Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Teesside-2

Old 30th Dec 2021, 07:16
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Nothing on either website. On the Darlington website, there is an application to demolish a maintenance building next to Hangar 3 which would suggest H3 would also fall to them. In general terms Northside seems to be Darlington and Southside Stockton? Not sure the Stockton website is showing all planning applications though. With regard to functions, I think change of use permission is required if for more than 28 days a year (unless that is just agricultural land)
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2021, 07:25
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by Harold77 View Post
CAA January - October figures 2021 for Teesside.

Terminal Passengers 59,394
Transit Passengers 6,369

Rolling Passenger Numbers for the year: 61,338

So going off the monthly figures they are collected by public services and charter flights. So that leaves 1,944 other passengers, I would presume that this figure includes business jets etc. This figure would include the Prime Minister Boris Johnson's multiple appearences this year at the airport and royalty.
So wouldn't the 'Passengers Rolling year' figure include November and December 2020, whereas the January - October figures 2021 are just the first ten months of 2021?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2021, 15:11
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
So wouldn't the 'Passengers Rolling year' figure include November and December 2020, whereas the January - October figures 2021 are just the first ten months of 2021?
Oh yeah, must remember to double check counting when half awake.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2021, 16:50
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 381
The difference in the YTD v rolling 12 month passenger numbers is November (1,008 pax) and December (936 pax) last year.

Passengers on small planes (under 15 tonnes MTWA) are not included in the CAA passenger stats (but are in the movements).
tigertanaka is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2021, 18:56
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Any news on when the 25% owning charitable trust will become a charity or when the trustee appointment process will be completed?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 07:15
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen flew out to America to hold in-depth talks with a global aviation firm wanting to secure its next stage of investment at Teesside.

Willis Lease Finance Corporation, which already has a huge base at the airport, is believed to be planning up to four more hangers in a multi-million pound investment that would create hundreds of highly-skilled roles.

The Mayor spent three days negotiating with the group, including its CEO and Chairman Charles F Willis IV, ahead of a potential deal which could be confirmed in the next few weeks.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...sside-airport/
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 11:53
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 31
Posts: 10
Is that article code for “the passenger side really isn’t working, we are throwing good money after bad paying airlines”
jorvik is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 12:27
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by jorvik View Post
Is that article code for “the passenger side really isn’t working, we are throwing good money after bad paying airlines”
If 12k pax per month is anything to go by, then yes you could be right!
SKOJB is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 13:36
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 517
The article is somewhat misleading, claiming the housing land "could now be kept for its intended purposes" is ridiculous, given this new hangar complex will at best incorporate 25% of said land, with the bulk still unsuitable for aviation use, which is why housing was planned for there in the first instance.

The main evidence that the Mayor is misleading people however comes from this line:
Originally Posted by Ben Houchen
It welcomed its first aircraft, a Boeing 737, in August last year and since then we’ve seen more and more pass into our hangars.
Two additional aircraft is not "more and more".
Robert-Ryan is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 13:37
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by jorvik View Post
Is that article code for “the passenger side really isn’t working, we are throwing good money after bad paying airlines”
😴🙄

Is that what you get from the article? They have always been looking to diversify.
What's you take on opening a duty free shop then with your above attitude?
So when they announce more routes or the pax operations are still going this time next year I expect you to be eating your words?
onion is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 13:55
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by Robert-Ryan View Post
Two additional aircraft is not "more and more".
Especially given what been happening at Lasham, Kemble, St. Athan in the same period

The whole piece is full of it's, but's and maybe's with nothing new from Willis themselves - the quote being re-cycled from last year. I understand that Willis have already received considerable support.

The article also seems to be implying that the land to be used is that in the last Peel proposal, which I thought was the land to the west of St George way (the terminal approach road) and the terminal car park, but that can't be right!

Is that what you get from the article? They have always been looking to diversify
Absolutely agree and this type of operation is exactly the sort of thing they should be aiming for, but as I've said above, this does lack susbstance.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 14:41
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,382
The article is a big cringe but it is what is being fed to the whole of Teesside, a percentage believe it a small percentage disagree but the majority couldn't care less.

It will be interesting to see where the extra hangar or hangars are built. Hopefully quicker then the new GA hangar. They will still need to add parking for storage.

Would a large building North side block out the new radar.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 14:48
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
Especially given what been happening at Lasham, Kemble, St. Athan in the same period

The whole piece is full of it's, but's and maybe's with nothing new from Willis themselves - the quote being re-cycled from last year. I understand that Willis have already received considerable support.

The article also seems to be implying that the land to be used is that in the last Peel proposal, which I thought was the land to the west of St George way (the terminal approach road) and the terminal car park, but that can't be right!



Absolutely agree and this type of operation is exactly the sort of thing they should be aiming for, but as I've said above, this does lack susbstance.
SWBKCB I agree that the article has been thrown together. I think it's a piece just to keep momentum going.
4 hangars I read as sheds personally, that may or may not be on the airfield itself.
Until Willis make a statement I take this as a deal in principle, but still good news even if only a fraction takes place.
onion is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2021, 16:49
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
What other freight flights have there been apart from the Brazilian?
I assumed that the Brazilian Military Flight was here to pick up a cargo of Single Malt😉
Will Willis buy these Hangers/ Sheds and the land which will be needed or are they going to Lease from the British Taxpayer after receiving substantial Grants to come to Teesside, I don't want to knock the Mayor any increase in Airport Traffic is welcome but I do have concerns that these mighty investments turn into a trickle when the Company concerned announce after receiving Taxpayers Grants that it is not a feasible proposition and the size of their investment needs to be reduced.
I have worked for a Company that received a substantial Regional Development Grant based on plans to build a new plant and buy the land needed that were basically B S as they never intended to go ahead due to the economic climate concerning the product which was known about beforehand, they did build a Hanger type shed for extra storage but that was it. The Company concerned no longer exists and the land purchased for the phantom Plant was sold by the Company for housing.
tramontana is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 09:08
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 77
Posts: 273
So the end of the year has gone yet there was no announcement of a new freight business. Amazon have made the headlines with new warehouses, you would have thought they needed an air freight distribution centre in the North of England. Will Willis expand to needing a new hanger? All they seem to do at the moment is tinker with parts for aircraft, rumour has it they service Logan Air aircraft. The South side development seems to be taking ages to take shape, other airports will take advantage of any opportunity regarding freight or parting out.
oldart is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 11:29
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by jorvik View Post
Is that article code for “the passenger side really isn’t working, we are throwing good money after bad paying airlines”
The passenger side is working out. Before Covid hit it was seeing good growth with an extra 10k passengers in 2019 without any extra routes, 148k for 2019. This growth would of continued into 2020 and boomed when the new routes started in 2020 so we could have been looking at around 350k for 2020 and 500k for 2021 if Covid hadn't hit.

KLM over the last month or so should start to see an increase in numbers as they moved the flight forward from an evening flight to a dinnertime flight. In 2019 KLM had 2 return flights a day to Amsterdam and had monthlty figures of 10-11k, two morning flights to Amsterdam. So it was obviously going to be lower numbers just operating a teatime flight over recent months since its return. Thus missing all the travel and business markets. When KLM return to full timetable there will be 3 return flights a day.

Aberdeen was only about 1500 passengers a month in 2019 with 2 day return flights. Numbers increased significantly during summer 2021 when it saw Logan & Eastern operate flights providing competition on the route. So as can be seen that Aberdeen route could significantly increase numbers if more flights operate or that bigger aircraft are used to help reduce cost units so more cheaper fares could be had.

Figures could still be sluggish this January due to international travel restrictions in other countries which will damper demand for travel. We just need for all Covid travel restrictions to be lifted globally and confidence return before able to make a real assesment as to how Teesside Airport is doing passenger wise.

The airport has huge amount of land available to be utilised. So this new development with Willis is in no way saying that passenger side isn't really working. It is about the airport increasing diversification of activities to increase revenue streams.

Teesside has faired better than other airports during the pandemic because of the lower starting point so there wasn't much of a fall to be had. Also different aviation activities that are based at the airport, such as Cobham/ Draken and IAS Medical flights. The more diversified aviation activities you have the better the airport can survive in hard times. Some airports closed and became parking lots, whereas Teesside because of the diversification of activities has been an active airport all year round.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 14:11
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 361
True..an active airport all year round..but at what cost?

Nobody is rushing back to any airport at the moment..2022 could be just as difficult.

KLM operating approx. 4 flights per day from Newcastle..approx.4 flights per week from Teesside..surely if the demand was there they would return to a more positive timetable?
highwideandugly is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 14:31
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,419
Interesting comments - yes H77 is right pax numbers heading in the right direction, but as HWU says at what cost? Huge amounts spent on the terminal, good reviews but you'd expect that when there are more staff than passengers and everything is shiny and new (exagerating for effect but you know what I mean...). Is there really enough custom to sustain the Duty Free shop and Ballantine's (another puff piece in the Echo today)?

The whole Eastern/Loganair saga was strange and we know Ryanair take no prisoners. Without LM/RYR. pax numbers would be much as under Peel?

Willis advertise a hangar capable of taking 3 narrowbodies with the wingspan of a 757 and parking for 50+ plus narrow/wide bodies, but have handled 3 737's in eighteen months (and yes, some other bits and pieces) while their competitors home and abroad have been bursting at the seems.

The southside development seems to have been going on for ever and finally there might be some movement - with Amazon on the doorstep you'd have thought they would be first on the mayors list, but things only just seem to be moving?

Does anybody know what Stobarts role really was, or what is happening with the charitable trust - again, still dragging on.

Interesting times - still...
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 14:36
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by highwideandugly View Post
True..an active airport all year round..but at what cost?
Teesside Airport had to stay operational, it couldn't close. Medical flights still had to operate, Military training was also required to continue and essential worker flights were still required to operate.

A number of staff were furloughed and operational hours reduced to cater for the reduction in staff.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 20:07
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 361
I was generalising…a lot of money…a really lot of money has been spent on the infrastructure.It would have sent out the wrong messages to shareholders,stakeholders ,investors et al if it closed.

So it had to stay open when other normally busy airports scaled right back?

I think the medical flights can operate un licensed ? Hence you see them overnight when the airport is closed?
Military flights(what’s left of them) I guess could go anywhere?
Essential workers..guess you mean oil flights to Aberdeen..l suppose they could have used the train?
highwideandugly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.