DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 6
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB - A pretty factual summarization I'd say.
My point is to question, even before any construction takes place, then does the plan actually make financial sense?, given the ongoing lack of progress ref bullet point #2 re the development of civil aviation.
I certainly can see no (aviation related) logic in the premature scaling back of pax services i.e. IT's etc. when there was no pipeline to replace these services, & no "short term plan" other than a reduction of the ground handling services / costs.
At this point then I see nothing positive out that this action other than a small contribution by cost reductions to ongoing losses at best.
What it does not appear to address is the necessary improvements in DTV's "commercial product" to present a convincing argument that increases in short range regional flights are anything more than fantasy.
In summarizing I see that a plan which promotes the development of DTV in any civil aviation (i.e. pax related) as nothing more than a big con. The only reason that it can be portrayed as anything other than nonsense is that the KL service contract has remained in place.
Unfortunately as & when this is up for renewal then as I see it then DTV’s position as an active civil airport will (conveniently for some) be past the point of no return.
Finally I am surprised that some posters (DTVAirport take note!) do not study the fate of Sheffield airport in more depth. There are lessons to be learnt, however then it has always been unclear to me as to what side of the fence these posters interests actually lie
My point is to question, even before any construction takes place, then does the plan actually make financial sense?, given the ongoing lack of progress ref bullet point #2 re the development of civil aviation.
I certainly can see no (aviation related) logic in the premature scaling back of pax services i.e. IT's etc. when there was no pipeline to replace these services, & no "short term plan" other than a reduction of the ground handling services / costs.
At this point then I see nothing positive out that this action other than a small contribution by cost reductions to ongoing losses at best.
What it does not appear to address is the necessary improvements in DTV's "commercial product" to present a convincing argument that increases in short range regional flights are anything more than fantasy.
In summarizing I see that a plan which promotes the development of DTV in any civil aviation (i.e. pax related) as nothing more than a big con. The only reason that it can be portrayed as anything other than nonsense is that the KL service contract has remained in place.
Unfortunately as & when this is up for renewal then as I see it then DTV’s position as an active civil airport will (conveniently for some) be past the point of no return.
Finally I am surprised that some posters (DTVAirport take note!) do not study the fate of Sheffield airport in more depth. There are lessons to be learnt, however then it has always been unclear to me as to what side of the fence these posters interests actually lie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get some things straight - aviation is one of the slowest-progressing industries in the world, nothing happens overnight not just for DTVA but anywhere, and here you all are expecting a long-term plan which was announced barely a few months ago to be reaping fruit practically overnight?!
MME is at the thin edge of all of that with poor prospects in a deprived area.
Explain how you make any substantive return on worthwhile investment in that market worth the wait. Of course you canb't they're not stupid, but they do have some devout and willing believers. This plan Mr Baldrick, is it a cunning plan? Shareholders ain't *that* patient you know, senior management in any business have to show results, your argument around "patience" is not a commercially driven option here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting bored of this now, I'm in a no-win situation, all I can do is play the waiting game safe in the knowledge I will one day be proved right.
I'm not a "true believer" as many put it, I just have the benefit of understanding the situation from both an internal and external perspective and can see the obvious. Say what you like, the airport is not going anywhere any time soon.
I'm not a "true believer" as many put it, I just have the benefit of understanding the situation from both an internal and external perspective and can see the obvious. Say what you like, the airport is not going anywhere any time soon.
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
Unfortunately any positive news is usually followed by lots of negative news. The genuine supporters of DTVA and there are a few tend to respond with stock answers.This does not help their cause.The usual responses,I know things but cannot tell you.This is going to happen soon but cannot tell you when.Wait and see progress is being made.It all takes time to implement, action which will turn round the airport and make it viable.Until people can genuinely see an improvement in the airports future,the general opinion is that it has no future which is sad.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some quarters 'Boris' is being suggested as a possible replacement for Hague
Could this mean DTVA being promoted as additional London runway???
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
Could this mean DTVA being promoted as additional London runway???
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
They would have to stuff Boris in the House of Lords for that to happen.
They ain't going to kick some old duffer "upstairs" and risk a by-election to get Boris back in the Commons, because that would activate the UKIP bandwagon.
Also, a by-election in summer, very low turnout, very unpredictable result. It's too risky, it won't happen.
So how does "Lord Boris of the Thames Estuary in the Counties of Essex and Kent" sound............
New runway plans down south and regional airports.
Comments 'A wing and a prayer. Not living in the real world'.
Peter Nears responds.
Airport plans 'on wing and prayer' (From The Northern Echo)
Comments 'A wing and a prayer. Not living in the real world'.
Peter Nears responds.
Airport plans 'on wing and prayer' (From The Northern Echo)
Well over twenty UK airports were linked to LHR in the early 1990s, now its just seven.
MME is, regretably, a classic case in point: its serious decline started when the BD link to LHR was axed.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DTVAirport
Well you could actually elaborate on what "the obvious is" as in your mind it would appear to differ from virtually everyone else on this forum.
As a point of assistance then it's not actually the airport that was ever going anywhere, it's actually the aircraft! & if you took off your rose tinted spectacles & took the time to look then you would actually see that they have all now virtually gone along with the services that they used to provide.
I'm not a "true believer" as many put it, I just have the benefit of understanding the situation from both an internal and external perspective and can see the obvious. Say what you like, the airport is not going anywhere any time soon.
As a point of assistance then it's not actually the airport that was ever going anywhere, it's actually the aircraft! & if you took off your rose tinted spectacles & took the time to look then you would actually see that they have all now virtually gone along with the services that they used to provide.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skyman771
Well you could actually elaborate on what "the obvious is" as in your mind it would appear to differ from virtually everyone else on this forum.
All this talk of 'believers' and 'non-believers' is a bit playground.
I'm just looking at the published plans and trying to make sense of them - the two things that look odd to me are the decision to dump TOM and BGH, and then the plan to build houses with in yards of an active airport. The other main thrust of the strategy - which seems to be diversification into related aviation activity - has some merit, but as with all these things, the writers can't resist pushing it and dangling a few shiny beads to impress the natives.
A bit more explanation rather than the 'I know but can't tell' approach might help to build a more positive atmosphere and dispel some of the suspicion about the owners motives.
I'm just looking at the published plans and trying to make sense of them - the two things that look odd to me are the decision to dump TOM and BGH, and then the plan to build houses with in yards of an active airport. The other main thrust of the strategy - which seems to be diversification into related aviation activity - has some merit, but as with all these things, the writers can't resist pushing it and dangling a few shiny beads to impress the natives.
A bit more explanation rather than the 'I know but can't tell' approach might help to build a more positive atmosphere and dispel some of the suspicion about the owners motives.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The houses issue is being blown out of all proportion in this thread. I was at Farnborough this last weekend and guess what, a large development of executive flats and houses is being built adjacent to the airfield entrance. Is anyone foretelling of mass uprisings of new residents at FAB insisting the airfield be closed or operations restricted? I don't think so.
People buying a new build house near an airport do so in the full knowledge they are buying a house next to an airport. Any argument they have in future against the operation of that airport is therefore weakened. If it realises a land value for Peel that can be reinvested to improve the airport what's the problem...
People buying a new build house near an airport do so in the full knowledge they are buying a house next to an airport. Any argument they have in future against the operation of that airport is therefore weakened. If it realises a land value for Peel that can be reinvested to improve the airport what's the problem...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near MME, England, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyH52 - Well said!
I'm struggling to understand why people can't grasp why myself and others can't elaborate on things that Peel have in the pipeline for DTVA? It's commercially sensitive, simple as.
Nevertheless, I'm going to try my best to expand; I can immediately think of seven items I've been made aware of over recent weeks, all positive things. Of these seven:
*Four are happening imminently
*Of these four, two maybe three, will be announced in press releases, the rest will simply just go ahead.
*One no-one on here will give a
about
*Of the remaining three items, one is medium-term and by no means guaranteed, one is long-term, and one is very long-term and thus may never happen
I doubt this will satisfy most but there you go anyway.
I'm struggling to understand why people can't grasp why myself and others can't elaborate on things that Peel have in the pipeline for DTVA? It's commercially sensitive, simple as.
Nevertheless, I'm going to try my best to expand; I can immediately think of seven items I've been made aware of over recent weeks, all positive things. Of these seven:
*Four are happening imminently
*Of these four, two maybe three, will be announced in press releases, the rest will simply just go ahead.
*One no-one on here will give a
about*Of the remaining three items, one is medium-term and by no means guaranteed, one is long-term, and one is very long-term and thus may never happen
I doubt this will satisfy most but there you go anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB - I agree. I came across these forums the other day that may be able to help clarify: (apologies if I'm inadvertently breaking any advertising rules here)
dtvafacts dot freeforums dot org
dtvafacts dot freeforums dot org
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyH52
I beg to disagree, it never was just about houses, though all your comments do is actually draw focus to this issue by eluding to alternate and completely irrelevant developments elsewhere.
This thread's focus has always been about commercial aviation and related subjects at DTVA / MME. As it appears to me, and I'm quite entitled to my opinion as are all others, then these activities are under threat as a result of the ongoing & "possibly" devious activities of a certain property company who may have a more sinister long term and as yet undisclosed "Plan B" .
However to put a balance on this, then I may be completey wrong & in which case I apologise. However as many have said before & which I also endorse then to me the the plans for the future of the aviation related activites as disclosed, make little sense, though unfortunately the potential asset value of the land offers a much greater source of revenue to an ultimate owner whose principal activity is the development of land.
Some would say "wake up and smell the coffee !"
The houses issue is being blown out of all proportion in this thread
This thread's focus has always been about commercial aviation and related subjects at DTVA / MME. As it appears to me, and I'm quite entitled to my opinion as are all others, then these activities are under threat as a result of the ongoing & "possibly" devious activities of a certain property company who may have a more sinister long term and as yet undisclosed "Plan B" .
However to put a balance on this, then I may be completey wrong & in which case I apologise. However as many have said before & which I also endorse then to me the the plans for the future of the aviation related activites as disclosed, make little sense, though unfortunately the potential asset value of the land offers a much greater source of revenue to an ultimate owner whose principal activity is the development of land.
Some would say "wake up and smell the coffee !"
DTVAirport - we've been hearing for years that major new plans for DTV will be announced shortly.
Building houses on land part of a quiet airport is little more than a form of asset stripping.
Aircraft scrapping is interesting but substantially about renting out some of the existing land for use as a factory / recycling plant - landing fees are likely to be minimal in comparison.
Caravan storage is just a way of renting out some brownfield land.
We're left with very very little that has come anywhere near to fruition that has been announced in the last few years, while passenger and cargo throughput has fallen off a cliff. I can think of 4 commercial passenger airports in England that have either been redeveloped or will be shortly for alternate non-aviation use since 2000. There would need to be a very compelling set of actions from DTV's management with sizeable amounts of Peel's cash being invested in a long-term project to explain why DTV does not become number 5.
Building houses on land part of a quiet airport is little more than a form of asset stripping.
Aircraft scrapping is interesting but substantially about renting out some of the existing land for use as a factory / recycling plant - landing fees are likely to be minimal in comparison.
Caravan storage is just a way of renting out some brownfield land.
We're left with very very little that has come anywhere near to fruition that has been announced in the last few years, while passenger and cargo throughput has fallen off a cliff. I can think of 4 commercial passenger airports in England that have either been redeveloped or will be shortly for alternate non-aviation use since 2000. There would need to be a very compelling set of actions from DTV's management with sizeable amounts of Peel's cash being invested in a long-term project to explain why DTV does not become number 5.