The idea behind an enquiry of some sort. Clearly if you sell an airport to an organisation with conflicting local interests you cannot expect them to compete with themselves.

Im not twisting anything, that quote is open to interpretation. I'm not an accountant, but I would presume that an accountant would need to see at least a reasonable number of financial reports to make a judgement.

The rest doesn't warrant the effort of a reply. Someone who has the money, and by all accounts commercial awareness, is interested in taking over the site. I think I will wait to see what happens with that than take anything you are saying seriously. So I shall wait and see :ok:

Someone who has the money, and by all accounts commercial awareness has already taken over CVT. By the time he did this, very few of us were expecting anything on that front. That still hasn't happened. He clearly had a far bigger interest in the land surrounding it, and that went to planning meetings before Christmas.

You are right in that my comments are indeed speculation, I do not have any rumours to serve up. However, they are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

All we have as rumour right now is one potential interested party, no deal on the table, no business plan with which to turn that deal into a thriving, viable airport.

Fair enough. My point was that I was applying cold financial logic, as opposed to vain hope. For the sake of clarity, no I am not an accountant either, my interest is in flight routes, which as I said above need to make commercial sense, otherwise they don't happen (unless there are other factors to distort the market - e.g. PSOs, which are not relevant here).

Without commercial routes, there is no case for this airport beyond that which already could have been exploited in the 6 years after commercial flights stopped.

Well you can ignore or reply to whatever you choose. However the point remains (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that whatever Peel's motives may or may not have been, the case for an commercially viable airport on this site remains weak.

I can understand the local anger and suspicion about the terms of the original deal. However, even if dubious intentions were proven - in a public inquiry, a court of law or elsewhere, none of this would go any further towards making the airport viable. Public Inquiries are very good at taking up time, but they don't create viable business plans.

In the meantime, bear in mind that Peel still had to build the airport and run it at a loss for 10 years, so they didn't just "get" the land for £1.

I'm not from Sheffield and I'm not from Coventry and neither Coventry Airport nor Sheffield Heliport, come an Airport, are likely to turn a penny in profit for the foreseeable years ahead.

Sheffield Airport closed, Coventry Airport closed, someone with a bucket load of money re-opened Coventry but it may as well have stayed closed, so someone with a bucket load of money re-opens Sheffield ... With that length of runway it's likely to fare even worse than Coventry.

Boys and their toys!

Well said PF

Because if he gets planning permission for his Gateway he will have two bucket loads.

Coventry City Council, as owners of freehold of Coventry Airport, gave the bit that is on their patch permission straight away, 9-0 in favour. Warwick District Council are still thinking about it.

Point being - SZD was so small, there was no other land around it. There is still meat on the CVT to be chewed on.

Anyway, that's for the CVT thread...

Who do you think you are? It's not your place to tell us why you think it is that we want a public inquiry into an issue that affects us. This kind of arrogance and disrespect gives PPRUNE a bad name.

Actually it's a matter of economics. If you can't see that a runway next to a major urban centre might be more beneficial at some point in the future than yet another business park then that's your concern, not mine.

Please never apply your business sense (the only thing which is useless around here) to anything that would seriously affect my life.

Who do you think you are? It's not your place to tell us why you think it is that we want a public inquiry into an issue that affects us. This kind of arrogance and disrespect gives PPRuNe a bad name.

This is a public forum which is open to debate, I am afraid you have to accept people may hold differing opinions to yourself. Denying people the right to voice that opinion is also disrespectful as well.

You obviously feel very deeply on the subject and that is to your credit, do not deny people the right to disagree.

Point taken pwalhx and I apologise for any offense caused.

I personally interpret the 'boys with toys' comment to be an ill-founded and patronising attempt to discredit the opinions of myself and hundreds of thousands of other people rather than a difference of opinion. The latter makes the world go round; the former is unfair and is something that I would always challenge whether that be on an internet forum or face to face.

I took it as an attempt to discredit the business plans of airports, not a slight on the people of Sheffield (or Coventry for that matter).

There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with wanting to see your local airport (or football club or city centre or anything else) doing well, or indeed existing in the first place.

I say that as someone who spent a great deal of time supporting CVT at the public inquiry, even though they were a commercial organisation, then part of TUI. I simply believed that local people had a right to use our airport, and that the narrow minded attitudes (and in some cases outright lies) of local people needed to be taken head on.

Like a good university (or two), an airport is a good thing for a major city to have, and it all adds up in the urban top trumps game.

However, none of this alters my view that the business case to bring back SZD is there. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I really don't see it happening, for all the reasons already mentioned.

As for land value, airports with only a handful of scheduled flights are not particularly good utilisers of land. Whereas a railway needs to be continually extended to serve more cities, SZD, whilst compact, has never even handled more than 100k pax in a year, and thus a business park may well be the best use for the site, however mundane that might be.

In the longer run, even though Meadowhall is a bit of a Ryanstation compared to the city centre, if that is where the HS2 station is going, then that makes the SZD land more useful as a business park (and not as some form of fantasy integrated hub, which would need an airport 100x bigger than SZD in its busiest year). Note - HS2 is likely to pass very near to, but not through EMA.

So what is Sheffield does re-open as an airport, what are they going to do with it and has the population of Sheffield been approached to see if they'd be willing to subsidise it until it may, if ever, reach break-even point?

Reading of the previous operators to the airport, KLM might have made it initially pay, with their significant route network, utilising 50 seaters but KLM don't operate anything smaller than 80 seats these days and those don't have the performance to operate to/from such a STOLPort.

Sabena ... well they won't be coming back and SN/Brussels Airlines haven't got a route network of any significance to offer connections on.

British Airways? ... Yeah, right. :)

And Aer Arran have got problems of their own.

So who does that leave to operate to/from a re-opened Sheffield City Airport and on what routes?

Meanwhile ... just up country planning permission has been granted to build a Doncaster/Sheffield Airport rail station, why don't the "Sheffielders" petition for a PDQ train service from/to Finningley and the centre of Sheffield and then work on enticing the likes of KLM with their 80 seaters back to a Sheffield Airport (if in name only) that has a runway rather than half a runway and at least try to make one airport work rather than two that fail?

Or, might I ask, aren't trains as exciting as aeroplanes?

PF said:

Permission may well have been granted to build a station at Finningley on the Doncaster-Lincoln line, but I don't think this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Several things militate against this proposal:

- the poor existing service on the line

- the low numbers of flights and passengers using the airport, especially in winter

- the inconvenient flight arrival and departure times, concentrated in the early morning/evening

- it had been proposed to divert the Lincoln-Sheffield- Doncaster-Adwick stopping trains to a P+R station at Finningley. Apart from depriving Adwick and Bentley of their service, it would have to traverse the very busy East Coast Main Line, causing pathing problems

- The distance between any potential station and the terminal is not negligible, and would require a shuttle bus; the bus from Doncaster Station/Interchange only takes about 35 minutes anyway except in heavy peak hours

- the nature of the clientele. DSA is not a tourist destination per se, so I would think the majority of passengers are dropped off by families, friends, or taxis/minibuses whether they are going on holiday or returning to Poland/Lithuania. The parking charge is reasonable if you book in advance.

The new road link to the M18, which has been approved, will facilitate this further, and provide faster times to Sheffield anyway. So I agree with you in some respects, just a different transport method.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The only reason KLM pulled put was that there was precious little in the way of radar cover and get they a bit twitchy with things like that. Both the E190 and F70 could lift economic (but not full) loads out of SZD but they need the traffic to do so. Also KLM are unlikely to have a problem allowing FlyBe to feed into AMS, if they chose to operate into SZD. But I think the fat lady has already sung.

PM

Quote: "As for the "Sheffield is the largest city without" - I remember using a similar argument for CVT, except it went along the lines of "we're the largest UK city with an airport with a runway capable of handling the B737 that doesn't currently do so.

So what? It was merely a pointer to the ideal that a city of our size would benefit from having a network of loco flights. Of course we would, of course SZD would benefit the city of Sheffield."

The difference between Coventry and Sheffield is that Coventry has one of the UK's largest airports (Elmdon) on it's door step (and used to have a rail/bus link to Heathrow via Watford).

"So might HS2, but you get that in Meadowhall Ryanair East Parkway, and we'll have to go to a "Brum" station."

Under the present lunatic proposals, all high speed rail journeys will have to go via a "Brum" station!

Complete waste of time! There is no point in having "high speed" rail if its stops are in the middle of nowhere!

Why? Because all the time-savings advantages accrued are lost by the need to faff around getting to the city or a proper transport hub (e.g. in this case, Sheffield Midland station) for the onward journey.

In addition to being dumped miles from the centre, travelling between
London and Sheffield on a high speed train will involve a dog leg via Birmingham. In reality there won't really be a time saving on the "high speed" route compared to the traditional direct route on the electrified (by then) East Midlands line.

It certainly wouldn't be worth paying the premium for: better off upgrading to first class on the direct route!


Quote: "So who does that leave to operate to/from a re-opened Sheffield City Airport and on what routes?"

Being a primarily business airport, a link to London (and other cities) would be necessary, but it appears not to have been viable. Maybe this is because LHR wasn't expanded when it should have been, so any potential commuter flights couldn't have taken advantage of carrying interlining connecting pax as well. There would not have been this extra traffic on SZD-LCY for example.

Quote: "Meanwhile ... just up country planning permission has been granted to build a Doncaster/Sheffield Airport rail station, why don't the "Sheffielders" petition for a PDQ train service from/to Finningley and the centre of Sheffield and then work on enticing the likes of KLM with their 80 seaters back to a Sheffield Airport (if in name only) that has a runway rather than half a runway and at least try to make one airport work rather than two that fail?

A Finningley station is a good idea - provided it's walking distance from the terminal! If a bus journey is involved, it might as well link DSA to Doncaster and Sheffield stations direct. traffic volumes at DSA may not warrant any of this.


Quote: "Or, might I ask, aren't trains as exciting as aeroplanes?"

They can be if they go centre to centre. If you have to go to an out-of- town location to catch the train, you may as well fly (it's quicker and probably cheaper).

FDF,

Looking at GE I'd guesstimate that from the railway line to DSA terminal is approx 1km ... and I'd guesstimate that is a similar distance to the main concourse and gate 22 (if it's still there after all these years) of LGW.

And why would such an airline as KLM want to operate in/out of a "skin of the teeth" airport such as Sheffield City, and with restricted loads, when there is a full size "Sheffield" airport just up the road and around the corner?

When Sheffield City was open previously there was no nearby alternative but thereafter the MoD released the former RAF Finningley and, these days, there is a nearby and full sized airport alternative.

KLM does not want to operate to DSA, as it is quite satisfied with its service to Humberside and does not want to dilute that. Apparently there have been a lot of discussions over the past few years with DSA management trying to attract them. The lack of a service to a hub airport is one of the reasons DSA has not performed as predicted.

When Easyjet had a 'half-base' at DSA, this necessitated a daily service to AMS, and the load averaged about 80 on a 319.

The timings for Easyjet to AMS from DSA were not suited to the business traveler.

South Yorkshire can't sustain an airport - that is clear. DSA is almost the second failure.

Do you realise who incredibly crass and dumb that sounds?

Sheffield airport is more use to the Sheffield economy than a bunch of airlines delivering bucket and spaders around the costas. You might not appreciate that from afar, but you can take it from people who do that are close to the issue.

Do somebody else a favour and get that petition signed ;) Redevelopment of Sheffield City Airport - PetitionBuzz

Elton,

Sheffield hasn't got an airport, only a heliport!

Do your bit and sign that petition then! ;)

Come on, support aviation. This is the last chance to save this facility in Sheffield and no matter what you personally think of the prognosis, you can do your bit to help prevent its loss - at absolutely no cost to yourself.

Redevelopment of Sheffield City Airport - PetitionBuzz

Support a City Airport?

Hell no, far too high tech for me, I'll stick with my local airport :)


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2505/4...eed443ec43.jpg

Support a City Airport?
 

Looks like Heathrow in 1946.....just after the tents went.

@ eltonioni

I'm afraid you've neatly summed up the whole thing there yourself. You are encouraging somebody to sign a petition about an airport with which they have no concern, and which they are never likely to need. This shows how cheap putting your name to something has become, just a few taps on a keyboard, a click of a mouse and hey presto you're done. As you say, sign something "at no cost to yourself." All this does is trivialise such things, and means nobody who has real power will take a blind bit of notice.

If this idea of saving the airport is to get anywhere, you need meaningful activity, like the support of MPs and local politicians, some on the ground action like protests outside City Hall, and most of all, somebody with real financial backing who is prepared to stand up and say "I think I can take this on....." and be named, not just rumoured about. Take a lesson from the many people who do their best to stop airports developing.

Excellent points BKS, to which I would add:

So you are asking people like PF, and myself, who both think bringing this airport back is a long shot, to put our paws on a petition that we both quite clearly disagree with. What an utterly ridiculous suggestion!

At least go out and find some supporters who back your cause. Or why not go stand outside Glasgow Central Railway station, or somewhere else that is completely irrelevant to your cause, and find more people to sign your petition "no matter what they think".

I will give this industry my support where I feel I have something useful to add, and I have backed my airport in the past when I think we had a very important case to put across and set the nimbys right. I don't think SZD ever had much of a nimby problem, and that can only be because it never had enough flights making enough noise to bother anyone in the first place.

Support aviation that is able to sustain itself. Let DSA bring in any more routes airlines are prepared to invest in. Give the SZD resurrection a wide berth.

For a subject many claim to not care much for, it seems some are happy to waste alot of their time subjecting this thread to their diatribe.

There is a difference between caring about an airport, or about the industry, which I do, and agreeing with a petition, which I don't.

If I'm wasting my time typing a response every few days, how much of your time are you wasting on something that is very unlikely to succeed?

We know you dont, so why not just give it a rest for the time being?

It is up to those with vested interests to decide as to whether what they are doing is worthwhile or not. By all accounts you dont have a vested interest, with the exception of you wanting to be right.

With troll bait like that? :D:D

Either you are confident in your cause, in which case let's debate the facts, or you can't face the reality of someone taking a critical view to what you are doing, in which case go and support your local fire station.

Like I say, Im leaving it for now to see what happens. I have taken your weak points to task as can be proven in this thread, to the point where I refuse to waste bandwidth covering old ground.

For those that do bother keeping up with the news, it appears more local politicians and business leaders are getting behind the airport. Things are happening behind the scenes.

You've been doing that yo-yo for weeks now. Just an excuse for not being able to reply with real facts or coherent argument. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat.... :=

Appears where? Of course politicians will back an urban status symbol for their city, and of course business leaders would rather have an airport than not.

That goes without saying, and none of us are questioning that.

Our simple point is that we don't think there is a viable case to re-open an airport that was never very busy in the first place. If you have serious hard evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

In the meantime, you are now just trolling your own thread with your repetition and refusal to debate fact with fact, quite an achievement in forum etiquette! :D

I get you Pug ...

I think resurrecting Sheffield is a wonderful idea and I give it my 100% support.

Are you happy now Pug?

:zzz: like I say, I dont see the point in dealing in supposition on this subject. People with money and a bit of influence are working hard at (at least) halting development of the business park over the runway. You, on the otherhand, are an internet warrior going around in circles about how 'right' you are.

Call me a troll if you like, Im merely suggesting that I put more faith in a group of people who are going out and trying to make something happen, than an armchair analyst who keeps labouring the same points (which I have tackled, as have others).. For instance, others have pointed out the huge inaccuracies in your argument, such as your suggestion that Peel built the airport. Such inaccuracies render your opinion null and void. :D

PF, not 'til you sign that petition ;) :}

Wow, 20 minutes - I missed you!

People with money and influence have been working in the aviation industry since it started. That does not make their proposals either (a) very likely to happen or (b) likely to be profitable if they do happen.

Remember - someone with money AND influence has already BOUGHT Coventry Airport (or to be technical, the lease). Why? To run flights? Maybe, but unlikely. He has just applied for permission to develop the land AROUND the airport.

Now in the case of SZD, you have a different situation - a choice between property speculation and airport, in which case the property is going to look more attractive.

It was a reference to the "10 years to prove itself" deal. So I stand corrected in that Peel were not the original owners. So what? The deal still stood, the 10 years are up, the airport is closed.

If there's a case for a new SZD (as I understand the case needs commercial ops), then let's hear the destinations. You are the one who is keen to promote this, where do people in Sheffield want to fly to, and how could SZD facilitate that? If the demand really is there, then what aircraft would be used, and which airlines would be likely to operate the flights?

That is why I think you have such an uphill struggle. There is nothing technically stopping KLM from starting up at DSA, but they have CHOSEN not to.

Of course SZD would be closer to the main Sheffield business districts, just as Sheffield Midland would be closer than Meadowhall as an HS2 stop. Yet government seems to be about to back the cheaper option. By far the cheapest option for airlines wanting to serve South Yorks is to open up routes into DSA.

The presence of holiday passengers at said location does not preclude business flights from operating, as happens at most airport across the country.

For me to question your case is not mere "supposition". The onus for any business proposal is on the proposer to make the case, not the other way round.

You are still missing the point.

Of course it is, to a property developer with a competing interest in Doncaster. They didn't get a bad deal for £1. You cannot compare SZD with CVT, if only because of how close CVT is to BHX..

They were allowed to purchase a prime development site for £1 provided they proved that the airport was not viable. They were in the process of developing an airport in Doncaster. Doesn't that ring alarm bells? Public money was ploughed into the development of road infrastructure amongst other things, in order to develop the airport. This will prove very profitable to somebody who wants to turn the place into a faceless business park.

Why does it? Why is 'Manchester City Airport' still going strong without even an asphalt runway?

If I was to try to answer that question about routes then I would be speculating. It's therefore pointless. Someone clearly has faith in something on that front, but as we dont know who it is (other than them having other aviation interests) then how can we possibly answer that?

No, there is nothing technically stopping KLM from operating from DSA. Commercially on the other hand, there arguably (and clearly) is. Humberside not being too far away for instance, along with the fact that DSA is too far away from Sheffield to provide a competitive advantage to Sheffield passengers over MAN or EMA. Loads on business services from DSA have been very low when they have been offered for instance. They were more popular from SZD.

And that is just the point I'm trying to make. The onus is on the proposer to make proposals to the people that matter at this stage. They may even have a workable and profitable proposal to turn the airport into solely a GA airfield for all we know.

I dont think viability is the problem here at all. The problem is that Peel are highly unlikely to sell for any reasonable amount, and the council clearly have no interest in supporting any proposal to turn the place back into an airport.

"Manchester City Airport"?

I can call my house a castle but it doesn't mean that William & Kate will be popping in for tea and biscuits anytime soon ... Manchester/Barton is a grass aerodrome ... "Airport" my ass!!!

But ... be respectful enough to answer jabird's question(s), what routes from Sheffield City, what aircraft types and what operators? ... And without changing the topic of conversation to a grass field somewhere close to Manchester!

I would hope you could be respectful enough to read my posts properly. If you did you would see that I've answered the questions posted by jabird and others throughout this thread. You may have even got my hint of sarcasm with my calling it 'Manchester City Airport'.

I'm saying (I think quite clearly) that a reopened airport doesn't necessarily require any scheduled services whatsoever. Peel own Barton Aerodrome, it is in profit, it has no scheduled services whatsoever. In fact, I dont think a reopened airport will include passenger facilities in order to handle passenger flights. That is however just my opinion because in reality nobody on here knows..

Pug,

Barton is adjacent to, effectively, England's 2nd city and with the other Manchester Aerodrome being significantly busy with the big stuff and significantly expensive to operate in and out of.

So how do you figure that Barton is comparable to Sheffield?

Barton being adjacent to Manchester still doesn't make it one of the busier GA fields in the UK. In fact, you would find many of those are in areas of smaller populations than Sheffield. So what is your point, since you've realised that there is no point comparing scheduled operations?

Are we to assume that all of those airfields throughout the country are loss leaders because they aren't close to Manchester? I pop into Gamston and Sherburn (amongst others) now and then on XC, as do many others, they aren't tumbleweed setups..

From the original article.


I'm happy to keep speculating as I have yet to see any convincing facts which persuade me the airport could re-open and remain viable. Any "scandal" arguments would only be relevant if this could be proved AND the airport was viable.

To suggest there would be "no problem" with a business plan, without providing such evidence is just ridiculous.

It really should be me now that gets my coat! :ugh:

Try popping in to Plymouth City and/or Filton and/or Ipswich and/or Portsmouth airports/aerodromes on a XC sometime!

Lost opportunities, lacking interest...
 

We have lost some airfields along the way, but hopefully others prosper, through a mix of business and private flying, maintenance etc. Examples being Gloucestershire, Nottingham, Leicester, Halfpenny Green, and with what looks like local authority support, the prospect of a hard runway going in at Rochester in return for part of the airfield developed for other commercial purposes.
Sadly the City of Sheffield has a long history of missed opportunities and lack of interest in fixed wing aviation, at least as far as the City Council is concerned. There was an airfield at Norton on the City's southern boundary. Developed during WW1, but long since lost to schools and housing. My father recalls seeing Sir Alan Cobham flying there in the 1930's.

Back in the 1960's the erstwhile "Yorkshire Airport Development Association" concluded that Sheffield would not provide enough traffic for a local airport. (however an International airport at Ferrybridge alongside the A1 was proposed...) The Sheffield Chamber of Commerce reacted by pressing for the urgent provision of an "airstrip" for business flights to and from Sheffield. Various locations came and went, Todwick, Anston, Hady near Chesterfield, and even plans to develop the existing grass airfield at Coal Aston ("EGCA"), however with the latter, development plans suggested by S/Ldr Wallace of Netherthorpe airfield were turned down by Chesterfield RDC, the planning authority.
Industrial concerns in Sheffield such as United Steel and Davy Ashmore were quietly getting on with flying from Coal Aston in the piston twins of that era, Piaggio P166 and Beech Queenair.
Writing in one of the Sheffield papers in 1964 the Assistant Managing Director of United Steel quotes his aircraft as making 108 landings in Sheffield in 1963, and the business aircraft of other industrial concerns making a further 120 landings, I assume mainly at EGCA. Some 50 years on, business aviation has changed, with the emphasis on turbine and jet aircraft needing longer hard runways, undertaking longer distance flights, eg to Europe and beyond.
Unfortunately EGCA would not be suitable for modern business/executive craft, it is a "challenging" grass airfield with a strict movements limit in its ongoing planning consent.

During this 1960's soul searching about air facilities for Sheffield, the City Council came down in favour of a heliport, eventually opening one at Parkwood Springs.

So what is the situation today? Holiday pax need to make the trek to East Midlands or Birmingham...or Doncaster; long distance scheduled passengers make the journey to Manchester, or London? Private "leisure" flying still takes place at the Sheffield Aero Club site at Netherthorpe, with its short runways. Business aviation to the area is presumably catered for at Retford/Gamston, which is a fair distance away, or possibly at Finningley?. The topography is against airfield development in the immediate Sheffield area, you tend to have to go south-eastish to find flat land.

Would Sheffield City be suitable as a GA airfield? In my humble opinion, "No", not a place I would want to do single-engine training, in a very built up area, and modern runway safety constraints have been discussed earlier in this thread, limiting larger aircraft. Also, again as discussed, the land will have a value for commercial/industrial development, given its location. The original genesis of Sheffield City airport from the Budge Mining contract to reclaim the coal and other deposits from the then derelict industrial area are too hazy to recall now, and in any event of historical interest only.

Regrettably therefore I do not see any great prospect for a viable fixed wing facility in the immediate environs of Sheffield.

Regards, and apologies for the long post,

EGCA

EGCA,

No apology needed, an excellent analysis of the local reality!

The other point with comparisons with Barton is the question of relative land value and planning. The SZD site is surrounded on all but one side by build up area. It therefore makes for a logical case to grant planning permission for an office park, however "bland" that might be! Sadly, some of the other posters here forget that a dead airport is bland too!

Barton on the other hand is on the edge of an urban area, but on three sides you have green fields. I suspect the runway itself is classed as greenbelt too. Therefore the chances of developing offices there are quite a lot lower, so the land is likely to be worth a lot less, thus it remains viable as a GA airfield.

It has been quite clear all along that the plan for SZD is to bring back commercial flights. If that was not the intention, then this thread has been in the wrong place from the start, as it is about airlines and airports, not fields! :ugh: