Presumably the good Doctor's comments refer to this:

Manston battle: American investment firm passes on its interests in Manston to UK-based company

Did they ever actually provide proof of their funds?

It seems the Doc has got the wrong end of the stick again, probably to suit his own argument, and reading his leaflet:

Why does the doc think that so many adhoc cargo operators go out of business as quickly as they may start up? ... Would the doc care to explain, by a leaflet campaign, to the people of Ramsgate and surrounding areas that their plan is to attract, often, fly-by-night cargo operators of aircraft of a geriatric vintage, often operating on a shoestring budget whereas crew flight time limitations and maintenance minimum equipment lists are regularly ignored, would the doc care to invite the same people to inspect the roof of the carpet warehouse off the westerly end of Ostend's runway whereas it resembles having been bombed so many times by parts falling from freighter aircraft or the house(s) off the easterly end of the same runway where IL76 aircraft would strip roof(s) of tiles ... I bet the doc didn't find such information on google!

I guess doc's google search of this didn't do him any favours, that there is very little money to be made in the air cargo dedicated freighter aircraft business, and that cargo only travels on passenger aircraft on a space and weight available basis, i.e. once all the punters, baggage and fuel are calculated/loaded then they may fill up the remaining space and weight available with cargo and besides handling fees and some 4% fuel burn per hour to transport it it otherwise travels, pretty much, free of additional costs.

Some of this cargo may be Royal Mail to destinations worldwide, what does the doc think, that he's going to fill a B747F with mail, let's say, LON-SIN on a daily basis or indeed his previously quoted Scottish salmon going out by the B747F load? It has nothing to do with runway capacity that cargo travels in the bellies of passenger aircraft, it is a case of plain and simple economics!

But I think the objective has been lost, surely the point of an airport is to develop a route network to serve it's catchment area, a, pretty much, dedicated cargo airport isn't likely to serve anyone except any local noise protesters.

And the doc needs to learn more about air freighter operations and aircraft performance etc. Passenger aircraft normally operate at weights way less than their MTOW whereas, as a rule of thumb, freighter aircraft operate at MTOW and if the doc thinks that Manston's 9,016ft runway is sufficient for, let's say, a B747F at MTOW then why did Luxembourg extend their runway to 13,123ft for Cargolux B747F operations?

It seems that this is little more than a fight of principal not to have Manston developed in to a housing estate or whatever and as much as I may agree with such a principal the doc needs to stop relying upon google as his source of knowledge!

Well, just for starters, it's at 1234ft elevation, compared to Manston's 178ft.

NorthSouth,

So if LUX were at a 2,000ft elevation would it need a 17,000ft runway, 3,000ft 21,000ft runway, 5,000ft 29,000ft runway etc? ... I think you may be getting the message!

One nightshift I needed to flight plan a DC8-62F LUX-DTW (Ford car engines), normally our fuel stop would have been Gander but the eastern seaboard of Canada was totally cr@pped out thus BGR was to be our designated N. American fuel stop.

No way could it make LUX/BGR direct, the winds favoured a fuel stop in PIK, elevation a mere 65ft with a runway length of 9,797ft, our standard planning was flaps 15 but no way was it going to make it, I re-planned it for flaps 30 and it was just about going to make it before wiping out the approach lights off the wrong end of the runway ... and the crew remarked upon their return to base regarding the fine tuning I had needed to perform to get them there.

That was a modestly sized DC8-62F at an altitude of 65ft and a runway length of 9,797ft, do you still wish to suggest that Manston's 9,016ft and altitude of 178ft doesn't present a problem?

Like the majority of posters on pprune, I hate to see an airport disappear but I cannot see a successful future for Manston in any guise. Its catchment area is half sea and the other half quite sparsely populated by the standards of SE England; ad hoc cargo is no living and scheduled cargo means 747F/777F etc and the runway is not long enough for MTOW departures. Just look at the trials and tribulations Prestwick is going through trying (and failing) to be profitable and it has got a longer runway, a few Ryanair scheduled services and some scheduled freight flights. Where I really struggle is to understand, given that there are so many other things to do with money, why someone would want to invest in Manston other than for a real estate play. I have my tin hat on - feel free to respond!

Note the words "just for starters". Another factor to consider: how many DC8-62Fs will be operational in 2019 when Manston is hoped to be operational again?

Probably zerio but I wasn't suggesting that any would be operational, the point I was making was that Manston's runway isn't long enough for a medium sized freighter such as a DC8, as a previous poster suggests the future is B747 & B777 heavy freighters for which Manson's runway simply isn't long enough.

Exactly, why are Riveroak going through so much aggravation over a disused airport when there are far more viable airport options out there to buy such as Blackpool ... so why Manston?

Basically "Riveroak" is just Tony Freudmann......again. If you want an understanding of Manston's failures over the past 20 years just google his name. He appears under a variety guises, including property developer- he has previously applied to build houses on part of the airport site. He is close pals with local MP Roger Gale and between the two of them they have tried to flog this dead horse since 1999- casting an economic shadow over the region for nearly 20 years.

deedave...and if we could search your name, what would we find?

Manston Airport – RiverOak Strategic Partners’ (RSP) reports
2017-04-26, 10:46
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) have officially released their report, for the Statutory Consultations and the DCO.

Links to 3 of the 4 volumes, plus "The Shortcomings of the Avia Solutions Report and an Overview of RSP’s Proposals for Airport Operation at Manston" :

Azimuth Associates: Manston Airport a national and regional aviation asset - Volume I Demand in the South East of the UK
https://static.secure.website/wscfus...he-uk-2017.pdf

Azimuth Associates: Manston Airport a national and regional aviation asset - Volume II a qualitative study of regional demand
https://static.secure.website/wscfus...emand-2017.pdf

Azimuth Associates: Manston Airport a national and regional aviation asset - Volume III the forecast
https://static.secure.website/wscfus...ecast-2017.pdf

Volume IV (economic impact) is in the final proofreading stages ....

Northpoint Aviation: The Shortcomings of the Avia Solutions Report and an Overview of RSP’s Proposals for Airport Operation at Manston
https://static.secure.website/wscfus...nston-2017.pdf

Note there is an executive summary at the start of each volume, but if you just read one, go to Vol III
SMAa will be discussing the content of these documents over the coming days.

SMAa preliminary overview of RiverOak Strategic Partners’ (RSP) reports
2017-04-26

1. Clearly a very detailed set of documents which demonstrate research at great depth. This has definitely needed a lot longer than the six weeks allowed for the Avia Report.
2. Unlike the Avia Report these documents have been cross-checked by industry experts (peer reviewed).
3. A great deal of effort has gone into explaining the methodology behind the calculations.
4. The weight of evidence is that commercial aviation is not only viable but vital for the future of UK.plc. In fact the Avia simulation model has been re-run with this much more detailed and extensive data, and returns an answer that aviation at Manston Airport is viable.
5. The reports take into account the UK’s departure from the EU; something completely ignored by Avia.
6. “Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project” criteria reached by Year 6.
7. Business plan is carefully thought out. No commercial operations in Year 1 whilst the necessary infrastructure is put in place. This should totally reassure KCC and TDC who have constantly complained of a lack of such a plan.
8. Note the Avia report disclaimer stating that the Report should not used for planning vs RiverOak’s. These are actual real planning documents specifically created to be used for planning purposes.
9. Reports mention potential links with Dover Harbour Board, Paramount and Ebbsfleet Garden City. Avia only makes a brief mention of DHB and has nothing to say about the other two.
10. Formal polls show only 5% object strongly to airport. Those in favour cite jobs as main reason.
(Job total calculations will be available shortly in Volume IV.)

Doc,

With all due respect this is a forum for individuals to discuss and debate, whilst the posting of an occasional link can be beneficial it is not the purpose of a discussion forum to repeatedly post links to other sites or reading materials that members here may have difficulty opening and even less time to read.

I can't even read, either due to weak internet connection or otherwise occupied, what this, quote, very detailed set of documents are even addressing but there are two things that a dedicated cargo airport need, and Manston is lacking:

1. A decent road infrastructure, and:

2. A full length runway of a minimum length of, I guess, 10,000ft.

I made the point several months ago that – in my opinion – the Manston thread was being misused to suit the motives of people who were linked with the future of the Manston site. But no action was taken, so I guess the powers that be are happy with the thread content.


More fundamentally, it lacks any freight!

It is depressing to find that on this forum people still hold to the misconception found in the Davies Report that Manston Airport has poor surface transport.
The reality is dual-carriageway from the airport boundary fence to the M2, M25 and beyond,
with the Lower Thames Crossing soon to be added to the possibilities.

Also at over 9,000 ft, the Manston Airport runway can take the world's largest aircraft, indeed due to the unprecedented width, I believe for A380s it is technically more correct than Gatwick.

http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...-+-sign_en.jpg

http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...64370567_n.jpg

I think it's the good Doc that's deluded..The road links are secondary to goodly numbers of freight operators wanting to use it. So far, and since the RAF departed, they haven't been forthcoming in the quantity required to make it a goer. Where do they propose to exactly get them from now?...oh yes and the A380 landed empty on a training flight..you really ought to be asking River Oak what their real intentions are before you end up both very disappointed and egg on your face

What's the SMAa (SMA?) quoted above?

Large aircraft landing at an airport don't necessary mean they can operate economically from them.

Soon? Didn't know there is a start date, never mind a completion date (mind, it is near London). Also, a bit of a double edge sword for Manston - makes it just as easy for their small local market to go elsewhere as vice versa

Doc,

Please don't think that I speak without experience, for years I lived and worked in Ostend and perhaps two or three times each year I would return to/from my house in west UK via Ramsgate Port, quite a pleasant drive providing that one wasn't in a hurry however commercial (truck) driving is all about time and money, drivers on tachographs etc. and perhaps that's why the port of Dover is a success and the port of Ramsgate isn't!

LOL ... We're is Spotters Corner :)

Doc,

The A380 was in Manston for crew training, it was empty, it had no commercial load and the B747F was probably in there for maintenance with Jet Support thus empty also, it certainly wouldn't have got out of Manston at anywhere near MTOW which is what freighters need to operate at to make any money.

Doc, I worked in the cargo airline business for some seven years during my career, anything else you would like me to suck eggs regarding?

Taking-off requires more runway than landing but I'm of the distinct impression that the Doc doesn't even understand that the heavier the aircraft the more runway it needs whilst lightweight (empty) aircraft may land on a sixpence.

To facilitate high volume airways arrivals and departures would require access to Belgian and French airspace, or rather a chunk of their airspace delegated to the Manston operation. London TMA does not afford the airspace for Manston to become a busy airport.

What use is that?

The A380 is not a freight aircraft, so won't be operating freight flights in and out of Manson. End of.

And as for passengers, if you really believe there's enough demand out of Manston to make regular A380 flights viable.......