DTVAirport- and there you go again, more pro DTV "jingoism" though this time "flipped"!
Say what you mean or simply shut up !!!

I meant in terms of traffic, I will admit the terminal experience was spot on.

Are you sure?
 

Dtv...think your figures a bit out of date also.they were refinanced last year and don't think they are making an operational loss...not like our DIRE lot!

No I did take all that into account

DTV - I've PM'd you.

V_J

Said pipeline is not on current airport land. It was on land that they might of used for the alternative access to the South side.

Just read this latest uttering re APT from the "Airport Boss" Unsure as to where he was speaking from, though some of the associated text is laughable. To be quoting reports that improvements in runway capacity down London could create a demand for up to 4 flights a day by 2050 !!! is pretty much irrelevant, unsubstantiatable, & bizarre, irrespective as to which ever airport one is considering.
Presumably this is the same "Airport Boss" who professed in not being an accountant, to be unable to provide any assurances that with having regard to a “published” £3.6M financial loss was unable to comment as to if / when Peel may cut their losses and close this operation.
All must agree that such losses are unsustainable, though it is as to what to do to address this loss that opinions differ. The only thing that is certain is that which has taken place historically to date.

Unfortunately the action in the deliberate reduction of civil aviation related activities, does not align itself with the necessary reduction in overheads with which to turn the operation around. As such as commented by many, then as an action in itself it is irrational unless considered as part of a much larger scheme.

The irony of all this is that there is (for Peel) indeed a larger scheme, they have presented a version, believe it if you wish, for public consumption. However common financial sense is that if you have a profitable scheme with a non profitable aviation cost centre, then consideration has to be given to the improvements in returns by either closure or disposal. The later would not appear an option if only because of its incompatibility w ith alternate uses for the site as a whole, leaving the more likely closure.
Throwing additional funds into site accessibility make little sense if the perceived objective was to create & assist growth in airline pax no.’s. They do make significant sense if the site is considered for an alternate development use be it residential or commercial. The main winners being Peel themselves, who will see the value of airport land increase dramatically.
As to how all of this will be seen by the current local residents is anyone’s guess but I guess that Doris & the other “nimbys” on the local parish council have little to worry about proposed aviation activity in 2050. You reap what you sow! As they say………..

Boris to replace Hague
 

In some quarters 'Boris' is being suggested as a possible replacement for Hague

Could this mean DTVA being promoted as additional London runway???

PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)

Passenger Figures June
 

Nothing unexpected.

Amsterdam down 2% (8303)
Aberdeen up 11% (2995)

airport total down 11.7% month for month and down 8.6% for year
June 12149 total

Movements down 7.7% month for month and down 1.8% total for year.

Looking like 2014 will bring in circa 145,000 passengers? worst since when??

Never mind Peel(and DTV) have a plan.....:D

Worst since
1972 162,000
1971 136,000

Looks like there plans working

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. The plan has not had time to have full effect.

DTVAirport
how long do we have to wait for the plan to work
40+ years to build it up and less than 10 years to bring the airport to it`s knee`s
will it take 40+ years to build it back up or will it become another housing estate :p

DTVAirport
As I keep pointing out then you continue to say bog all of anything relevant , whilst continuing to take comfort in a plan which you yourself appear unable to substantiate.
Why not simply take a real world view and pick out some specific references that will able you to quote objective data to illustrate and reinforce your points.
Unfortunately judging by what has been uttered by you over the past 12 months then insofar as I am able to recall then you have not actually made a single comment that would suggest that you have a greater clue than "Doris" up the road.
N.b. "I'm party to secret info that I can't divulge" angle, seems to me to be the fantasy of a hopeless under achiever & dreamer!

Give him a break....
 

Sky man. You talk a lot of sense..but give dtv some slack...it's his airport,his dreams and maybe his future.We all have been somewhere similar in the past?

The penny will drop soon enough and it will be a sad day for all of us.

I think we all know there is no future as an international airport...some aviation activity may continue but I fear the future is bricks and motar.

It's sad but true, the more houses that are built, the less chance of aircraft noise being tolerated by those living in them. Leading to objections, public inquiries etc, etc., result....restrictions on the operation of the airport.

Let's get some things straight - aviation is one of the slowest-progressing industries in the world, nothing happens overnight not just for DTVA but anywhere, and here you all are expecting a long-term plan which was announced barely a few months ago to be reaping fruit practically overnight?! That being said, given the fact that the load factors have been consistently UP all year so far bar this mere 2% drop on KLM which *may* be a one-off, you could say the plan is already having a positive effect.

You've taught me well then?

And not everything is as it seems. All I have to do is wait...

The Masterplan - from memory, it was something along the lines of:

• Reduce costs by binning 'costly' big airlines like Thomson, Balkan Holidays, MOD charters - still baffling to me, but tick in the box
  
  
• Encourage business relevant short range regional flights - KLM/Eastern flights have been maintained with some modest growth, but no new developments yet - jury still out
  
  
• Encourage existing/additional aviation related businesses - Sycamore quiet, no significant growth in other resident co's although Cobham/SERCO state they are happy, Skydive company attracted (how busy are they?), no other additional companies attracted (we'll ignore the exotic agricultural enterprise!)- jury still out
  
  
• Housing development to fund additional development - still at the planning stage but considerable local opposition although local authorities seem on board. Like others, I don't see how significant housing so near to the terminal goes with continued aviation activity - jury still out
  
  
• Long term investment in infrastructure to encourage aviation related businesses - after repeated RGF failings, finally obtained some 'pump priming' Govt funds. While I've no problem with such investments, Peel do give the impression it wouldn't be happening without somebody else paying - jury still out

anything I've missed, got wrong?

Yes

Driven all visiting General Aviation away by introducing mandatory handling and over bearing security staff.

Mickey Kaye watch this space on general aviation.

Skydive only operate at weekends weather permiting
with a turn around of approx 1hr between drops