DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 6

[EK77WNCL]

With the lowering of fuel prices and the influx of tourists to Spain again, would Thomson not consider the resumption of MME-TFS/ALC/PMI? TOM have quite a spectacular range of UK airports and their claim is that they take you from your nearest airport. By all accounts the flights were very popular and I'm sure, given the option of flights from their closest airport, a lot of people from Darlington, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool etc. Would take advantage

They could even use Volotea 717 or Air Europa E-jet's to operate ALC/PMI-MME, could an E-jet make MME-TFS?

[jamesgrainge]

Originally Posted by EK77WNCL

With the lowering of fuel prices and the influx of tourists to Spain again, would Thomson not consider the resumption of MME-TFS/ALC/PMI? TOM have quite a spectacular range of UK airports and their claim is that they take you from your nearest airport. By all accounts the flights were very popular and I'm sure, given the option of flights from their closest airport, a lot of people from Darlington, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool etc. Would take advantage

They could even use Volotea 717 or Air Europa E-jet's to operate ALC/PMI-MME, could an E-jet make MME-TFS?

I think the problem is facilities and staff for that kind of service based on the actual money made from the aircraft landing.

I think you have to face the airports best hope for survival is to utilise flight schools (free membership with my one &#128513 as well as small charter services.

Why would a carrier use DTV when it could use LBA and NCL which have a far greater populace catchment? Not only that the car park and transport links are diabolical! This is what kills LBA, people cannot get to it. The passengers abandoned DTV long before the airlines.

[tigertanaka]

I live 15 minutes away and have flown out of MME around 50 times over the last 3 years, all to AMS and 90%+ of the time I am connecting on to somewhere in Europe.

Of course the place is not the nicest airport and KL charge a hell of a premium over NCL/LBA but I use the airport for the convenience (and my employer is paying). I normally catch the 6am (ish) flight so up at 4:30, taxi at 5am, arrive at 5:15 and plenty of time to get through security and have a drink in the lounge.

The alternative is BA or KL from NCL. Similar 6am flights but a 45 minute drive plus roadworks plus 5 minutes walk from the carpark plus busier security would mean leaving at 4am (and getting up at 3:30)...

[Cautious Optimist]

Originally Posted by EK77WNCL

With the lowering of fuel prices and the influx of tourists to Spain again, would Thomson not consider the resumption of MME-TFS/ALC/PMI? TOM have quite a spectacular range of UK airports and their claim is that they take you from your nearest airport. By all accounts the flights were very popular and I'm sure, given the option of flights from their closest airport, a lot of people from Darlington, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool etc. Would take advantage

They could even use Volotea 717 or Air Europa E-jet's to operate ALC/PMI-MME, could an E-jet make MME-TFS?

It's like this; we're living in a world where deals between airports and airlines are completely one-sided in the airlines favour. No airports make money out of airline contracts alone, now that doesn't matter if you have volume - which our local competition does, so they make some money from car parking and terminal services. But DTVA does not have volume, and likely never will (though not for lack of trying), now second tier airports such as Newcastle and Leeds etc have nothing to fear as they can lose money hand over fist and rack up almost as much debt as they like (and often do - as their accounts available free online often show), because no local authority or incumbent UK government is going to allow such a facility to enter liquidation, they'll always be able to secure re-financing from somewhere. Third tier airports such as ourselves do not have that luxury, we can go bust, and we would be allowed to go bust, so when the likes of Thomson (who don't forget axed three routes of their own accord before DTVA axed them) are only willing to offer a couple of weekly rotations for six months, and are having to heavily discount the seats in order to sell them, it's just not worth it.

This is where diversification comes into play, in our case, Peel looked to sweat the assets to achieve an increase in rental income, something which they have excelled at as office space, hangars and GA parking aprons are all now full, and we have at least four firms that are screaming out for their own new-build hangars, some may have already signed on the dotted line, but here is the problem, Peel will not and rarely ever have dipped into their own pocket (maybe because they are only asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich?), so in order to raise the necessary funds, they've looked at what the Government is currently looking for, the answer is houses, which is ideal as that's their trade (but does no favours for the lingering and now-boring conspiracy theories).

So, to summarise, whilst they will continue to talk to airlines, nothing much is going to change in that area any time soon through no fault of their own. There will be a growth in GA as the years pass, but by and large, we will be pretty much the same airport in ten, twenty, thirty years time, by which point A) the penny will drop and people will start thinking "hang on a minute, we're still here, maybe we're not actually being deliberately run down" and B) we'll be due another major industry landmark on the same scale of the low-cost boom of the 2000s, and maybe - just maybe - we'll be in a perfect position to take full advantage of it, whatever form it may take. Either way, buckle up because we're in for a long ride.

[highwideandugly]

The long and winding road...

CO. An excellent summary..how do you think so clearly at 0230 in the morning!!

Can't pick any faults at all with the argument and explanation.
The lot of DTV is to pick any available crumbs from the aviation table.
It's all about airport reputation now..generally provided from within the work force as unfortunately PEEL have no emotional attachment!

[SWBKCB]

Can't pick any faults at all with the argument and explanation.

OK - I'll have go then!

now second tier airports such as Newcastle and Leeds etc have nothing to fear as they can lose money hand over fist and rack up almost as much debt as they like (and often do - as their accounts available free online often show), because no local authority or incumbent UK government is going to allow such a facility to enter liquidation, they'll always be able to secure re-financing from somewhere.

This is a novel argument which I'm not sure I follow - LBA is privately owned and NCL 50% privately owned, but local/national government won't let them fail? How is debt a problem if you can service it?

so when the likes of Thomson (who don't forget axed three routes of their own accord before DTVA axed them) are only willing to offer a couple of weekly rotations for six months, and are having to heavily discount the seats in order to sell them, it's just not worth it.

Hadn't Thomson had just doubled the number of flights and BGH had also just re-introduced flights before being told to do one mid-season. Bit of an abrupt change of direction from DTVA. Also, I've still not seen how a B.738 in the middle of the week to Palma loses money but an EMB to Jersey in the middle of a Saturday afternoon is OK?

This is where diversification comes into play, in our case, Peel looked to sweat the assets to achieve an increase in rental income, something which they have excelled at as office space, hangars and GA parking aprons are all now full, and we have at least four firms that are screaming out for their own new-build hangars, some may have already signed on the dotted line, but here is the problem, Peel will not and rarely ever have dipped into their own pocket (maybe because they are only asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich?), so in order to raise the necessary funds, they've looked at what the Government is currently looking for, the answer is houses, which is ideal as that's their trade (but does no favours for the lingering and now-boring conspiracy theories).

More than happy with the diversification strategy, but never been happy with this "asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich" argument. From Wiki - "Peel is one of the largest property investment companies in the United Kingdom" and "The Group is currently focused on the £50 billion Ocean Gateway development" but they can't build a couple hangars that customers are screaming out for? Really? And are Peel big in housing?

but by and large, we will be pretty much the same airport in ten, twenty, thirty years time,

So the south side development, which is supposed to be just for aviation related use, is going to have no impact on the operation of the airport?

[onion]

I'm sorry to say this but while Peel or some odd off shoot of Peel are in control the place isn't going to prosper as an airport or even an airfield!
If any of you knew how this god awful company has treats/treated the employees, your support for them would disappear overnight.
They had a viable business that they have run into the ground by putting restrictions on growth ie.
The lack of fire cover, (basically telling Thomson to sling their hook), lack or little investment even though promised, forcing staff out which reduced morale, development fee!, stupid development plans that they change every 5 minutes, forcing local councils hands (I know the council's are as much to blame) and the list can go on.
People just look at the place and think it a joke.
Yes I give you the economic down turn but this can not and does not account for the situation.
I'm sorry guys but Peel have no interest in the place as an airport. I realistic I'm not advocating a place that competes with NCL or LBA but it could, should and can be a lot more than what it is now if Peel hadn't got involved.

[N707ZS]

Originally Posted by onion

I realistic I'm not advocating a place that competes with NCL or LBA but it could, should and can be a lot more than what it is now if Peel hadn't got involved.

Who would be able to pay for what is needed to develop the airport other than Peel?

[Cautious Optimist]

SWBKCB

never been happy with this "asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich" argument.

I'm just speculating on this, it's the one and only part of my previous post I'm not absolutely 100% certain on.

This is a novel argument which I'm not sure I follow - LBA is privately owned and NCL 50% privately owned, but local/national government won't let them fail? How is debt a problem if you can service it?

For some reason I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I feel like my response should be "but they aren't servicing it?"

So the south side development, which is supposed to be just for aviation related use, is going to have no impact on the operation of the airport?

Whilst the south side will be largely aviation related use Peel have nowhere in the masterplan specified it will be exclusively aviation related use? In any event, this will be the catalyst for the growth I mentioned.

Hadn't Thomson had just doubled the number of flights and BGH had also just re-introduced flights before being told to do one mid-season. Bit of an abrupt change of direction from DTVA. Also, I've still not seen how a B.738 in the middle of the week to Palma loses money but an EMB to Jersey in the middle of a Saturday afternoon is OK?

I really don't know how to explain the whole charter flight thing any better, so all I can do is reiterate that there is very good reason for it. At the end of the day, axing the flights did exactly what it was meant to - halved the annual loss, now if there was profit to be made, axing flights and losing passengers would grow a loss, not shrink it!

Onion

lack or little investment even though promised

Once again, answered conclusively on here countless times (fair enough, the answer is not very well liked, not even by me, but it's a fact nonetheless).

development fee!

Something several airports do, not exclusive to us, and still a damn sight cheaper than making the journey up or down the road. (Again - I don't like it any more than anyone else - but I accept it and was more than happy to pay it back in January).

If any of you knew how this god awful company has treats/treated the employees

I'm well aware of this, I've even had my own clashes with them and no doubt will again in future. I'm not going to put up too much of a defence here.

if Peel hadn't got involved

We'd have shut ten years ago.

I welcome any posts that challenge my own, but up to now my previous post still stands. The problem is, a lot of the posts on here are by people who do not wish to listen, their minds are already made up no matter how much fact and logic you throw at them.

I know it's hated when people say "watch this space" or "I know something but can't say" and they usually get shot down in flames (and probably rightly so) but I'm aware of a couple of efforts they've made recently (fair enough they may prove fruitless) but if they had any ill intention, they simply would not have gone to the trouble of doing what they recently have. All I can do is give you my word on that, at the end of the day, I'm no liar!!

[SWBKCB]

Southside - from the Masterplan, para 3.49
"The remainder of Southside within Stockton’s area has planning permission for development of c.176,900 sq m (1,900,000 sq ft) of employment space providing for a mixture of aviation-related and general employment uses. This is known as Southside Phase 1."

Think it's an 80% aviation 20% general employment split (the planning section of Stockton Councils website is a bit temperamental so can't confirm). I would have thought that such an extensive aviation related development would have some impact on the operation of the airport rather than leaving it "pretty much the same" - not all GA hangars, surely?

Charters - the additional TOM Ibiza and BGH Bourgas were announced in April 2013 and then cancelled in October 2013, seems a remarkably short time for good news to turn into bad news. How cancelling 3 flights a week operating for less than half the year on such recently agreed contracts then supposed to halves your losses seems improbable.

[jamesgrainge]

Well I imagine charging you an extra 6 quid (?) simply to use the airport has a negative affect on passenger flow? Call me stingy but any extra charge on what is already a costly passenger experience is surely a deliberately negative effect? (by peel)

[highwideandugly]

Airport Tax

See Newquay are dropping the airport passenger tax...come on DTV - Time to follow suit??

Anyone know how the air show ticket sales are going,haven't heard anything this time round compared to last years mass advertising ?

[N707ZS]

Straight from the local rag.


Red Arrows confirmed for Skylive airshow :: and crews will land to meet spectators! - Gazette Live

[P330]

In answer to one question, I am a frequent flier from MME and have been for many years, regularly using the KLM flights to AMS to connect with the world.

The bad points; the airport is a dump, the experience isn't really an experience at all and the security and passport staff can be the most unfriendly.

But the good points outweigh. As a Teessider who flies regularly, I don't want an airport experience. I want to be in the building for as a little time as possible so I get more time at home. MME gives me that. Quick check in, dash through security and you're off. Same for home, first off the plane, hand luggage only and through my front door less than 30 mins after the wheels have touched down. I do have to use NCL from time to time and the better airport experience and lack of departure tax soon gets forgotten about because of the journey times to and from the airport, coupled with longer security etc...

Granted, when I flew regularly on charter flights into the Med, I would relish a couple of hours at the airport, watching the planes, getting a full English, perusing the duty free. If I was that passenger now, MME would be a disappointment but the fact is most of us aren't. Airports for most are a means to an end, and MME is about as functionally perfect as you can get for a business traveller wanting to get from A to B on KLM, a great airline in my opinion.

And whilst I respect there are many different types of travellers, some probably fitting into my charter description, then if there was enough of them in the area that could return the operators more money than they are getting now, then we'd still have them. Poor airport management, poor local economics and a thrift drive by the operators have combined to mean we'll have little short term chance of this returning.

[Cautious Optimist]

P330, by and large a good sum up of things - but calling the airport a dump is a little harsh? Yes it's under-maintained in places, but it's not terrible by any stretch? I take it you've been through the terminal since the refurbishment? Or I should say partial refurbishment as they haven't done the check-in or arrivals areas which are the first parts the passengers / Joe Public see, so even though it's ten fold better once you pass security, many are left with a poor first impression, and that's my gripe.

[EK77WNCL]

Looking at a trip to Amsterdam and I'd much rather use MME than NCL...
Because it's a kind of novelty? Maybe
Sense of "MME needs the passengers and the money more than NCL"? Maybe
Because I'm an aviation enthusiast and simply because I want to, and because I want to get on the Fokker 70? That might be the one to be honest

[P330]

Re: CO

Ok, maybe a little harsh. The refurb area is a vast improvement on what it was and is pretty acceptable I'd say. However, the check in, security, main seating areas away from the refurb, the arrivals area, passport control, luggage belt and general WC facilities are a dump. An airport is a representative of the region and I am sometimes embarrassed at taking new people, particularly foreign people, through the airport who are about to experience Teesside and its business. Maybe there are cynics who say it is a perfect representation of our region.....

Anyway, that minor point aside, as a traveller who wants to get from A to B and spend as little time in an airport as possible it works well. Going to use it for a family KLM trip to Europe later this month; the price of which and convenience of which beats the low cost operators up the road. I wonder how many people in Teesside looking for a city break check out KLM before they try Ryanair and Easyjet?

Only downside is, my kids will want an airport experience and I'll have them there 50 minutes before departure to avoid it.....

[SWBKCB]

Highlights some of the problems DTVA faces - it's main role as an airport is to act as "the gateway for the region" (which is why the councils are so keen). Business travels don't want lots of facilities but want them done well (and are probably the lowest spenders).

Many leisure travellers want the "airport experience", a drink, a meal, some shopping (I'll always remember the work colleague who said to me "the holiday hasn't started till I've bought a new handbag!") - although this lot spend more, DTVA has never had the throughput to justify the expenditure to provide the facilities.

As an aside, travelling with my non-aviation interested son through several European airports recently he commented that at most of them you could be anywhere, but Newcastle clearly promoted itself as being in the North East of England

[Beafer]

DTV Airshow day.
Pay to park 600m away.

Disabled parking should be free, considering Peels owner is a billionaire.

Disabled parking rate halved for Skylive airshow at Durham Tees Valley Airport - Gazette Live

[Cautious Optimist]

Beafer, it's not Peels air show and therefore they have nothing to do with the charges