Plymouth city airport again
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny isn't it
LHR and NQY were both mentioned today
NEW HEATHROW COMMITMENTS WILL HELP CONNECT CORNWALL TO GLOBAL GROWTH | Newquay Cornwall Airport
cs
LHR and NQY were both mentioned today
NEW HEATHROW COMMITMENTS WILL HELP CONNECT CORNWALL TO GLOBAL GROWTH | Newquay Cornwall Airport
cs
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought....... I believe that the airfield licence is no longer. Now I am not an airfield licensing expert but. Would the CAA issue a licence for scheduled operations? I would expect that they would look at any application as a new licence and not a resurrection of the previous one. Therefore what are the requirements for scheduled service use. Would this need a renewed and extended runway with the latest ICAO RESAs etc. Over too the airfield guys for the answer.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon, people, get real. Even the Connectivity Task Force understood the big problem;
The word is "If".
There has been no Government policy whatsoever on increasing runway capacity at London hub airports, particularly Heathrow, and/or on building an alternative in the Thames estuary, since 2000, and there wasn't one before then either.
The 2003 study cost £100m and provided a way forward of sorts; the problem is that the conclusion of the study could have been written on a fag packet before the consultants got involved, although I'm personally very grateful to the tax-payers for the generous income that study provided for 4 years.
But the report was shelved by the Labour Government the day after it was published, for all practical purposes.
Successive announcements have been made about studies into the problem, as though the 003 study did not exist. I think there's one being planned even now, although I don't bother to keep up.
The 3rd short runway at LHR was a good solution when Charles Stuart launched it in the mid '80s; I was proud to have helped him with it. But it got nowhere in the face of stupidity, commercial and operational incompetence and competing vested interests.
That lethal combination means that no real addition to London airports' runway capacity is actually going to happen.
And that, in turn means that any hope of slots being allocated at a viable cost to routes from Plymouth to London is a pipe-dream.
If anyone is interested, the solution to the problem proposed in 2003, and shot down by BAA and NATS working together, was the 2000m parallel (to LGW) runway at Redhill, dedicated to regional services, with an 8-minute overland monorail transfer to Gatwick and a dedicated rail spur to central London from the terminal. When you see Gatwick promoting its own parallel runway, remember that in order to kill off Redhill as a competitor, BAA/NATs declared that a parallel runway could not operate safely without severe movement limitations. It was a lie, of course, but the DfT believed it.
If slots into the UK's international hub could be found for Plymouth the mothballing of the airport could be re-considered.
There has been no Government policy whatsoever on increasing runway capacity at London hub airports, particularly Heathrow, and/or on building an alternative in the Thames estuary, since 2000, and there wasn't one before then either.
The 2003 study cost £100m and provided a way forward of sorts; the problem is that the conclusion of the study could have been written on a fag packet before the consultants got involved, although I'm personally very grateful to the tax-payers for the generous income that study provided for 4 years.
But the report was shelved by the Labour Government the day after it was published, for all practical purposes.
Successive announcements have been made about studies into the problem, as though the 003 study did not exist. I think there's one being planned even now, although I don't bother to keep up.
The 3rd short runway at LHR was a good solution when Charles Stuart launched it in the mid '80s; I was proud to have helped him with it. But it got nowhere in the face of stupidity, commercial and operational incompetence and competing vested interests.
That lethal combination means that no real addition to London airports' runway capacity is actually going to happen.
And that, in turn means that any hope of slots being allocated at a viable cost to routes from Plymouth to London is a pipe-dream.
If anyone is interested, the solution to the problem proposed in 2003, and shot down by BAA and NATS working together, was the 2000m parallel (to LGW) runway at Redhill, dedicated to regional services, with an 8-minute overland monorail transfer to Gatwick and a dedicated rail spur to central London from the terminal. When you see Gatwick promoting its own parallel runway, remember that in order to kill off Redhill as a competitor, BAA/NATs declared that a parallel runway could not operate safely without severe movement limitations. It was a lie, of course, but the DfT believed it.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To meet the RESA requirements the runway thresholds would have to be displaced to 1,167m (code 2) to provide the 90m areas that were not present before? I also think that moving the car park was mentioned to meet the necessary safety distance from the terminal building.
I don't see how a 19 seat aircraft to STN/MAN would work (VIABLE's plan), aircraft would be limited due to the runway length anyway - so not many contenders if the airport did reopen (D328, ATR42, J41)? Viable even list the Twin Otter as a potential aircraft!
Another major income for the airport was the Royal Navy and FOST which apparently generates £600,000 per year.
The report also mentions over £9 million to reopen the airport up to standards.
I don't see how a 19 seat aircraft to STN/MAN would work (VIABLE's plan), aircraft would be limited due to the runway length anyway - so not many contenders if the airport did reopen (D328, ATR42, J41)? Viable even list the Twin Otter as a potential aircraft!
Another major income for the airport was the Royal Navy and FOST which apparently generates £600,000 per year.
The report also mentions over £9 million to reopen the airport up to standards.
Thread Starter
In a nutshell
So Plymouth could have an airport if it had somewhere near London for them to land?Also if the aircraft used were big enough to make a profit? I guess Newquay were lucky having that big runway!
There was an article(Plymouth Herald) last week where the A38 Plym to Exeter was going to be transformed into a mini motorway,that should do it then!!
There was an article(Plymouth Herald) last week where the A38 Plym to Exeter was going to be transformed into a mini motorway,that should do it then!!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They may as well just open it up as a GA airfield, at least get some profits going, cheap landing fees & parking, I'm sure some of these business types would afford a small turboprop taxi service to operate if they were really that desperate. They don't need to have all the fancy equipment for a GA facility (It helps), but if they want to keep aviation going at Plymouth, logically they need to take baby steps and build on it - will take years, but they need to get profits going first 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an article(Plymouth Herald) last week where the A38 Plym to Exeter was going to be transformed into a mini motorway,that should do it then!!
Don't you remember the glorious day when they unveiled a road sign on Haldon Hill calling the A38 the 'Devon Expressway'
A cheaper alternative to doing any actual work
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Runway 13/31 is relatively intact, the other runway isn't useable as some of the end was sold so now it is not long enough now.
The Viable plan does mention opening the aerodrome just for GA with basic fire cover - surely the costs of doing this would be quite low (compared with re opening properly).
The Viable plan does mention opening the aerodrome just for GA with basic fire cover - surely the costs of doing this would be quite low (compared with re opening properly).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word is "If".
There has been no Government policy whatsoever on increasing runway capacity at London hub airports, particularly Heathrow, and/or on building an alternative in the Thames estuary, since 2000, and there wasn't one before then either.
The 2003 study cost £100m and provided a way forward of sorts; the problem is that the conclusion of the study could have been written on a fag packet before the consultants got involved, although I'm personally very grateful to the tax-payers for the generous income that study provided for 4 years.
But the report was shelved by the Labour Government the day after it was published, for all practical purposes.
There has been no Government policy whatsoever on increasing runway capacity at London hub airports, particularly Heathrow, and/or on building an alternative in the Thames estuary, since 2000, and there wasn't one before then either.
The 2003 study cost £100m and provided a way forward of sorts; the problem is that the conclusion of the study could have been written on a fag packet before the consultants got involved, although I'm personally very grateful to the tax-payers for the generous income that study provided for 4 years.
But the report was shelved by the Labour Government the day after it was published, for all practical purposes.
Successive announcements have been made about studies into the problem, as though the 003 study did not exist. I think there's one being planned even now, although I don't bother to keep up.
The 3rd short runway at LHR was a good solution when Charles Stuart launched it in the mid '80s; I was proud to have helped him with it. But it got nowhere in the face of stupidity, commercial and operational incompetence and competing vested interests.
The 3rd short runway at LHR was a good solution when Charles Stuart launched it in the mid '80s; I was proud to have helped him with it. But it got nowhere in the face of stupidity, commercial and operational incompetence and competing vested interests.
That lethal combination means that no real addition to London airports' runway capacity is actually going to happen.
And that, in turn means that any hope of slots being allocated at a viable cost to routes from Plymouth to London is a pipe-dream.
If anyone is interested, the solution to the problem proposed in 2003, and shot down by BAA and NATS working together, was the 2000m parallel (to LGW) runway at Redhill, dedicated to regional services, with an 8-minute overland monorail transfer to Gatwick and a dedicated rail spur to central London from the terminal. When you see Gatwick promoting its own parallel runway, remember that in order to kill off Redhill as a competitor, BAA/NATs declared that a parallel runway could not operate safely without severe movement limitations. It was a lie, of course, but the DfT believed it.
If there has to be a satelite for "regional services" (think this means "thin domestic routes" (?)), it has to be at Northolt, which is also not particularly suitable but better than Redhill, and it has to be a stopgap till Heathrow is expanded.
Of course it could be a very long stopgap.
Thread Starter
Plymouth Herald
Local paper today states that"Heathrow"to give 10 million towards the airport opening as this is what they would like to see!!Sutton harbor trust has replied with much negativity ,of course!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The saga of Plymouth's flirtations with various airport projects post-war is littered with missed opportunities, lack of economic vision and (local) political ineptitude.
But perhaps the biggest mistake ever made was the sell-out to Sutton Harbour for short-term financial gain with disastrous consequences for the City and its hinterland.
The best thing the City could do at present is to take the airport, or what remains of it, back under its full control and banish Sutton Holdings forever.
But perhaps the biggest mistake ever made was the sell-out to Sutton Harbour for short-term financial gain with disastrous consequences for the City and its hinterland.
The best thing the City could do at present is to take the airport, or what remains of it, back under its full control and banish Sutton Holdings forever.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Local paper today states that"Heathrow"to give 10 million towards the airport opening as this is what they would like to see"
don't wait up to see the cash arrive.............
"Heathrow" would promise anything to anyone to try and get that third runway
don't wait up to see the cash arrive.............
"Heathrow" would promise anything to anyone to try and get that third runway
Thread Starter
Plymouth city council
Judge 11,the councils lack of flirtations with so many things that could make Plymouth a great city instead of just a mediocre one .
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good people of Plymouth and the surrounding area have proved over the years that theyare only interested in the airport if flights are heavily
subsididised by either the taxpayer or the long suffering shareholders of the airlines
A very small number of people would like a connection to LHR for personal business reasons - everyone else is happy using the train and (god forbid) the bus
The council can sell of the land it and it can be used for development with only a tiny amount of opposition (especially if the alternative is an airport)
Face it Plymouth has gone, Manston will be gone and places like Carlisle, Teeside, Dundee & Newquay are on the edge for the same reasons
subsididised by either the taxpayer or the long suffering shareholders of the airlines
A very small number of people would like a connection to LHR for personal business reasons - everyone else is happy using the train and (god forbid) the bus
The council can sell of the land it and it can be used for development with only a tiny amount of opposition (especially if the alternative is an airport)
Face it Plymouth has gone, Manston will be gone and places like Carlisle, Teeside, Dundee & Newquay are on the edge for the same reasons
Thread Starter
I will be arriving this week
Yes in the UK and heading for Plymouth,been a while but my options are take the bus to Reading and catch a train and if like last time stand all the way,Thai wife not impressed .Or stroll to the bus station and catch a bus that takes five and a half hours,oh what fun!!!
Heathrow Harry ,have you any idea how much money the government could rake in if they paid more attention to tax avoidance schemes?Tax laws made by the very same accountants that work for big business!!!Why should Plymouth not get subsidies?See what G4S got at the Olympics?!!!!
Heathrow Harry ,have you any idea how much money the government could rake in if they paid more attention to tax avoidance schemes?Tax laws made by the very same accountants that work for big business!!!Why should Plymouth not get subsidies?See what G4S got at the Olympics?!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You CAn book seats on the train........ in fact for cheap fares you HAVE to book a seat
I am aware of the money stolen by tax-avaoidance schemes but
1. in general those who have the cash, have the cash to pay people who are a damn sight clever than any government and they can (and will) always be a step ahead of that game
2. any extra cash will not necessarily be spent on airports but on fripperies such as defence, old people, the NHS and even roads
I am aware of the money stolen by tax-avaoidance schemes but
1. in general those who have the cash, have the cash to pay people who are a damn sight clever than any government and they can (and will) always be a step ahead of that game
2. any extra cash will not necessarily be spent on airports but on fripperies such as defence, old people, the NHS and even roads
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Darwen, UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts