Former RAF Church Fenton

[Fairdealfrank]

The costs, planning and timescale for the sort of airport that Leeds Approach dreams of would make Church Fenton a non-starter today, but even if they didn't is there any evidence at all that airlines would switch from LBA to Church Fenton, or that new operators would prefer to operate from Church Fenton? I can't see it myself. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. For all it's disadvantages, LBA is now the only game in town.

Identical debate as Heathrow v. Boris, with the same arguments rehearsed ad nauseum (yes, am partly to blame!) on the "new Thames airport for London" thread.


http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...rt-london.html

I think L A is failing to grasp how airlines work

.

Also failing to grasp how market economics work and how the airport sector operates when it's not publicly owned. This is not the USA.

Highly recommend a read of the above-mentioned "new Thames airport for London" thread.

Never underestimate the importance of incumbency!

[Airbanda]

Birmingham's spent £33m on extending their runway 400m. I've added 750m or so to the Church Fenton runway so based on the BHX spend. that's going to be £50m to £60m just on that cost. Where do we start on the other facilities?

As already stated this project is a non starter in current political/legislative climate.

However Birmingham's 'cost to extend' is much greater than and a putative Church Fenton International. Extension there (like at LBA in eighties) involved putting a trunk road into underpass.

[Teevee]

For general information ....

While most contributing this thread will be aware of the historical rivalry between Lancashire (which is where MAN is situated) and Yorkshire (LBA and Church Fenton) some just reading it may not be. We, (Yorkshire folk) are fed up of having to pour our hard earned money into Lancashire pockets if we can't fly from LBA and fed up of our taxes flying south into Boris's next project or the latest Heathrow extension. And don't get me started on having our kings stolen by the Midlanders! But don't worry LA, it'll all be ok when we finally get independence and Church Fenton becomes the base for Yorkshire Airlines!

[David Thompson]

"But don't worry LA, it'll all be ok when we finally get independence and Church Fenton becomes the base for Yorkshire Airlines!"

Didn't that happen in the 1980's when Jack Ruskin aka Roy Marsden operated an airline from there ? This Wiki link says Rufforth but I'm pretty sure Jack flew from Church Fenton ; Airline (1982 TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Teevee]

I was thinking of the classic Hale and Pace sketch which is still on the internet somewhere. LBA does at least get a 'mention' though if I'm not mistaken the aircraft used for some of the shots looks like an old monarch livery!

[Fairdealfrank]

I was thinking of the classic Hale and Pace sketch which is still on the internet somewhere. LBA does at least get a 'mention' though if I'm not mistaken the aircraft used for some of the shots looks like an old monarch livery!

Don't know about any Hale and Pace sketch, but what does come to mind is Monty Python's four Yorkshiremen.

"Airport on top of a hill?"
"You were lucky, we had a rwy that was too short"
"Rwy too short? We'd have given our eye-teeth for that!"
"That's nothing, we had no motorway or rail access".

[snchater]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR9Zdgv2Kag


Enjoy!

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Wow this is a flat airfield! It's as flat as Yeadon airport is bumpy. The train link from Leeds (before even an airport exists) is seamless. This is on a 'slow' train that stops at four stations before CF and still it only takes 23 minutes to CF rail station, much quicker than the bus from Leeds city centre to Yeadon airport. A none stopping train would take in the region of 17 minutes. Obviously the distance between the current rail station and a possible terminal cannot be known but would be very close.

People keep saying this is a 'vanity project' but that is utter nonsense knowing how Yeadon airport struggles with its many issues and the fact that it is languishing many millions of passengers behind where it should be. The ease of road and rail connectivity to CF has been proven with figures beyond any doubt now and is truly in an ideal location to become in future years an international airport for all of Yorkshire.

It's all about potential to do the job as we go into the future. Who can honestly say that Yeadon airport can do the job of being a suitable airport for Yorkshire even today? I really hope that Mr Makin gets help from some source to develop his plan for CF because in pure aviation terms it's an absolute no brainer to develop a civil airport on that site. It's very encouraging that he plans scheduled European flights.

[Andy_S]

Originally Posted by LEEDS APPROACH

.....in pure aviation terms it's an absolute no brainer to develop a civil airport on that site.

In aviation terms, maybe. Unfortunately, in economic terms it's a non starter.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

In aviation terms, maybe. Unfortunately, in economic terms it's a non starter.

And yet someone has started it and wants to run European services. Economic payback is incredibly difficult to quantify as can be wealth over hundreds of years. How much has the Yorkshire region lost in terms of wealth by having a sub 3 million passenger airport while MAN has been growing from 15 million upto well above 20million for 40+ years?

Without knowing where clarty waters is it is difficult for me to assess your economic 'non starter' stance. I think it would be an economic masterstroke for Yorkshire. My point is just get the ball rolling with the most basic passenger airport and see what happens. The minimum spend.

[Andy_S]

Originally Posted by LEEDS APPROACH

How much has the Yorkshire region lost in terms of wealth by having a sub 3 million passenger airport while MAN has been growing from 15 million upto well above 20million for 40+ years?

And there's a big part of your problem. You see this in terms of Yorkshire vs Manchester rather than in terms of finance, investment and rate of return.

I don't disagree with your notion about starting with a basic airport and seeing what happens. Why don't we just do that? If it's as irresistible a prospect as you think then the business will roll in. Personally I think the barriers to entry for Church Fenton are considerable, but we will see.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

And there's a big part of your problem. You see this in terms of Yorkshire vs Manchester rather than in terms of finance, investment and rate of return.

I don't disagree with your notion about starting with a basic airport and seeing what happens. Why don't we just do that? If it's as irresistible a prospect as you think then the business will roll in. Personally I think the barriers to entry for Church Fenton are considerable, but we will see.

I don't see it as a problem - it's a fact. Millions of Yorkshire people are literally helping to drive the economy over the pennines. It's a disgrace that politicians in Yorkshire (because of their infighting) have allowed this to happen. Church Fenton will be a success but it needs every politician in Yorkshire pulling in the same direction. The reason we've got an insufficient airport on a windy hill is historic political decision making. Stop throwing good money after bad on a field that is completely unsuitable in virtually every imaginable way and set a marker in the sand. As you say we will see.

[commit aviation]

I shall post here in an effort to allow the LBA thread to get back to LBA business!
Leeds Approach talks at length about population being the key: So lets consider London.
Based on your argument long haul carriers would be happy to fly from LHR, LGW or STN as all have reasonably large catchment areas as well as drawing from Central London. The reality is that LHR is where the longhaul traffic migrates to whenever possible. OK, LHR is the hub airport for the UK but if it is all about population then following LA's mantra, surely the other 2 should support longhaul operations??? Both have catchment areas greater than 5 million. Yet, most of the LGW - US routes moved when Bermuda 2 ended & STN has never really supported a longhaul operation successfully. Many people from Cambridge / East Anglia area drive straight past STN to get to LHR in much the same way as Yorkshire folk drive past LBA to reach MAN. The airport at STN is not constrained as LBA is yet there is still little or no appetite from airlines to fly longhaul from there. (The same is true for the BHX catchment area although they do support some longhaul traffic.) Sadly that is why I think your argument on population may be a little flawed.
I accept that if we were starting with a blank piece of paper LBA would not be the first choice but we are where we are and I see no commercial, political or financial appetite for this.

[Helen49]

Church Fenton……….Larg..ish ex-RAF airfield
Requires a lot of money to convert it into a licenced civil airport
Major roads nearby……needing a lot of money to connect with the airport
Major railway line nearby…….. needing a lot of money to connect with the airport
Other civil airports within easy travelling distance
No proven market or interested airlines
Requires a serious gambler to take the bait
Now where have I heard that before?
See thee bi gum………..it’l nivver appen!

[Oh and isn’t MAN in Cheshire??]

H49

[2Planks]

Much as I would like to see someone bankroll CF International, I can't see it happening. Unfortunately, Yorkshire backed the wrong horse as airports go with LBA but commercial inertia will predominate. However, I don't accept that there would not be a long haul element - for instance Glasgow and Edinburgh are only 50 miles apart and both sustain long haul, though Edinburgh seems to be winning the expansion battle, (and that's for a central belt population of 4.5m (ish) ). Newcastle is also building its long haul slowly - so maybe there is a market.


Certainly as a York dweller I would do as much as I could to avoid the trip to LHR - I know LBA has a shuttle - but as it would be a holiday of a lifetime I'm not sure I would risk the BA shuttle which is one of the first to drop off the programme if there are any snags.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by commit aviation

I shall post here in an effort to allow the LBA thread to get back to LBA business!
Leeds Approach talks at length about population being the key: So lets consider London.
Based on your argument long haul carriers would be happy to fly from LHR, LGW or STN as all have reasonably large catchment areas as well as drawing from Central London. The reality is that LHR is where the longhaul traffic migrates to whenever possible. OK, LHR is the hub airport for the UK but if it is all about population then following LA's mantra, surely the other 2 should support longhaul operations??? Both have catchment areas greater than 5 million. Yet, most of the LGW - US routes moved when Bermuda 2 ended & STN has never really supported a longhaul operation successfully. Many people from Cambridge / East Anglia area drive straight past STN to get to LHR in much the same way as Yorkshire folk drive past LBA to reach MAN. The airport at STN is not constrained as LBA is yet there is still little or no appetite from airlines to fly longhaul from there. (The same is true for the BHX catchment area although they do support some longhaul traffic.) Sadly that is why I think your argument on population may be a little flawed.
I accept that if we were starting with a blank piece of paper LBA would not be the first choice but we are where we are and I see no commercial, political or financial appetite for this.

I must say it's nice to have a proper adult debate with counter argument.

Population is not the be all and end all but it is a very important part of the jigsaw. Comparing the London market with the Yorks. and Humber market compares two very different animals. Heathrow rules as it is the closest and best connected airport to one of the most important cities in the world. Airlines are extremely reluctant to accept 2nd best when it comes to London. Politics plays even a bigger role than it ever will in Yorkshire. In reality though there will still be many Yorkshire passengers driving past CF on their way to MAN for long haul flights- this is predominantly not about long haul. There will be some sustainable long haul routes to the favourites such as DXB, SFB and even maybe JFK/EWR that will be very unlikely from Yeadon's marginal runway. The airport will allow a proper ratio of services that better equates to the two regions. As somebody has stated the best two airports that properly simulate a MAN / CF dual role are Edinburgh and Glasgow - two airports, well connected, with suitable space for expansion and usable runways. They battle on a much leveller playing field than MAN and LBA.

If a past mistake has been made why keep on adding to that mistake? There could be another 100 years of aviation in Yorkshire and even now they are parking on the taxiways in the snow in Yeadon. If they were considering building a brand new airport for London why not start the ball rolling at least for an airport in Yorkshire that can satisfy the regions potential?

[DaveReidUK]

If they were considering building a brand new airport for London why not start the ball rolling at least for an airport in Yorkshire that can satisfy the regions potential?

Good parallel.

And, give or take a couple of zeroes on the end of the numbers, the reasons why a Thames Estuary airport isn't going to happen are the same as the reasons why CF International won't either.

If a past mistake has been made why keep on adding to that mistake? There could be another 100 years of aviation in Yorkshire

Another good parallel.

With 70 years of hindsight, you wouldn't have built Heathrow where it is, with its east-west runways pointing directly towards London. But it's there, and that's one of the givens in the current airport expansion debate.

Clean sheets of paper are pretty rare nowadays.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Good parallel.

And, give or take a couple of zeroes on the end of the numbers, the reasons why a Thames Estuary airport isn't going to happen are the same as the reasons why CF International won't either.

Not a couple of zeroes - I'll accept one zero though.

Another good parallel.

With 70 years of hindsight, you wouldn't have built Heathrow where it is, with its east-west runways pointing directly towards London. But it's there, and that's one of the givens in the current airport expansion debate.

The difference is LHR has been a raging success in its lifetime - 74 million passengers. How can it keep growing is not really my debate. LBA has always had its hands tied due to its position and very poor airfield attributes. 50 years to reach 3 million passengers. This is how the two debates completely differ.

Clean sheets of paper are pretty rare nowadays.

Unless you're building a high speed rail link years behind the rest of Europe. That's why a Yorkshire airport is needed now not in another 20 years of treading water at Yeadon. Think future.

[pwalhx]

Your desire for a Yorkshire International Airport is laudable, but the one factor that has not been mentioned is the vast majority either don't care or don't want it. I am afraid you are in danger of swimming against the tide. I don't recall much mention in the Yorkshire Post or local business magazines any clamour for a new 'Leeds' airport or have I heard anything on Calendar or Look North. I attend a lot of meetings including the Northern Futures and do not recall it being a subject that has been mentioned at all.

The North has too many airports, and despite your contention that Finningley wasn't the answer, Finningley was touted to be exactly what you wanted and has hardly set the world on fire.

As has also been said hindsight is the only exact science, Heathrow would not have been built where it was, Manchester and Liverpool would have built on the former 5 runway USAAF base at Burtonwood and Yeadon would not be the airport for Leeds but there it is and despite your desperate wish for it to change it won't.

I live in Yorkshire, pay my taxes here and I would much rather any money available was spent on other projects than an airport that has no guarantee of being the success you wish it would be in a location that would be no more convenient for me.

Manchester will I am afraid remain the major gateway for the North of England and the flights you desire this side of the Pennines to DXB/EWR etc have already gone to Newcastle.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by LEEDS APPROACH

Not a couple of zeroes - I'll accept one zero though

Hmmm. Davies estimates the cost of a Thames Estuary airport at £70bn+.

Good luck raising the £7 billion that you reckon you're going to need for CF, then.