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

Teesside-2

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 1st Jan 2022, 22:12
  #861 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The FRA (Draken) and probably calibration is what is referred to as military I guess, and no they couldn't really go else where without a cost to FRA (Draken) setting up new maintenance facilities and possibly penalties being due from the airport if they had too.

Also the improvements to the infrastructure needed to be carried out and were planned for. Why not bring them forward, lessen disruption, lessen the overall cost to the taxpayer through not having to furlough those who worked on the projects and shorten the time frames due to less passengers being in the buildings. Also probably getting better deals as companies wanted the work.
I look at it as a win win all round.
onion is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 23:34
  #862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by highwideandugly
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?
It is a private company based at Teesside Airport whose aircraft are contracted by the MOD to train RAF/ Navy pilots in electronic warfare/ dog fight/ escort. They are up about a dozen times a day. Hence why the airport was kept open.

The passenger terminal was closed for a period, but then reopened to allow essential travel on limited routes.

The essential workers were riggers, they couldn't all get trains as train services were reduced by some margin and at very very reduced capacity because of distancing requirements. So flights allowed more to be transported overall than reliant on just trains, Also an hour's flight is far better than 5 hours on a train.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2022, 23:55
  #863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by onion
The FRA (Draken) and probably calibration is what is referred to as military I guess, and no they couldn't really go else where without a cost to FRA (Draken) setting up new maintenance facilities and possibly penalties being due from the airport if they had too.

Also the improvements to the infrastructure needed to be carried out and were planned for. Why not bring them forward, lessen disruption, lessen the overall cost to the taxpayer through not having to furlough those who worked on the projects and shorten the time frames due to less passengers being in the buildings. Also probably getting better deals as companies wanted the work.
I look at it as a win win all round.
I totally agree with you Onion. Yes I meant Draken contracts when I said military flights.

Covid has actually played into Teesside Airport's advantage. If they tried to do the refurbishment during normal operating conditions it would have took them 3 to 4 times as long to do it, as would only be able to do small sections at a time. Whereas with the terminal closed to the public they could come in rip everything out in one go and rebuild in a very short space of time. When it reopened for essential travel only it was only a handful of passengers each flight so they could work around the works whereas normal times whole area would have been closed. So they were able to do safe work arounds without hampering the works in progress. Also by doing it in superquick time will have meant cost savings on the project could be had through the time savings.

So Covid allowed projects to be brought forward. So when more flights started operating they could do so without disruption to passengers and also allow revenue streams to be had a couple of years ahead of the 10 year business plan.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2022, 11:35
  #864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
The situation with KLM is what has been happening for years must be a job for the mayors men to get sorted.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2022, 21:59
  #865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robert-Ryan
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.
It may be a case of you say the hangars only occupy 25% of that section of land, but far more important will be the aprons and stands that can be utilised on the remaining 75% of that section of land.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2022, 23:08
  #866 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
I've got a feeling that non-commercial flights aren't included as well.

While on the subject of H3, the switch between hangars 1 and 2 needed 'change of use' planning permission, but nothing for H3?
Wouldn't the change of use for Hangar 3 come under Permitted Development Rights, so wouldn't need to go through planning. Or that it already has the use granted through previous applications.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 08:32
  #867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More activity on this thread than at the airport! 😂
SKOJB is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 08:51
  #868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,559
Received 89 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by Harold77
Wouldn't the change of use for Hangar 3 come under Permitted Development Rights, so wouldn't need to go through planning. Or that it already has the use granted through previous applications.
No idea - just curious as to why hangar 1/2 did and hangar 3 didn't.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 10:44
  #869 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
No idea - just curious as to why hangar 1/2 did and hangar 3 didn't.
I'm guessing that previously it all fell under Class B and hence no change of use. Now it possibly needs to go from Class B to Class E or part of the operation does!

It all changed in 2020 sometime.
onion is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 11:51
  #870 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Harold77
It may be a case of you say the hangars only occupy 25% of that section of land, but far more important will be the aprons and stands that can be utilised on the remaining 75% of that section of land.
I was including aprons and stands. Would make no sense to expand back-over when you can carry on parallel to the existing infrastructure
Robert-Ryan is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 12:14
  #871 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,559
Received 89 Likes on 61 Posts
What area are we talking about?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 12:16
  #872 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with R-R..it looks very short sighted developing a scrap area that way.Using valuable space is not future proofing passenger or apron development on that site?

Surely south side with the vast area would be a better solution?
highwideandugly is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 12:39
  #873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Think it’s the picture from the Echo..not sure how to paste to here?
highwideandugly is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 14:15
  #874 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

This is the area for the Willis expansion.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 14:20
  #875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
The property guys have their eyes on the Southside. Northside does have all the infrastructure so in principle a new prefab wide body hangar could be created in a shorter period of time. And don't forget Willis isn't a scrap company like its predecessors.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 15:30
  #876 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by highwideandugly
I agree with R-R..it looks very short sighted developing a scrap area that way.Using valuable space is not future proofing passenger or apron development on that site?

Surely south side with the vast area would be a better solution?
Willis is not a scrap company. Disassembley is only part of their operations. They do maintenance, part swaps, storage.
Harold77 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 15:47
  #877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,559
Received 89 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by Harold77

This is the area for the Willis expansion.
Yes - that was the area planned for housing by Peel. Putting an industrial estate there seems even barmier, how to keep in with the neighbours. Willis would seem to be prime customers for the southside.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 15:54
  #878 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: London
Posts: 421
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Putting housing on the edge of an airport always seemed like a bad idea.....with all the potential for future noise complaints, especially if you want the airport to expand.
Jamesair1 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 16:06
  #879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,559
Received 89 Likes on 61 Posts
If putting housing on the edge of an airport is a bad idea, expanding the airport towards the housing isn't great either, if that is what is planned.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 16:30
  #880 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Teesside
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
Yes - that was the area planned for housing by Peel. Putting an industrial estate there seems even barmier, how to keep in with the neighbours. Willis would seem to be prime customers for the southside.
I would say two hangars at the back and two hangars on the side. All movement in that area will be tugged with any engine running done out on the aprons/ stands airfield end of the site. Thus this reduces the noise complaints next to the houses.
Harold77 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.