Possible additional UK airport closures
Thread Starter
Possible additional UK airport closures
This may not be what people here want to hear, particularly those who live near the UK's smaller passenger airports, but I will try to be neutral between airports.
The traditional pattern of business travel which sustained many routes has seen radical change since March 2020. WFH pre 2020 was usually regarded as an excuse for skiving, but the pandemic has removed the emperor's clothes around the need for business travel or being in the office every day. Everyone is now willing to say out loud that the emperor is naked.
Furthermore, other countries in Europe have seen airports close or lose passenger service, while the services that remain tending to concentrate on the airports with highest levels of traffic, and the smaller airports in non-tourist areas often sustained previously by business-centric spokes to major hubs. As slot, emission and noise rules become stricter, airlines will focus away from sub-100 seat aircraft to maximise the profits from their permits, trimming service from the quietest of Europe's airports
At the same time land values have broadly increased, making it harder to justify profitability per square foot in the airports with fewest pax, particularly as small airports need a runway of size comparable to much busier airports.
The pro-green movement is not going away... and this will make short haul business travel more difficult to justify and be authorised by corporate policies. Carbon emissions will be taxed more heavily in future, and companies will need to demonstrate ever more to investors, customers and Govt, how they are reducing emissions. Greenwash doesn't always work.
Pre 2020, many airport employees were on minimum wage, with possibly zero hours contracts, and required to be at work at 4am on long shifts. People have learned to upskill since 2020, and now work in roles that have more added value and can pay better salaries. This drives up the cost of running an airport, making it even harder for less busy airports to achieve sustainable profitability. Let's not even mention oil prices with Russia/Ukraine, inflation or rising interest rates, all of which make an aviation CFO want to cry.
With such major changes in industry structure, something has to give. The pandemic has simply broken the previous magic spell that all seemed fine. Anglesey, Cambridge Carlisle, Gloucestershire and Oxford airports were little more than artificially sustained facades as regards commercial passenger service. Other airports will also be called out.
As for public sector owned airports... Govt bodies with purse strings will eventually ask why little used airports need such a large subsidy which could be used to benefit the local economy in other ways - this debate has been happening (and continies to play out with the debat still in progress) in the last few years in countries like
Germany - Lubeck, Zweibrucken, Magdeburg
Sweden - Karlstad, Kristianstad, Borlange, Jonkoping, Vasteras
Spain - Burgos, Ciudad Real, Salamanca, Lleida
France - Agen, Lannion, Perigueux, Rouen, Dijon, Epinal
Italy - Brescia, Salerno
It's difficult to explain to taxpayers in non-outlying regions why a big chunk of airport subsidy beneficiaries are those going on holiday. Maybe one set of elected officials will support the airport, but with elections every few years, policies can always be changed after voters change their preferences.
There will, I regret, be other airport closures or airports in non-outlying regions losing all pax service in the UK. Most people reading this have a pretty good idea of the UK airports where question marks exist. Maybe the aviation industry needs to become more effective at arguing its case...
Disclaimer - I do not work for any airport, and do not financially gain from any particular airport company doing well or badly. I am not a member of any political body, lobby organisation or special interest group.
I have paid personally to fly, as an airline passenger, out of every UK mainland airport which has had regular passenger service in the last 5 years, except for Wick in northern Scotland.
The traditional pattern of business travel which sustained many routes has seen radical change since March 2020. WFH pre 2020 was usually regarded as an excuse for skiving, but the pandemic has removed the emperor's clothes around the need for business travel or being in the office every day. Everyone is now willing to say out loud that the emperor is naked.
Furthermore, other countries in Europe have seen airports close or lose passenger service, while the services that remain tending to concentrate on the airports with highest levels of traffic, and the smaller airports in non-tourist areas often sustained previously by business-centric spokes to major hubs. As slot, emission and noise rules become stricter, airlines will focus away from sub-100 seat aircraft to maximise the profits from their permits, trimming service from the quietest of Europe's airports
At the same time land values have broadly increased, making it harder to justify profitability per square foot in the airports with fewest pax, particularly as small airports need a runway of size comparable to much busier airports.
The pro-green movement is not going away... and this will make short haul business travel more difficult to justify and be authorised by corporate policies. Carbon emissions will be taxed more heavily in future, and companies will need to demonstrate ever more to investors, customers and Govt, how they are reducing emissions. Greenwash doesn't always work.
Pre 2020, many airport employees were on minimum wage, with possibly zero hours contracts, and required to be at work at 4am on long shifts. People have learned to upskill since 2020, and now work in roles that have more added value and can pay better salaries. This drives up the cost of running an airport, making it even harder for less busy airports to achieve sustainable profitability. Let's not even mention oil prices with Russia/Ukraine, inflation or rising interest rates, all of which make an aviation CFO want to cry.
With such major changes in industry structure, something has to give. The pandemic has simply broken the previous magic spell that all seemed fine. Anglesey, Cambridge Carlisle, Gloucestershire and Oxford airports were little more than artificially sustained facades as regards commercial passenger service. Other airports will also be called out.
As for public sector owned airports... Govt bodies with purse strings will eventually ask why little used airports need such a large subsidy which could be used to benefit the local economy in other ways - this debate has been happening (and continies to play out with the debat still in progress) in the last few years in countries like
Germany - Lubeck, Zweibrucken, Magdeburg
Sweden - Karlstad, Kristianstad, Borlange, Jonkoping, Vasteras
Spain - Burgos, Ciudad Real, Salamanca, Lleida
France - Agen, Lannion, Perigueux, Rouen, Dijon, Epinal
Italy - Brescia, Salerno
It's difficult to explain to taxpayers in non-outlying regions why a big chunk of airport subsidy beneficiaries are those going on holiday. Maybe one set of elected officials will support the airport, but with elections every few years, policies can always be changed after voters change their preferences.
There will, I regret, be other airport closures or airports in non-outlying regions losing all pax service in the UK. Most people reading this have a pretty good idea of the UK airports where question marks exist. Maybe the aviation industry needs to become more effective at arguing its case...
Disclaimer - I do not work for any airport, and do not financially gain from any particular airport company doing well or badly. I am not a member of any political body, lobby organisation or special interest group.
I have paid personally to fly, as an airline passenger, out of every UK mainland airport which has had regular passenger service in the last 5 years, except for Wick in northern Scotland.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 14th Jul 2022 at 01:15.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many Ryanair routes would be lost if airports had to turn a profit or if Ryanair lost its route subsidiary? In many cases a loss making European airport requires a longer journey than using the main regional airport and serves no real purpose.
The U.K. is awash with passenger airports, just like it was with railway stations before Dr Beeching took the axe.
The U.K. is awash with passenger airports, just like it was with railway stations before Dr Beeching took the axe.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are big at Bergamo but that has an enormous catchment and isn’t particularly any more distant to Milan than Malpensa, which they also serve.
They are still at Hahn but that also has a big catchment and until recently were at FRA too.
Weeze arguably isn’t really Düsseldorf but again has an enormous catchment regardless.
Ciampino is very close to Rome but they serve both.
Girona is a shadow of what the base was but really serves Costa Brava.
This may not be what people here want to hear, particularly those who live near the UK's smaller passenger airports, but I will try to be neutral between airports.
The traditional pattern of business travel which sustained many routes has seen radical change since March 2020. WFH pre 2020 was usually regarded as an excuse for skiving, but the pandemic has removed the emperor's clothes around the need for business travel or being in the office every day. Everyone is now willing to say out loud that the emperor is naked.
Furthermore, other countries in Europe have seen airports close or lose passenger service, while the services that remain tending to concentrate on the airports with highest levels of traffic, and the smaller airports in non-tourist areas often sustained previously by business-centric spokes to major hubs. As slot, emission and noise rules become stricter, airlines will focus away from sub-100 seat aircraft to maximise the profits from their permits, trimming service from the quietest of Europe's airports
At the same time land values have broadly increased, making it harder to justify profitability per square foot in the airports with fewest pax, particularly as small airports need a runway of size comparable to much busier airports.
The pro-green movement is not going away... and this will make short haul business travel more difficult to justify and be authorised by corporate policies. Carbon emissions will be taxed more heavily in future, and companies will need to demonstrate ever more to investors, customers and Govt, how they are reducing emissions. Greenwash doesn't always work.
Pre 2020, many airport employees were on minimum wage, with possibly zero hours contracts, and required to be at work at 4am on long shifts. People have learned to upskill since 2020, and now work in roles that have more added value and can pay better salaries. This drives up the cost of running an airport, making it even harder for less busy airports to achieve sustainable profitability. Let's not even mention oil prices with Russia/Ukraine, inflation or rising interest rates, all of which make an aviation CFO want to cry.
With such major changes in industry structure, something has to give. The pandemic has simply broken the previous magic spell that all seemed fine. Anglesey, Cambridge Carlisle, Gloucestershire and Oxford airports were little more than artificially sustained facades as regards commercial passenger service. Other airports will also be called out.
As for public sector owned airports... Govt bodies with purse strings will eventually ask why little used airports need such a large subsidy which could be used to benefit the local economy in other ways - this debate has been happening (and continies to play out with the debat still in progress) in the last few years in countries like
Germany - Lubeck, Zweibrucken, Magdeburg
Sweden - Karlstad, Kristianstad, Borlange, Jonkoping, Vasteras
Spain - Burgos, Ciudad Real, Salamanca, Lleida
France - Agen, Lannion, Perigueux, Rouen, Dijon, Epinal
Italy - Brescia, Salerno
It's difficult to explain to taxpayers in non-outlying regions why a big chunk of airport subsidy beneficiaries are those going on holiday. Maybe one set of elected officials will support the airport, but with elections every few years, policies can always be changed after voters change their preferences.
There will, I regret, be other airport closures or airports in non-outlying regions losing all pax service in the UK. Most people reading this have a pretty good idea of the UK airports where question marks exist. Maybe the aviation industry needs to become more effective at arguing its case...
Disclaimer - I do not work for any airport, and do not financially gain from any particular airport company doing well or badly. I am not a member of any political body, lobby organisation or special interest group.
I have paid personally to fly, as an airline passenger, out of every UK mainland airport which has had regular passenger service in the last 5 years, except for Wick in northern Scotland.
The traditional pattern of business travel which sustained many routes has seen radical change since March 2020. WFH pre 2020 was usually regarded as an excuse for skiving, but the pandemic has removed the emperor's clothes around the need for business travel or being in the office every day. Everyone is now willing to say out loud that the emperor is naked.
Furthermore, other countries in Europe have seen airports close or lose passenger service, while the services that remain tending to concentrate on the airports with highest levels of traffic, and the smaller airports in non-tourist areas often sustained previously by business-centric spokes to major hubs. As slot, emission and noise rules become stricter, airlines will focus away from sub-100 seat aircraft to maximise the profits from their permits, trimming service from the quietest of Europe's airports
At the same time land values have broadly increased, making it harder to justify profitability per square foot in the airports with fewest pax, particularly as small airports need a runway of size comparable to much busier airports.
The pro-green movement is not going away... and this will make short haul business travel more difficult to justify and be authorised by corporate policies. Carbon emissions will be taxed more heavily in future, and companies will need to demonstrate ever more to investors, customers and Govt, how they are reducing emissions. Greenwash doesn't always work.
Pre 2020, many airport employees were on minimum wage, with possibly zero hours contracts, and required to be at work at 4am on long shifts. People have learned to upskill since 2020, and now work in roles that have more added value and can pay better salaries. This drives up the cost of running an airport, making it even harder for less busy airports to achieve sustainable profitability. Let's not even mention oil prices with Russia/Ukraine, inflation or rising interest rates, all of which make an aviation CFO want to cry.
With such major changes in industry structure, something has to give. The pandemic has simply broken the previous magic spell that all seemed fine. Anglesey, Cambridge Carlisle, Gloucestershire and Oxford airports were little more than artificially sustained facades as regards commercial passenger service. Other airports will also be called out.
As for public sector owned airports... Govt bodies with purse strings will eventually ask why little used airports need such a large subsidy which could be used to benefit the local economy in other ways - this debate has been happening (and continies to play out with the debat still in progress) in the last few years in countries like
Germany - Lubeck, Zweibrucken, Magdeburg
Sweden - Karlstad, Kristianstad, Borlange, Jonkoping, Vasteras
Spain - Burgos, Ciudad Real, Salamanca, Lleida
France - Agen, Lannion, Perigueux, Rouen, Dijon, Epinal
Italy - Brescia, Salerno
It's difficult to explain to taxpayers in non-outlying regions why a big chunk of airport subsidy beneficiaries are those going on holiday. Maybe one set of elected officials will support the airport, but with elections every few years, policies can always be changed after voters change their preferences.
There will, I regret, be other airport closures or airports in non-outlying regions losing all pax service in the UK. Most people reading this have a pretty good idea of the UK airports where question marks exist. Maybe the aviation industry needs to become more effective at arguing its case...
Disclaimer - I do not work for any airport, and do not financially gain from any particular airport company doing well or badly. I am not a member of any political body, lobby organisation or special interest group.
I have paid personally to fly, as an airline passenger, out of every UK mainland airport which has had regular passenger service in the last 5 years, except for Wick in northern Scotland.
With such major changes in industry structure, something has to give. The pandemic has simply broken the previous magic spell that all seemed fine. Anglesey, Cambridge, Carlisle, Gloucestershire and Oxford airports were little more than artificially sustained facades as regards commercial passenger service. Other airports will also be called out.
Threads such as these have been started by a similarly named forum member before, for many years.
The shock that a notoriously ruthless property developer - who built an airport to ‘maximise the potential of the development space in its hinterland’ - have decided that the airport would be better suited as a warehouse park, is bordering on the comical; if it wasn’t for the fact that a lot of people might now have to rethink their career paths...
Last edited by pug; 14th Jul 2022 at 07:08.
Airports are rarely seen these days as a public service - they have to compete for financing with other options for use. One of the big problems is that any decent airfield is a developers dream - its flat, well drained, has most of the services already in place and there are quite a few neighbours who want to see flying stopped and LOADS of space. Few rare bird or animal habitats, no listed buildings, no well loved views...................
Airports are rarely seen these days as a public service - they have to compete for financing with other options for use. One of the big problems is that any decent airfield is a developers dream - its flat, well drained, has most of the services already in place and there are quite a few neighbours who want to see flying stopped and LOADS of space. Few rare bird or animal habitats, no listed buildings, no well loved views...................
Well here's the first.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...viable-3766464
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...viable-3766464
The board of DSA is reviewing options for the site following lengthy deliberations which "reluctantly concluded that aviation activity on the site may no longer be commercially viable."
Owners Peel Group said they had taken external independent advice and concurred with the board's findings.
Owners Peel Group said they had taken external independent advice and concurred with the board's findings.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really the need for the comments about the thread starter. Given one airport has just announced its plans to shut up shop and the ongoing recruitment issues it’s a fairly valid question and even if it has been discussed before, the circumstances have changed.
As far as I’ve seen DJ6 is polite and often adds to a topic or discussion. This site is only as good as it’s users and he seems more than decent. Don’t like the topic, move on and it will naturally not go anywhere.
As for my view, I think in the years to come LCY will struggle. As the green agenda grows the call to shut it will be louder and with lower passenger numbers than planned that will only help. At some point the value of the land will be too tempting.
As far as I’ve seen DJ6 is polite and often adds to a topic or discussion. This site is only as good as it’s users and he seems more than decent. Don’t like the topic, move on and it will naturally not go anywhere.
As for my view, I think in the years to come LCY will struggle. As the green agenda grows the call to shut it will be louder and with lower passenger numbers than planned that will only help. At some point the value of the land will be too tempting.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about the loss of passenger service or about airport closures such as we have seen at PLH, DSA or the old Sheffield airport? From a German perspective, I guess it really depends on whether an airport has a reasonably diversified business. All those vanity projects that centered around passenger services tend to struggle, but others not so much. A good example from Germany is Möchengladbach (MGL) that had a short career as a busy regional airport in the mid 1990s. it existred beforethat and still exists today as it is home to MRO comapnies, flight schools, aircraft dealers and generall one of the busiest German general aviation airports. The same is true for an airport such as Augsburg (AGB) that was once the home base of one of Germany's busiest regional airlines, but has been without scheduled services for 15+ years. Different story when it come to conversion projects such as Zweibrücken (ZQW), Cochstedt (CSO) or Altenburg (AOC), though - although it really rarely happens that an airport actually closes down and gets more or less bullbozed . This seems to be more a UK thing. The only one in Germany I do recall is Bremerhaven (BHV).I
