develop Finningley should planning permission be forthcoming.
Ditto your points on LPL You fail to take into account the strategy that Peel are following there. The intention was always to get the low cost and charter operators into LPL by offering them low landing and handling fees in return for a long-term committment to base a/c and develop routes out of the airport. Once securd, Peel then had confidence to construct new terminal facilities to cope with the resultant growth in passengers. Recently completed and with pax numbers approaching 2.4 million, Peel are now in a position to start getting payback on their investment, through concession income from retailers and catering outfits as well as car parking etc. For them to suddenly ditch all this in favour of cargo or is simply nonsense. As is the view that it would be value adding to shift the operation lock, stock and barrel to MAN
682
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
682ft AMSL
Some stats re. LPL:
Annual Pax 2001 = 2258341
MAT (up to May 2002) = 2358982
Jan 2002 to May 2002 = 982851 (+11.4%)
Because of growing demand, Liverpool is in the process of gaining planning permission to increase passenger throughput, as well as other enhancements, to its terminal. A terminal, may I remind you, that is still being built.
Some stats re. LPL:
Annual Pax 2001 = 2258341
MAT (up to May 2002) = 2358982
Jan 2002 to May 2002 = 982851 (+11.4%)
Because of growing demand, Liverpool is in the process of gaining planning permission to increase passenger throughput, as well as other enhancements, to its terminal. A terminal, may I remind you, that is still being built.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks dwlpl, this is as I said. With pax numbers now approaching 2.4 million Peel will be approaching the sort of critical mass needed to begin leveraging some real value of its investment. A sound business plan on their part it would seem.
682
682
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lba and ins
sorry wot i meant on traffic levels was the ammount of aircraft movements. however as disraeli said there are lies damned lies and statistics, the passenger figures you state for lba are very small for the catchment area compared to inverness. i still maintain that should finningley open as a civil airport lba will close.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra
Ed Anderson , Chief Exec of LBAsaid recently that hardly any of lba's pax come from south yorks and finningley isn't a threat to lba
So what do CAA stats show - basically that he's right - about 4%of South Yorks pax presently use lba- so its a different catchment area on the whole. Plenty of room it seems for bmibaby at lba and ezy and ryanair at finningley.
Ed Anderson , Chief Exec of LBAsaid recently that hardly any of lba's pax come from south yorks and finningley isn't a threat to lba
So what do CAA stats show - basically that he's right - about 4%of South Yorks pax presently use lba- so its a different catchment area on the whole. Plenty of room it seems for bmibaby at lba and ezy and ryanair at finningley.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finningley
thats if finningley opens!! i must say i was v suprised at what peel have got planned, especially as the raf almost pulled out in the mid eighties due to the subsidence problems.
I'd just like to correct a popular misconception that Finningley has a big problem with mining subsidence - it doesn't.
Looking at the plans in front of me, there are 5 disused coal seams under a small part of the 906 acre Finningley site. Non of these affect the runway, which was totally resurfaced in 1989 because the MoD have a tendancy to spend huge amounts on airfields they are just about to close!! An extensive survey of the site was carried out in the mid nineties on behalf of the MoD, and concluded that a disused taxiway had suffered a limited amount of subsidence. British Coal took immediate remedial action after admitting liabilty. RJB Mining have stated that any residual ground movements would cease by 1999.
The story about the RAF pulling out due to subsidence 20 years ago is also wrong, the closure rumour was brought about by the decision to scrap the Vulcan. Finningley is not about to collapse into a huge hole in the ground!
As an aside, I would like to praise Peel for sticking with the plan despite extensive 'faffing' & bias by a succession of Transport Ministers ('Jabba' et al). In this fickle industry or ours I'm sure many others Companies would have understandably given up long ago.
Looking at the plans in front of me, there are 5 disused coal seams under a small part of the 906 acre Finningley site. Non of these affect the runway, which was totally resurfaced in 1989 because the MoD have a tendancy to spend huge amounts on airfields they are just about to close!! An extensive survey of the site was carried out in the mid nineties on behalf of the MoD, and concluded that a disused taxiway had suffered a limited amount of subsidence. British Coal took immediate remedial action after admitting liabilty. RJB Mining have stated that any residual ground movements would cease by 1999.
The story about the RAF pulling out due to subsidence 20 years ago is also wrong, the closure rumour was brought about by the decision to scrap the Vulcan. Finningley is not about to collapse into a huge hole in the ground!
As an aside, I would like to praise Peel for sticking with the plan despite extensive 'faffing' & bias by a succession of Transport Ministers ('Jabba' et al). In this fickle industry or ours I'm sure many others Companies would have understandably given up long ago.
Last edited by RAFAT; 21st Jun 2002 at 00:56.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finningley
a few points about finningley.
1, why would finningley have been due to close because the vulcan was going out of service? finningley hadnt been a vulcan base since 1969.
2, as to the subsidence problems it is FACT that in the rearly 80s the raf was looking to close finningley due to subsidence. they looked at moving lock stock and barrel to binbrook, but their lordships decided to just have binbrook as an rlg for cfs at scampton.
3,it was common knowledge in the early 90s in the raf that finningley was on borrowed time due to the subsidence, however the stories i heard were that the problems had been sorted out. so why was finningley closed? i have my own theories and im not going to voice them here.
4, as to why the runway was resurfaced, well why was west raynham resurfaced at the same time?
1, why would finningley have been due to close because the vulcan was going out of service? finningley hadnt been a vulcan base since 1969.
2, as to the subsidence problems it is FACT that in the rearly 80s the raf was looking to close finningley due to subsidence. they looked at moving lock stock and barrel to binbrook, but their lordships decided to just have binbrook as an rlg for cfs at scampton.
3,it was common knowledge in the early 90s in the raf that finningley was on borrowed time due to the subsidence, however the stories i heard were that the problems had been sorted out. so why was finningley closed? i have my own theories and im not going to voice them here.
4, as to why the runway was resurfaced, well why was west raynham resurfaced at the same time?
Finningley was not DUE to close because of the Vulcans going out of service, this was simply a rumour at the time. Although the fleet was moved out of Finningley at the start of the 70s, the airfield was still very much part of the Vulcan equation. Therefore when the fleet was retired in the 80s, the Finningley closure rumours started. Although closing the base was no doubt considered by the MoD at the time, the subsidence stories simply served to give the closure rumours a bit more credit.
I myself have no idea why Finningley closed, especially as at the time we were one of the busiest Units in the RAF, in terms of flying hours. However, runway subsidence was not, and is not, a concern, then or now. One only has to look at the mining plans to see why.
I myself have no idea why Finningley closed, especially as at the time we were one of the busiest Units in the RAF, in terms of flying hours. However, runway subsidence was not, and is not, a concern, then or now. One only has to look at the mining plans to see why.
