All they will have left is the carpark to raze funds with. Lets hope they don't increase fees for GA and hangarage or we will see even less activity.

With a press launch of the re-naming ceremony to "Teesside International Airport", you would think a simultaneous launch of updating the website (still "Durham Tees Valley") would have been coordinated in a professional relaunch.
Durham Tees Valley Airport

Regarding the passenger levy, the mayor has his sums wrong.

140,000 pax a year is approximately 70,000 outbound (ie the ones who pay the passenger fee).

70,000 x £5 each (£6 less the VAT that goes to central government) equals £350k a year, not £900k.

Whilst the 350k argument seems logical, I feel like what must be an entire team of accountants at the Mayors office isn't going to get it wrong? Either way the black hole argument stands

That's what I thought at first. But when it was introduced in October 2010 the owners said it would raise £500k a year.
Passengers face £6 airport charge at Durham Tees Valley - The Journal

226k pax in 2010 so 113k outbound pax paying £5 each (£6 ex VAT) is £565k...

Must be a rolling 900k then since they took over the fee

As I see it, situations such as this only undermine the figures that support the viability of the project to purchase the airport in the first case.....

Not sure what you're getting at given it's the same level as we've had for many years now on a Sunday, unless you expected the Mayor to perform an overnight miracle despite his continued assertion that it will be a long term (i.e. years) fix.

June CAA stats:

Terminal passengers: 15,027 - up 16% v prior year

• Aberdeen: 1,568 - down 20%
• Amsterdam: 11,026 - up 12%
• Jersey: 740 - up 2%
• Burgas: 1,716 (new)

Amsterdam shows year-on-year growth for the 21th month in succession, this was the best June on the route since 2004 and on a 12 month rolling basis, AMS is doing better than any point since 2008. Aberdeen still down and this route appears to be really struggling (although who knows what the yields are?). Jersey up slightly (and 74 pax per flight is a 95% load). Burgas looks like it has had an excellent start - 1,716 people over 5 weekends means a 95% load per flight (assuming 280 seats on an A320).

Rolling 12 month passengers: 142,945 - best since 2013.

[QUOTE=tigertanaka;10549056]June CAA stats:

assuming 1,280 seats on an A320

Talk about densification!

[QUOTE=roblondon70;10549082]Whoops! I meant 280 seats - now corrected.

How does the Burgas flight prices compare to other local departure points.

180?

When did the AMS switch to EMB's, and what's the seating difference to the Fk.70?

Yes, my calculations were on 180 seats - brain fade today.

The Embraer change in late October 2017 put a lot of extra capacity on the AMS route. A Fokker 70 had 70 seats but there was a "middle seat vacant" policy which meant that KLM would normally only sell around 64 seats (this varied but 3 rows of business would be typical). An E175 has 88 seats which means over 25% more capacity than before.

To put recent traffic into context, June 2019 (E175) was 34% up on June 2017 (F70). Also 10,988 pax in June (and assuming 3 daily weekday, 2 daily weekends) is an average of 69 pax per flight so we are a bit away from getting a 4th daily flight or a move up to an E190..

The E190s have been appearing recently on the night stopping aircraft. Cannot see a 4th due to the Amsterdam restrictions. Now the local councillor is on side with the mayor they could do with re-starting the KLM cargo plan of the 80s.

Best I can find. The local councillor had her way this time.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/7077539.airport-scheme-brought-down/