MPs falling over each other with lies about CVT

[Flightmapping]

Local MPs Andy King and James Plaskitt appear to be falling over each other to spread blatant lies about Coventry Airport, as the planning meeting to discuss the fate of the permanent terminal on 11th September approaches.

In a recent press statement, King has claimed that the White Paper says:

""Any unrestricted growth at Coventry will have a detrimental effect on air traffic capacity and safety. The region depends on that business capacity being properly managed, not swamped by cheap budget flights to holiday destinations."

He must have some special version for MPs only, because the public version says nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Plaskitt was going on about how the new terminal was only the start, and how the airport really wanted a runway extension - again, nothing to do with the current terminal application. The only talk of Coventry ever handling more than 2m pax per year came from the original White Paper consultation document, which talked of the potential to expand to 9m pax per year.

There are clearly legitimate issues to do with the new terminal application, many already mentioned in this forum, but the debate is not helped by MPs abusing their power like this, especially when it is their own government which wasted so much tax payers' money putting forward phony new airport ideas in the first place.

[colegate]

Why might you think that MP's tell the truth. In my experience truth is a rare commodity in politics.

[GK430]

Of course they will want to lengthen the runway.
By the time Britannia have finished haggling over pax charges at other airports and decided that Coventry will provide the best return, wait and see how many 757 services they try and schedule at 'BE. It won't just be for the near Med if they can add another 600m or so.

I am waiting to see when mention of doing their engineering at 'BE comes to the fore:p

[Flightmapping]

IDC,

Coventry Airport has offered to enter a legally binding agreement which would restrict pax flow to 2m per year, I presume in a similar vein to the Gatwick agreement which says no new runway before 2019.

Of course all businesses want to increase profits, but there are points where the ROI for expansion is very poor. Bill Savage has mentioned 2m pax per year as the "ceiling" above which the airport becomes less profitable, presumably because a huge amount of extra investment is needed in other facilities. I would have imagined that a runway extension would count as one of those "other facilities" - sure, it would open up the possibility of serving more destinations, but would the cost be justified?

From what I've been reading on the FR/LDY post, a 757 quite possibly wouldn't have a problem getting off the runway at CVT anyway, although GK430 perhaps you could elaborate on that?

With reference to politicians lying, Andy King is making something up about the White Paper which clearly isn't in there. He should also remember that it is the same White Paper which got so many of his constituents hot and bothered about the "phantom" Rugby airport, although I think we all know how much he's been able to milk this opportunity, and possibly save his very marginal seat because of it (or was that the original plan from central government anyway?).

[jmc757]

Saw a Britannia 757 get off the ground from CVT on Sunday... filling in for a 737 problem. Now I appreciate it only had 131 pax plus bags but that thing was off the ground in a flash with an astonishing climb rate. It rotated way before any of the 735s do.

Ok, it was not much over half full, suppose a more fully laden one would be pushing it?