A classic comment twostroke!

gobfa says it all

Caption for the photo: "I can take it from Echo"

Just been and put my new specsavers glasses on, and twigged that the photo is rather more interesting than I thought.
Thanks for the info guys :ok:

Inbound load from Jersey Sunday morning was 79.

You guys living in the area with an airband radio can get pax loads that are usually broadcast on 130.07Mhz, the handling agent at Cov.


j0n01

Oh right cheers - is it Coventry airport handling that are sorting out this?
Jon - you got any more pictures at cov ?
Many Thanks Dan

This afternoon's (Fri) Venice flight TOM205/206 is being operated from Birmingham with passengers being coached to Coventry....

Looks like it's being operated by a B757.


Jon

I have just added this to the other Thomsonfly thread but for those who haven't seen it:

Those wishing to show their support for the passenger flights at Coventry airport can go to

http://www.supportcoventryairport.co.uk

Cheers
52N

Oh right i will be supporting it!
Any resons for the flight being operated from Birmingham?
Many Thanks Dan

Inbound loads Sunday eve:

Jersey: 28
Malaga: 68


Jon

Have they not just started taking pax. out to these destinations ?
:=
Giv'm a chance and and they will start comin' home !!
:E
Regards
The Towers.

Inbound loads from Monday pm: -

Valencia 76
Venice 92
Jersey 69


Jon

Those figures look quite promising! I suppose, as Yorky Towers stated, we have to give the passengers a chance to return!
Anyone know when the next two 737's are coming in or are they halting this until the arguments have ceased?
Many Thanks
Dan

The schedule of increasing flights according to Thomsonflys own web site is this:

31 March 2004:
Jersey, Malaga, Rome, Valencia, Venice

22 April 2004:
Marseille, Nice, Palma

20 May 2004:
Naples, Pisa

11 June 2004:
Ibiza


So, what? around may?

Airport notices served Apr 14 2004







Bosses at Coventry Airport have been told they have six weeks left to use their controversial buildings after legal papers were officially served by Warwick District Council yesterday.

They have been told they cannot use the terminal buildings - which are said to flout planning laws - after May 24, and the buildings must come down the following month.

The council yesterday issued two enforcement notices against West Midlands Airport Limited relating to the unauthorised passenger terminal at Coventry Airport.

TUI and Thomsonfly.com have been told the notices come in to effect on May 17.

The firms have seven days from that date to stop using any part of the unauthorised buildings at the Baginton airfield as a passenger terminal.

They also have 28 days from the same date to remove the buildings from the site, so the site must be cleared by June 21.

If airport bosses decide to appeal, however, that would freeze the enforcement action.

http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrar...r_120_wide.jpg

Assuming that the airport will appeal against the WDC action, how long is this case likely to last? Have there been any other similar cases in the past?

Cheers
52 N

www.supportcoventryairport.co.uk
register your support now!

Thanks for the link. So you think TUI is doomed now that they will not have acces to a terminal in the not too distant future?
Mnay Thanks
Dan

TUI UK-owned Coventry International Airport has confirmed that is appealing against the enforcement notices issued yesterday by Warwick District Council.



In a statement the airport said: 'We will be appealing against the notices. This would seem to be an unfortunate commencement of what may be a long and drawn out process.'



Warwick has served two notices on the airport - the first one relates to the passenger terminal which, the council claims, was built without necessary consent. The airport argues that the terminal falls within its 'permitted development rights' and does not need planning permission.



The second notice concerns not only the terminal but access and car parking. Previously the council's planning department has suggested that the effect of the additional facilities would require TUI UK to provide the council with an environmental impact assessment into all its work on the airport, even if the temporary terminal is found to have been built legitimately.



Both notices will be served on May 17. Officially Coventry Airport has seven days from that date to stop using the terminal with a further three weeks to remove the buildings from the site unless it has lodged an appeal with the secretary of state.

The operation is still pretty pants. Wait until we are mid August, with the aircraft all carrying 4 hr delays and the 'terminal' bursting at the seems. Car parking will have run out, seats will have run out, the catering may well have run out; it will be hell on a pointy stick there.

Which will be a marked difference to the first Wednesday in November when I suspect the tumbleweeds will outweigh the passengers by 15 - 1...

Monkey.

Even if Coventry Airport succeeds with its appeal, the Council is likely to seek a judicial review of such a decision.

And even if that upholds the Court's decision, it's quite likely that the Warwick/Leamington/Kenliworth populus will lobby strongly for a Public Inquiry by which time, with a general election looming, local MPs and counsellors will all be falling over themselves to give support to their constituents' calls.

The attitude of the Airport's management is a sad combination of staggering naievety and arrogance - they would have been far better to have courted the Council and got it on board right at the outset instead of trying to play the legal technicality card.

'Environment' is now the # 1 issue affecting all UK airports, and it doesn't matter who you are, big multinational or small airport operator, you just can't run 'rough-shod' over it.

Bosses at BHX, MAN, LTN, EMA, SOU, STN, etc., can all testify to this painful fact - one wonders why the idiots at CVT didn't realise!

:hmm:

I am surprised that TUI/Britannia took the risk with CVT. TUI don't seem to be a risk-taking company, and both Britannia and Thomson seem to demonstrate stability and maturity.
The development of a new-type venture at an unproven and undeveloped airport just seems out of character. The fact that they were 'forced' to acquire the whole airport to take control of the process seems to imply panic.
Launching at CVT means that the the local opposition to the 'new' airport is directed entirely at them (Thomsonfly). If they had been an incremental operator, the degree of opposition may have been less.
I know RYR fly from some underdeveloped airports, but have they ever been the first and only passenger operator at any of their destinations? (Hahn??).

It does look surprising why Thomsonfly would be based at an under-developed airport, but where else in the UK could the airline have been effectively based? Members have mentioned BHX/NEMA/LTN but it makes no sense to be based there.

LTN does seem to have a monopoly when it comes to no-frills airlines, with only EasyJet serving no-frills flights to the airport (with the exception of Ryanair to DUB/BGY), & is also the home of your parent company Britannia, but why try & compete against the largest no-frills airline in Europe, who are continuing to base more planes at the airport, and continuing to add routes?
NEMA has an excellent catchment area & is just as well situated as Coventry. But, with three no-frills airlines already flying from the airport, and also looking for growth, why try from there?
BHX has a successful regional no-frills airline, as well as a no-frills airline from one of your biggest competitors, plus having a successful full-service carriers to many European destinations.

TUI AG have been very successful with the launch of Hapag Lloyd Express, which is a very well respected & well run operation in Germany. I don't see why the carrier was not called TUI Express, and have bases both at TUI's German & British airports. I feel that makes more sense? :ok: