Teesside-2

[P330]

Big picture - airport on track for another growth year with indications being next year will be bigger still in terms of passenger numbers.

But at the risk of sounding like our forum co-buddy ‘high wide’, even I am shocked that on a July day, there are just two flights today, one each to Aberdeen and Amsterdam!

The loss of those Eastern/Loganair’s is having a big impact on the movements (if not the passenger numbers).

[Grumpy1]

Some are trying to talk up monthly passenger numbers approaching only 20,000 per month in the hight of summer but they do the airport no service by refusing to acknowledge how bad this actually is.
The huge investment in the airport was justified on the basis that the target was 1.4m passengers per year (significantly over 100,000 per month in the summer!) with 50% of passengers on scheduled flights benefiting the region, not simply crappy bucket and spade holiday flights. We seem to be making no progress towards that target and our neighbours are leaving us behind again.

[Beafer]

Airport news. The 2 special friends will be happy

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...rport-27325204

[Grumpy1]

Funny how the press handouts from the mayors office never seem to mention that 90% of our asset has been gifted to his best friends and imply that the airport will benefit.

[pug]

Originally Posted by Grumpy1

Funny how the press handouts from the mayors office never seem to mention that 90% of our asset has been gifted to his best friends and imply that the airport will benefit.

Pardon my ignorance, but wasn’t this business park part of the Peel master plan on the proviso that they build houses on some of the non critical land surrounding the airport to help subsidise the ongoing running costs?

Meanwhile we learn that just throwing money at the problem isn’t the answer when it comes to small regional airports, as the airlines you’re trying to attract still go to the competition and pay more in the process.

[P330]

Originally Posted by Grumpy1

Some are trying to talk up monthly passenger numbers approaching only 20,000 per month in the hight of summer but they do the airport no service by refusing to acknowledge how bad this actually is.
The huge investment in the airport was justified on the basis that the target was 1.4m passengers per year (significantly over 100,000 per month in the summer!) with 50% of passengers on scheduled flights benefiting the region, not simply crappy bucket and spade holiday flights. We seem to be making no progress towards that target and our neighbours are leaving us behind again.

Direction of travel is what is important. And that direction is positive. Business plans from years ago should be taken with some scepticism today, not for any malevolent reason, but simply because that was years ago and the world has changed. Anyone who has ever written a budget or a business plan knows it is out of date on day one. With passengers numbers up and non-passenger activities also heading in the right direction, this is a good news story. Whether we will ever get to the dizzy heights of the predictions previously made, only time will tell.

What I do think is worth a mention Grumpy is your point on leisure v business. Houchen was adamant that this was about business flights of benefit to the whole region and not bucket and spade. Any sun routes were a bonus. It is now interesting that we are heavily reliant on sun routes for our traffic and much of that is with an airline who have a history of walking away with little notice. I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is very different to the original plan. To be fair, I could never see a market even then for domestic flying in our increasingly environmentally aware world, so maybe plans have simply evolved.

I don't ever see us getting to 1.4m without a based operator and that doesn't seem likely in the next year or two.

So, whilst the departure board looks sickly today, at least we're alive to 'feel sick' and we're much healthier this year than last.

[pug]

Originally Posted by P330

Direction of travel is what is important. And that direction is positive. Business plans from years ago should be taken with some scepticism today, not for any malevolent reason, but simply because that was years ago and the world has changed. Anyone who has ever written a budget or a business plan knows it is out of date on day one. With passengers numbers up and non-passenger activities also heading in the right direction, this is a good news story. Whether we will ever get to the dizzy heights of the predictions previously made, only time will tell.

What I do think is worth a mention Grumpy is your point on leisure v business. Houchen was adamant that this was about business flights of benefit to the whole region and not bucket and spade. Any sun routes were a bonus. It is now interesting that we are heavily reliant on sun routes for our traffic and much of that is with an airline who have a history of walking away with little notice. I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is very different to the original plan. To be fair, I could never see a market even then for domestic flying in our increasingly environmentally aware world, so maybe plans have simply evolved.

I don't ever see us getting to 1.4m without a based operator and that doesn't seem likely in the next year or two.

So, whilst the departure board looks sickly today, at least we're alive to 'feel sick' and we're much healthier this year than last.

All very true, but is it sustainable? He’s committed millions to the project, admittedly he has a mandate to do so but if it continues to be a dead weight and burden to the people who pay for it it puts it at high risk when the Mayor goes off and does something else or is voted out. Surely a more conservative approach to the core business is necessary to ensure that losses are at least manageable and justifiable - I.e keeping KLM as that has a wider regional economic benefit.

Seems a base by anyone is highly unlikely at any time given the proximity of competitor airports.

[SKOJB]

The airport has bob and no hope of attracting those types of passenger numbers, simply pie in the sky as NCL and LBA will continue to cream off the majority of traffic. MME only real lifeline is to continue to attract non pax commercial ventures like Willis, Draken, 2Excel etc!

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by pug

Pardon my ignorance, but wasn’t this business park part of the Peel master plan on the proviso that they build houses on some of the non critical land surrounding the airport to help subsidise the ongoing running costs?

Meanwhile we learn that just throwing money at the problem isn’t the answer when it comes to small regional airports, as the airlines you’re trying to attract still go to the competition and pay more in the process.

Yes, the only difference is it is now being funded by taxpayers money rather than the profits from the proposed housing. And the change in ownership, of course.

And yes, the 'global connectivity' argument seems to have disappeared ('no inward investment if you can't fly here'), the only schedules are those that lasted through the Peel years.

[Grumpy1]

Good points made. So was the business plan just a politicians fantasy? Willis, Draken and 2Excel will not be impressed by the masive investment and income from the South Side has been given away but we are still losing over £1 million per month. We will never approach a break even point with passenger numbers of only 20,000 per month or even two or three times that number so is it not time to be honest and stop pretending that these figures are in any way encouraging?

[SWBKCB]

Doubt that Willis, Draken and 2Excel have anything to moan about.

[pug]

Originally Posted by Grumpy1

Good points made. So was the business plan just a politicians fantasy? Willis, Draken and 2Excel will not be impressed by the masive investment and income from the South Side has been given away but we are still losing over £1 million per month. We will never approach a break even point with passenger numbers of only 20,000 per month or even two or three times that number so is it not time to be honest and stop pretending that these figures are in any way encouraging?

You probably can at least make a manageable loss on the smaller passenger numbers offset by other business on site, but I expect the reason Peel stopped hosting 737 sized aircraft was because it’s expensive to handle them in isolation and there weren’t enough movements to justify the cost of doing so. All about critical mass these days and the old times of having 30+ non-based charter flights per week in peak season are long over.

[Harold77]

CAA Monthly Airport Statistics for May 2023.

Terminal Passengers: 21,464
Aircraft Movements: 2,129
Cargo: 1 Tonne

Aberdeen 1,065
Alicante 3,156
Amsterdam 8,745
Faro 2,927
Palma 4,053
Jersey 266
Antalya 180
Bourgas 179

Lourdes 377
Tallinn 333
Jonkoping 50
Arvidsjaur 42
Sondre Stromfjord 91

[highwideandugly]

Usual back of fag packet workings show an average of 358 departing passengers per day.

And with reference to the previous posts regarding the split between business and pleasure…shows 145 business passengers departing on average per day

[N707ZS]

Originally Posted by Beafer

Airport news. The 2 special friends will be happy

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...rport-27325204

Is it a speculative construction or is there a customer for this building. If speculative this building could have been built anywhere instead of a location that could be used for aviation.

[P330]

Originally Posted by P330

Big picture - airport on track for another growth year with indications being next year will be bigger still in terms of passenger numbers.

But at the risk of sounding like our forum co-buddy ‘high wide’, even I am shocked that on a July day, there are just two flights today, one each to Aberdeen and Amsterdam!

The loss of those Eastern/Loganair’s is having a big impact on the movements (if not the passenger numbers).

Cancel that, the Aberdeen cancelled. So, 1 passenger flight all day - to Amsterdam at 6am.

[N707ZS]

Has anyone seen plans for the building being built on the South side. Should be Stockton council planning.

[SWBKCB]

It should be in this lot

https://www.developmentmanagement.st...=R6MES7PK00900

[N707ZS]

A maze of information. I did spot the environmental study. This was performed after the ground had been graded by machines. Picture page 16.
22_0271_FUL-ECOLOGICAL_APPRAISAL-2395604.pdf (stockton.gov.uk)

[SWBKCB]

Does anybody know whether the proposed SAF plant has any connection with the airport, other than Willis being involved and the end use of the product?

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...-fuel-27339692