Winniebago -

Can an A318 get out of LCY at MTOW?

Can an A319 get out of JER at MTOW?

The answer is 'No' in both cases. And yet these airports are used by these aircraft. Why?

The answer is that at low weights, aircraft are capable of using runways which they wouldn't be able to use at MTOW or MLW. It depends whether the airline can reliably get in and out while carrying a viable load and enough fuel to take the passengers where they want to go.

Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD at MTOW? No.

Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD with max passenger load and enough fuel for AMS or CDG? No problem.

Winniebago -

One more thing. I don't know where you got these ideas about business jets at SZD...

I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.

From the photo you know that Biz jets could land and take off at SZD.In regard to reopening SZD as a commercial airport it is totally irrelevant Are you suggesting using Biz Jets to run a commercial operation from the airport? It might be alright for some business travellers to use them and in some cases companies would use their own aircraft.but the cost to the general public would be prohibitive.It does not make sense to reopen the airport,it is just not a viable proposition.

ILS32 -

Is this a serious comment?

I don't think anybody suggested using bizjets on airline services until you did.

But it was suggested earlier that only "a few turboprops" would be able to use the SZD - this is demonstrably incorrect.

I'm guessing from your username that you live somewhere just south-east of LBA. If that's the case, then you'll already be aware how many business aircraft are present at airports nowadays.

And if you are involved in commercial aviation on a professional basis (as I am) then you'll know that business aviation is an important sector of the industry nowadays - you'll also be aware of the capabilities of modern business aircraft from short runways.

Norman

It aint so much take-off that's the problem, although I'd contest you being able to get a fully loaded Q-400 out of there with fuel and sufficient reserves for AMS as an example, it's the landing distance.

Factor for a wet runway and you've just had it - and it does rain quite a lot up here. Even on a dry runway, you are not going to land with sensible 'minimum' reserves and a full passenger load.

I'd still like to see a list of those airliner types people think could both take-off and land there with a good 80% load factor say, and enough fuel when outbound for perhaps 300-400 miles or so.

On the topic of business jet access the straight-wing Citations and the Falcon 50 have the very best landing performance of all jets and would indeed get in (only just - a great number of pilots would dismiss it out of hand), but strictly on a private basis, never public transport/commercial/charter/air-taxi etc.

The amount of GA and Biz Av traffic one could see going through there would never, ever sustain the costs of running the place and, again, commercial ops are simply not viable with that runway length. Far too constraining.

Norman Normal
Not a serious suggestion but I thought that you were advocating the use of Biz Jets, not realising you were replying to a previous posters comments.I agree with you that there are aircraft which could operate from a limited runway but would the operators be prepared to do so.They would be taking a financial risk.What about the existing infrastructure, would it need a major upgrade for commercial operations to restart?
Finally are the majority of the Sheffield public demanding that passenger operations start again or have they got used to travelling to other airports.It was never a bucket and spade airport for people to fly off for their annual holiday.In regard to business aviation I have Multiflight on my doorstep and you only have to look at them and see how their business has expanded in the last 20 years.

Winniebago -

Bombardier quoted me RTOW 27,541kg, ISA, zero wind. They assume 5% contingency on trip fuel, 100nm alternate and 30min at 1500' at the alternate. ISA en-route, 85% annual winds. With DOW 18,000 and 78 pax, they say the aircraft will do 226nm. BUT, they assume 97kg per pax. In my experience, this is unusual - especially on shorter, business-type sectors. My experience suggests average pax weight will be 90kg max, and more likely less. So immediately the aircraft is going to be at least 500kg below RTOW.

Landing weight? Well, I can't say what the planning/in-flight rules are on the Q400, but I'd be surprised if they differ from the rules on the type with which I am familiar. Maybe you know different?

Not sure which 300-400nm destinations you have in mind? Once you get beyond AMS/BRU/CDG/BHD/DUB/JER and the other close ones, I feel the commercial case may become more 'marginal'. Are you thinking FRA etc?

Regarding the bizjets, you didn't comment on the Hawker or the Lear. And are you saying the newer Falcons and Gulfstreams have inferior performance??

None of these will support SZD on their own. But regional airlines, plus bizjets, plus GA, plus training, plus maintenance... that's different.

ILS32 -

SZD was never about bucket-and-spade. DSA can continue doing that - nobody's calling for DSA to close. But unfortunately for Sheffield's businesses, it's clear that the airlines don't see DSA as a business airport.

All this talk about who could, or could not, operate from SZD is immaterial unless the airport is sold by the current owner.
Why would Peel sell? The FSB, or anyone else, has not given any suggestion that Peel are willing to sell. A petition and discussion in council meetings is all well and good for PR for their campaign, but Peel are unlikely to give in to a bit of negative PR for them.

Correct me if I am mistaken but, reading through this thread, the FSB are making hot air that perhaps Sheffield City Airport should be re-opened and apparently there is an individual waiting in the wings with money to buy the site.

I haven't actually read that the current owner has been approached and made a realistic offer for the site and that current owner has flatly refused to sell.

Has the current owner been approached and has the current owner refused to sell?

I'd hate to think that people are talking about me on a forum someplace that I've refused to sell my business when nobody's actually made me an offer to buy it!

I haven't seen anything from the FSB that indicates that Peel have been approached or have intimated that they are willing to sell. Without this, the FSB are wasting a lot of effort and it really should have been the first step before launching the campaign. If Peel's response is a resounding 'No' then the campaign will never succeed.

Peel (or Sheffield Business Park, the owners of the site) HAVE been approached according to local media.

Media also report TWO parties expressing interest.

There could be a LOT of negative PR for Peel if they're not careful. They got the airport site for nothing (the £1.00 was never paid as transaction costs would have outweighed the £1.00) and there's a slow dawning of public realisation that the airport might not have been as 'unviable' as was claimed. Peel seem to have 'bet the farm' on Finningley, and we can see how that has worked for them.

There's a risk that they could do real damage to Sheffield's economy by continuing with this current 'strategy'.

I very much doubt Peel will be concerned about some negative PR.

Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.

Any contract of sale will have a minimum price of £1 (or asset valued at £1 or more) as there has to be a consideration from the purchaser, even though that £1 never actually changes hands. I have sold a business in the past for £1, and never received the £1. It's perfectly normal.

The passenger numbers for SZD are interesting:
1998: 46,000
1999: 75,000
2000: 60,000
2001: 33,000
2002: 13,000

What would be different now to what happened pre-2002 (before the fire cover was reduced)? 75,000 passengers is not a viable figure.

To put that figure in context, less than 18 departing passengers per day.

You've got a big chunk of history and data missing. I'll dredge some up from memory, so you will have to excuse me if I get any details wrong.

Way back in the late 80's there was a huge opencast mine. It was being mined by RJ Budge Mining. Restitution involved backfilling, landscaping and building an airport in accordance with the wishes of the landholder.

AF Budge Construction (Owned by RJ Budge's brother and the owner/operator of the very successful Gamston) was employed to develop the airport and the associated business park that would pay for it. The property was one whole. The airport was a part of the grand plan, not an adjunct to offices and warehouses. Without the airport there was no business park.

AF Budge Construction went bust in the recession.

The Sheffield Development Corporation sorted things out and a new developer was found.

The airport was built, the business park went ahead and annual profits of £2-4m (from memory) were enjoyed from the project.

Anyway, as things rumbled on the airport property was put into an SPV owned by the developer. Then an operating company was set up that was part owned by the developer. The OpCo paid rent to the SPV which sent rent profits up to the Developer.

Can you see where this is going?

OpCo shows a loss, but can't make money like the rest of the site by developing the land because that is owned by the SPV, which is owned by the Developer, who has a foot in all camps.

From memory, the last years accounts showed a loss in the OpCo of about £400k, but the ultimate landlord turned a multi million profit.

The multi-million pound profit wouldn't be there without the airport, but through smart division of financial responsibility the clause for getting the rest of the land for a quid kicked in.

There's no blame on the developer, landlord, or even the OpCo team. They did what they do in a commercial marketplace - I'd do the same.

The issues lie with the people who allowed it to happen in the first place. That is why an enquiry is being called for so that the public can understand and that any wrongs found are righted.

Anyone who thinks that CAT pax loads are the point of this saga is missing the point by a country mile.

Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield. We want that back.

Seems to me from what you have said - the airport would not have been there if it was not for the business park!

Where is your evidence for this "lots of business"?

An enquiry would explain what happened and why it happened. Why it would reach any different conclusions to the 2005 enquiry, I'm not clear. It would not invalidate the legally binding contracts that were agreed between the various parties so please explain how you go from 'enquiry' to Peel being mandated to hand the site back or reopen it as an airport. That would need action through the courts, to which the questions are
- who would fund the legal costs
- who exactly is being taken to court?

eltonioni, thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of that, and no-one else wasn't forthcoming with it (even the FSB).

You make a comment that "Without the airport there was no business park", but it also sounds like without the business park there was no airport, as you do say that the business park will pay for the airport.

So the FSB's campaign is based around potential shortcomings in a contract drawn up 20 years ago by the SDC. That's not unusual or illegal (public organisations have never been good at getting involved in commercial contracts).

An inquiry wouldn't have the power to right any wrongs, as that would involve changing/revoking perfectly legal contracts that have been signed since then. Only a court would have the power to do that, and a court would only do that if there was criminal activity - which no-one has suggested.

An inquiry would cost hundreds of thousands/maybe millions for everyone involved (including Sheffield City Council, who can hardly afford it at the moment) just to tell people what they knew all along, but with no power to change it. The only winners will be lawyers.

Those publicly funded contracts are what might be called into question. We'll see if there are people and organisations that should be called to account if we get the enquiry.

The airport was the reason for the business park, not the other way around. I happened to be on the development team all those years back so I have more memory of events than most. Since then I've been a tenant at the airport as well as a pilot using the facility, so again, I've had more than a passing interest.

Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.




On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA. There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.

So if an inquiry does hold people to account, then what? It still doesn't get the airport re-opened.

BTW I have stated before that I support the airport re-opening. I have flown from there in the past, and it can only benefit GA by having more facilities available, but there appears to be lots of information that isn't yet in the public domain.

Eltonioni wrote:
I think that most people here want any airports to succeed, though there is a minority who will always do the 'my local airport's better than yours' thing. A point about this discussion is that many posters have made valid points that a reopened Sheffield airport would have great difficulty in making it a commercial success, whatever has happened in the past.

I find this insulting. This particular thread has been very reasoned. Unreasonable threads get shut down by by the moderators.


Groundloop wrote:
That is a question and it needs answering.

I'm sorry if it's insulting to some people, but I think that they should listen and think harder before writing if they don't want to feel offended when they are responded to vociferously. The locals and supporters on this thread seem generally sick of trying to explain to people who clearly don't want to understand.

Anyway.

I'm sure that you will agree that it is all but impossible to quantify "lots of business" in £'s, unless you are a local inward investment agency quango wonk ;), which is why I didn't. But there is sufficient historical, anecdotal and geographic evidence available to consider such as;

1. The campaign is being led by the Federation of Small Business.
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing have engineering / research centres at the end of the runway.
3. The Airport is in an Enterprise Zone.
4. It's located within the city boundary, adjacent to the main manufacturing and commerce zone, and 6/7 minutes drive to the city centre down a fast dual carriageway.
5. HS2 will have a station a mile up the road.
6. Finningley is in Doncaster and an hour's drive away with all the aggravation of a large facility. Netherthorpe is 550m of grass. Sandtoft and Gamston are in other counties.

There was plenty of GA activity up until it closed, King Airs, twins, Lears, the odd Gulfstream, helicopters, and lots and lots of SEP's. Add in the training and club activities and it makes for a well used runway. CAT is great, and desirable, but it's not the be all and end all. PPRuNe has no shortage of rather superior salaried pilots who can't see beyond CAT. There's more to aviation than them, especially when it comes to how a runway impacts on a city.

I appreciate that the above just gives more ammunition for the disinterested and pointlessly argumentative to pick holes in somebody else's plans, but when you're in the Sheffield business community these things make a bit more sense.

Considering that there are at least two parties who want to use their own cash to reopen the facility, there's no real downside to anyone. I just think that they should be supported and given the best possible opportunity, while those who are responsible for any past wrongdoings are brought to book.

I still want to know who is expected to set up the enquiry, and who is supposed to fund it.

Eltonioni wrote


I am trying not to be imbecilic here, but if there are parties who wish to reopen the facility, who think it is profitable, can they not make a bid to the current owners to do so?

Or is their idea contingent on some compensation or reversion of land use for possibly irregular happenings in the past, which would help to fund it? I've read all the thread and it is difficult to make sense of.

Obviously, as I said, most posters on this site would be very pleased if a closed airport reopened, but will justifiably point out their views on the probability of success of the venture - usually calmly and without rancour, and I must say, with reasoned arguments. This is not the same as 'picking holes'.

Let me say again, I would be delighted if Sheffield airport reopened, and I do recognize your experience and insight of aviation and of the economy of South Yorkshire. But based on my own opinions and knowledge, and that of others on the thread, we come to different conclusions.

Let's cut to the chase then Elton ... How is it proposed that a re-opened Sheffield City Airport will turn a profit?

Johnnychips, one of the interested parties has publicly stated that the airport wiould not be profitable for the first few years and he is looking for the city council to be part of his consortium, so he's looking for council taxpayers to help cover the losses, so it's not quite as eltonioni makes out. With the city council making huge cuts and Don Valley Stadium and Stocksbridge Leisure Centre at risk of closure due to the budget cuts, I think it is perfectly legitimate (and democratic) to ask questions of the plans when taxpayers are asked to contribute.

I'm still unsure how the FSB are hoping to get the airport reopened. If the owner does not want to sell, then what? How are the FSB going to force them? Big questions that no one has answered truthfully. Norman Normal suggested (or rather threatened) Peel will get negative PR, but that's not a viable solution.

Ahhhh, the myth that DSA is an hours drive from Sheffield surfaces again!

Google Maps says 1h 2m from where I'm sat right now on the west of Sheffield, and that's cutting through Lakeside. At busy times at Parkway + Lakeside can add another 45m.

It's a real-world hour to all intents and purposes, not an old myth.

Manchester Airport with it's plethora of flights (unlike Doncaster) is 1h 10 minutes.


I'm a bit bemused that people are suddenly worried about other people's profits. Any more straws to grab?

Elton,

Here's a straw to grab ... Just how may a re-opened Sheffield City Airport break even or, indeed, make a profit?

I can think of lots of ways, can't you? A good start would be to avoid running it like the previous operators.

Eltonioni, it's great that you have some ideas how it could make money. So why is Andrew Cook (one of the two interested buyers) not as optimistic as you, if he is looking for council tax payers to contribute to the running costs to make it viable?

Because, under one of the potential buyer's plans, council tax payers will be paying for an airport to re-open when it clearly was not viable the first time round. Why should tax payers contribute when Sheffield City Council is considering closing public facilities that are better used than an airport would be? Even an inquiry would cost tax payers money, which frankly would involve the council cutting back on even more much needed services.

We don't know what the other potential buyer's plans are, because he's not disclosing them. So secret that I expect he wants some public money to pay for his plans also.

If the campaign was at zero-cost to the public purse then I would say go ahead, let somebody risk their own money. But that's not the way it is at the moment.

It's not any way at the moment. Patience.

That's not what the FSB and Andrew Cook are saying publicly.

An news regarding the future--if any--for Sheffield City please? It's gone very quiet.

Is the runway still extant or has building work started on the extension to the business park?

Edit: Posting before Googling has its limitations. The following website link at least takes the story to July 2013:

RESCA

First time I have heard the phrase "RESCA", ie Rescue Sheffield City Airport.

Question remains though, is the runway still intact, and has any building work taken place that would impinge on its future use again?

EGCA

Turn the place into a heliport. It's ideally placed (about halfway up) to provide refuels for aircraft routing up and down the length of the country and would still provide associated benefits to the city.

It's already set up to do so, the infrastructure is still there.

I spent a few days in Sheffield last week (if Dore count's) and i was shocked how the city has changed since i was last there and it wasn't all good, i can't see there is any way Sheffield City council could justify writing blank cheques for an Airport that few ever used, filling in the car eating pot holes would be a start, although if you could direct flights inbound from Somalia i think they'd but full from reading the local press, there is nothing wrong with local pride or indeed a wish to see your home city do well, but you have to be realistic and ask who will pay for it and other than the council i don't see any private investor going near it with their own money, its not like its a football club? there are no bragging rights in owning an airport unless its a premiership one....:rolleyes:

I think rather than the City Council "writing blank cheques" it was more down to interested Sheffield businessmen as to whether there could be a revival. I recall there was interest from Mr Cook of steelmaking fame for instance.

Talking of commuter and scheduled services has to be a red herring, when the future might be with business and executive fixed and rotary wing operation.
Even with circa 3950 ft of runway most of Europe would be within range of modern piston/turbine twins of the 6-8 seat size surely.

My original question still stands though: Have the developers as yet taken any steps that would render reactivation of the airfield impossible?

As an aside, the poster above I suspect didn't really get a flavour of the modern Sheffield, not from the leafy suberb of Dore anyway. I havn't worked there since the 1980's, but friends tell me that you take your car into central Sheffield at your peril, "you will be lost for days" they say....

EGCA

Aircraft, much the same as commercial road vehicles, stop for fuel where the price is right without diversifying to far off their optimum route.

I don't know the price of fuel at a Sheffield City Air/Heliport but I would suggest that it would be more expensive that at some competitor airfields where those aircraft could stop for their refuels.

As things stand the "heliport", hard standing/hangar/fuel, is solely for the use of the local Police helicopter. Not sure if even the air ambulances use it.
I dont think there has ever been any intention that it is opened to general helicopter use, and does not have the infrastructure in place for general commercial use.

Interesting that today the "RESCA" link I posted above no longer works, and cannot now find it via Google.
Maybe my posting just reminded someone to take down the website.

My question still stands, have the developers done anything on site to make reopening impossible? Sheffield and Rotherham, are you out there? Hello...is there anybody there....?

egca

Lets have a look at some of these poinsT;

1. The FSB largely represent just that - small businesses. Are big employers like Outokumpu just down the road gagging to use SZD?

2. As above - are Boeing and RR gagging for the airport to be reopened?

3. An enterprise zone - a political device used by councillors and national politicians to make it look as though they're "doing something" in a deprived area - a bit like the Freeports of the 1980s.

4. Like heck it is - especially when Meadowhell is in full swing!

5. When exactly is HS2 likely to reach Sheffield?

Just what the UK doesn't need right now, another airport - there's plenty already. A fact proven by the failure of SZD as a commercial airport years ago.