DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 6
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Teesside
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of updates from KLM.
F70 retirement is being brought forward to October 2017. Winter and early summer timetables are now uploaded and so far it would appear we're scheduled to see the F70 throughout. Looks like we'll be one of the last to transfer to the new Embraer.
F70 retirement is being brought forward to October 2017. Winter and early summer timetables are now uploaded and so far it would appear we're scheduled to see the F70 throughout. Looks like we'll be one of the last to transfer to the new Embraer.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q&A with Durham Tees Valley Airport boss on holiday flights, housing and 'facing reality' - Gazette Live
A superb article, about time Peel communicated with the public a bit more! Can't really argue with Mr Hough's answers, very clear and concise.
The Northern Echo is running a similar article, also very positive until the end when they mention the hate-mongers over at STA.
A superb article, about time Peel communicated with the public a bit more! Can't really argue with Mr Hough's answers, very clear and concise.
The Northern Echo is running a similar article, also very positive until the end when they mention the hate-mongers over at STA.
Can't really argue with Mr Hough's answers, very clear and concise
Some people would argue that demand was there and the airport was run down to a point where the holiday flights went. How do you respond to that?
That is categorically wrong. We would certainly always follow opportunities from an airline wishing to engage with this airport. The demand fell and therefore the airlines felt unable to continue with those routes....
....Then the recession came and first of all, bmibaby and Fly Globespan and other operators here, they withdrew for the reasons I have just explained. That is the last thing we want to see happen because airports are driven successfully by volumes and if you don’t get the volume you don’t succeed....
That is categorically wrong. We would certainly always follow opportunities from an airline wishing to engage with this airport. The demand fell and therefore the airlines felt unable to continue with those routes....
....Then the recession came and first of all, bmibaby and Fly Globespan and other operators here, they withdrew for the reasons I have just explained. That is the last thing we want to see happen because airports are driven successfully by volumes and if you don’t get the volume you don’t succeed....
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That has been discussed conclusively on here multiple times before and no doubt will be again, but he briefly discusses that in the below paragraph, albeit vaguely:
Edit: After reading the bit you quoted again, it seems the answer to your argument is in the paragraph you quoted when he mentions about needing flights in volumes.
Is there a wish to become a holiday passenger airport again?
If the commercial opportunity were to arise in terms of interest from an airline with a clear demand from the public and the companies in the area for a route then the answer would be yes.
If the commercial opportunity were to arise in terms of interest from an airline with a clear demand from the public and the companies in the area for a route then the answer would be yes.
A superb article, about time Peel communicated with the public a bit more! Can't really argue with Mr Hough's answers, very clear and concise.
He says there are no holiday flights from DTVA because
The demand fell and therefore the airlines felt unable to continue with those routes....
It might be that the airport had "done a Blackpool" and signed contracts which meant they couldn't make money but that isn't the airlines fault, and it is wrong to say there are no flights because the airlines withdrew.
A super article??
Oh dear..we have heard it all a million times before..CO..which way did you vote...maybe?
I know,I Will as always be shouted down by your good self and one or two others..but the recent Britex vote will make it all the more difficult for DTV ( and others)both in aviation and hosing outlook.
I know,I Will as always be shouted down by your good self and one or two others..but the recent Britex vote will make it all the more difficult for DTV ( and others)both in aviation and hosing outlook.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hough
So thats it ! That's what we have all missed for so long, tour operators introduced larger aircraft onto previously successful routes & as such they failed !???
Perhaps someone would care to enlarge sic on this moot point. To me it simply doesn't make sense.
What it does reflect is a statement of no confidence in the Teesside public, then what follows is a negativity or unwillingness to promote routes.
What is interesting is that if at the end of 5 years from the earlier agreement date, then things are not to Peel's satisfaction,or whatever they may be, then potentially it's curtains !
Seven or eight years ago they were handling 120*-seat aircraft. Aircraft have grown bigger in recent years and puts pressure therefore on the smaller airports.
So thats it ! That's what we have all missed for so long, tour operators introduced larger aircraft onto previously successful routes & as such they failed !???
Perhaps someone would care to enlarge sic on this moot point. To me it simply doesn't make sense.
What it does reflect is a statement of no confidence in the Teesside public, then what follows is a negativity or unwillingness to promote routes.
What is interesting is that if at the end of 5 years from the earlier agreement date, then things are not to Peel's satisfaction,or whatever they may be, then potentially it's curtains !
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB - only after it became clear that nothing more than an Ibiza and a one month Bourgas (so essentially just a single route then) was going to be forthcoming, compared with a full programme of summer holidays and a substantial amount of winter charters too not that long prior, did they make that decision - they axed one route! Like I said, this has been adequately justified before and not just by me.
Yes - you have heard it a million times before, and you will hear it a million times again, and the reason you will hear it a million times again is because it's logical, correct and based on facts.
Looking back through your post history it seems to be most people and it's never that hard to do...
I voted remain by the way, which is the one thing you're correct about, leaving the EU will do DTVA no favours
Originally Posted by highwideandugly
Oh dear..we have heard it all a million times before..CO..which way did you vote...maybe?
..but the recent Britex vote will make it all the more difficult for DTV ( and others)both in aviation and hosing outlook.
..but the recent Britex vote will make it all the more difficult for DTV ( and others)both in aviation and hosing outlook.
I know,I Will as always be shouted down by your good self and one or two others..
I voted remain by the way, which is the one thing you're correct about, leaving the EU will do DTVA no favours
SWBKCB - only after it became clear that nothing more than an Ibiza and a one month Bourgas (so essentially just a single route then) was going to be forthcoming, compared with a full programme of summer holidays and a substantial amount of winter charters too not that long prior, did they make that decision - they axed one route! Like I said, this has been adequately justified before and not just by me.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Financial criteria not being met after 5 years
Interesting, so they paid £500,000 for 800 acres and not the 250 as first thought.
Agricultural land prices are over £10k per acre, so that makes Peels land worth £80m. As the airport is prime building land its probably worth ten times that.
Hough did drop a hint which makes me think they have included another dodgy "share clause" which the councils signed off last time.
It will probably give Peel all the council shares in 5 years if their history is anything to go by.
Whats the betting Peel will want £5m plus off each council in 5 years like recent events, and if they don't the councils will have to give another 10% of their shares like the last 10 year deal.
Peel chairman Hough quote:
"Secondly, there is an agreement we have entered into with the local authorities which is a framework, under which we will give assurances for the future to keep open the airport for a period of 10 years, with a break at five years or thereafter in the event of certain financial criteria not being met."
Clever funny handshakes with government ministers approving Grants to put roads and drains in ready for new houses, just like the One North East grants which paid for a new terminal road, which strangely enough is now where the houses are going to be built.
The local public lose out just like the Sheffield public did, with the tax payers paying for the road/drain infrastructure for house building.
One things for sure, Whitiker and Hough won't lose any sleep over the airport closing. They are making millions from certain airport council board members decisions in the past.
Its high time the original Peel / Council sale documents are made public. Peel got the airport for a fraction of its worth. If they have nothing to hide show the public the documents.
Who was on the board at the time???
Agricultural land prices are over £10k per acre, so that makes Peels land worth £80m. As the airport is prime building land its probably worth ten times that.
Hough did drop a hint which makes me think they have included another dodgy "share clause" which the councils signed off last time.
It will probably give Peel all the council shares in 5 years if their history is anything to go by.
Whats the betting Peel will want £5m plus off each council in 5 years like recent events, and if they don't the councils will have to give another 10% of their shares like the last 10 year deal.
Peel chairman Hough quote:
"Secondly, there is an agreement we have entered into with the local authorities which is a framework, under which we will give assurances for the future to keep open the airport for a period of 10 years, with a break at five years or thereafter in the event of certain financial criteria not being met."
Clever funny handshakes with government ministers approving Grants to put roads and drains in ready for new houses, just like the One North East grants which paid for a new terminal road, which strangely enough is now where the houses are going to be built.
The local public lose out just like the Sheffield public did, with the tax payers paying for the road/drain infrastructure for house building.
One things for sure, Whitiker and Hough won't lose any sleep over the airport closing. They are making millions from certain airport council board members decisions in the past.
Its high time the original Peel / Council sale documents are made public. Peel got the airport for a fraction of its worth. If they have nothing to hide show the public the documents.
Who was on the board at the time???
Last edited by Beafer; 28th Jun 2016 at 09:38. Reason: Time to show the public the sale contracts and all the special clauses made by Peel
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Echo have their own estimates on land prices.
'Our airport can still soar' says chairman (From The Northern Echo)
Wasn't Councillor Dixon on the original DTV board when Peel was given the airport? Why isn't he showing the public the original sale documents?
'Our airport can still soar' says chairman (From The Northern Echo)
Wasn't Councillor Dixon on the original DTV board when Peel was given the airport? Why isn't he showing the public the original sale documents?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I criticise the airport more often than I praise it, and yet I found the article quite reassuring. The 5 year thing is just common sense business practice, if an entity is still losing money after 18 years, of course they're going to ditch it
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly Robert, and the key thing is they don't expect it to be. Contrary to what all the armchair CEOs on here think, they will put the leg work in to turn the place around. The problem is, they shouldn't have mentioned five years at all, unless the council numpty that leaked it to the Gazette in the first place forced their hand?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beefer,
Unfortunately your posts that often ( though not always) contain some extremely relevant facts, simply invite ridicule as it is your tendancy to attempt an association with "secret societies with funny handshakes" etc. & to be honest from one who appreciates where you are coming from, it is becoming repetitive & boring.
If you have even the slightest evidence of corruption then you should take this to the appropriate authorities.
Unfortunately I take the view that the source of much of your concern is simply down to the sheer ignorance & basic incompetence of those trusted with, what were, public assets.
Moving on then it would not make sense if Peel did not seek to make use of incumbant resource such as a road infrastructure.
This thread is about aviation, & recent posting has little in common with that purpose.
Peel as majority shareholders are quite aware as to how far the limits of commercial business will allow them to go in seeking to maximimise their profits & the value of their investment. You need to appreciate that "thats life" & move on.
Perhaps you could do better in considering as to why Peel are able to claim that "larger" 180 seat aircraft (who calls that large!!) which incidentally offer much more ecconomic seat / mile costs were not considered appropriate by Peel for the population of Teesside & it's surroundings.
The obvious answer & always was, that they made an early decision that the airport was worth more for it's land, though to realise such would take some time & the negotiation of any number of public objections.
For my part by the time of the 5 year break option, then conveniently there will not be a business case for further commercial aviation activity at DTV. To which no one on this thread has come up with a business case / practical scenrio to the contrary.
Unfortunately I see little changing as it is being suggested that the UK is going to tip back into recession which will further erode into the remaining time available in the initial 5 year period to address this.
Lets face it "life's not fair!" if you feel that you have something positive to contribute to DTV's survival, then get off your backside & address your concerns in a more public forum, where you will be able to canvass support.
Unfortunately your posts that often ( though not always) contain some extremely relevant facts, simply invite ridicule as it is your tendancy to attempt an association with "secret societies with funny handshakes" etc. & to be honest from one who appreciates where you are coming from, it is becoming repetitive & boring.
If you have even the slightest evidence of corruption then you should take this to the appropriate authorities.
Unfortunately I take the view that the source of much of your concern is simply down to the sheer ignorance & basic incompetence of those trusted with, what were, public assets.
Moving on then it would not make sense if Peel did not seek to make use of incumbant resource such as a road infrastructure.
This thread is about aviation, & recent posting has little in common with that purpose.
Peel as majority shareholders are quite aware as to how far the limits of commercial business will allow them to go in seeking to maximimise their profits & the value of their investment. You need to appreciate that "thats life" & move on.
Perhaps you could do better in considering as to why Peel are able to claim that "larger" 180 seat aircraft (who calls that large!!) which incidentally offer much more ecconomic seat / mile costs were not considered appropriate by Peel for the population of Teesside & it's surroundings.
The obvious answer & always was, that they made an early decision that the airport was worth more for it's land, though to realise such would take some time & the negotiation of any number of public objections.
For my part by the time of the 5 year break option, then conveniently there will not be a business case for further commercial aviation activity at DTV. To which no one on this thread has come up with a business case / practical scenrio to the contrary.
Unfortunately I see little changing as it is being suggested that the UK is going to tip back into recession which will further erode into the remaining time available in the initial 5 year period to address this.
Lets face it "life's not fair!" if you feel that you have something positive to contribute to DTV's survival, then get off your backside & address your concerns in a more public forum, where you will be able to canvass support.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skyman771 - a fantastic post for the most part, but I know (not suspect, guess, hope or wish) that aviation activity is not going anywhere, not in five, ten or however many years time
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To close of not to close that is the question
I'm surprised that Peel haven't closed it if they are losing millions each year?
Makes one wonder why doesn't Peel just close it?
Ah yes, of course, they wouldn't get the grants worth millions of pounds to put the new roads in if it was closed would they
My money is on a housing estate as big as Ingleby Barwick. Just think of all that council tax going to the councils
Makes one wonder why doesn't Peel just close it?
Ah yes, of course, they wouldn't get the grants worth millions of pounds to put the new roads in if it was closed would they
My money is on a housing estate as big as Ingleby Barwick. Just think of all that council tax going to the councils
but I know (not suspect, guess, hope or wish) that aviation activity is not going anywhere, not in five, ten or however many years time