Sywell V Deenethorpe

[S-Works]

I see the management of Sywell are at it again, this time blathering on in the evening standard about how if he does not get his hard runway and if Deenethorpe is allowed to develop he will have to close the airfield. Something I suspect has always been his long term goal anyway.

Having forced out virtually all of the tenants to replace them with his own businesss I can see little sympathy for him.

Even the locals admit that it is not the hard runway they object to but him personally.

What effect Deenethorpe being used can have on him is beyond me. It may be more to do with the fact that some of his evicted tennants contemplated moving there that makes him uncomfortable.

What next, Leicester is a threat to him because that is the close?

[muffin]

I called in at Sywell by road this week as I wanted to go to one of the firms based there. I have never seen such a customer unfriendly place. Do they think they have the Crown Jewels in there? I could see the place I wanted to go to but it was so surrounded by massive security fences and locked gates that I could not actually get to it no matter which way round I tried. In the end I gave up as it was pouring with rain and went.

There is no way I would base my business at a site like that.

[ShyTorque]

I agree, from personal experience, it's no longer a user friendly airfield. :(

[Flyin'Dutch']

I have always enjoyed going over to Sywell and found the people I have dealt with to be professional and very pleasant.

[topcat450]

I don't visit that often however I did spend a day circuit-bashing there during December and the woman in the tower couldn't have been more helpful. She went the extra mile, helping us pick our way around the boggy bits of ground and by generally being approachable and helpful.

Turning up in a car looking for a company once before though and the experience was much the same as Muffins, although throw in a surly unhelpful 'security' guard too in my case.

PS If the airfield is reading this, I would visit ALOT more for fuel & coffee at the bar if you lowered the landing fee's. :ok:

[muffin]

It obviously depends on how you arrive then. I was looking at it from the perspective of companies there presumably wanting to allow their customers to visit them. The place I wanted to go certainly lost business because I could not get into them.

[david viewing]

I have no knowledege of the management or any other involvement with Sywell. However I do know to my cost that there is a large di .. traveller camp just down the road at Ecton Brook and if I owned property in that area I'd want big fences and even bigger security guards.

[TheOddOne]

Just come back from Sywell, the usual friendly welcome, parked up in the line of other a/c outside the hotel, had a lovely lunch and came home again. Excellent day, but very quiet!

There's loads of building work going on there; as you say, he does seem to be squeezing out all the smaller businesses - Northamptonshire School of Flying are finally off to Sibson, shame, but with all the investment, I can hardly think that anyone with half a business sense is serious about closing. We landed on the brand new 23, very flat and an excellent grass runway but the new surface is a little corrugated, apparently because of the way the surface was seeded. However, this should settle down quickly to a very nice surface. Mrs TOO paid the landing fee, £12, but then I paid for lunch, which was rather more...

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[Zlin526]

I suspect many aerodromes are like this. Excellent places to go, but ruined because of the management..I must say that I have never had a problem at Sywell, maybe because I just get on with it and fly in/fly out without worrying too much about the politics and personalities..:ok:

[Snakecharmer]

Zlin,

We'd all love to just fly and not worry about the politics! Unfortunately, its often unavoidable if you need 'permission' from an aerodrome operator to go about your uncontentious business... Sywell isn't the only airfield whose management have made some rather strange decisions in recent months.

Perhaps the answer is to bin out of light aviation, its little fiefdoms and little people, and confine ones aviation to grown up professional aviation - I've certainly been tempted. Unfortunately, little aeroplanes are where much of the fun is, so I suppose the answer might just have to be to grin, bear and observe the politics with semi-detached disinterest.

[Arrestahook]

Well Bose another can of worms successfully opened. I think you have got it dead right this time tho'

What Bletsoe Brown is bleating about in the local press concerns Northants School of Flying’s old plan of erecting a maintenance hangar at Deenthorpe aerodrome. This was due to the lack of space for maintenance at the new base, Sibson.

How a maintenance hangar constitutes a threat to Sywell aerodrome I am not sure. However, I am sure that NSF neither has the means or the desire to re-mortgage THEIR company to the tune of several million to develop Deenthorpe into the regional airport he is ‘threatened by’.

What I find amusing are BB’s antics. The family buying up shares in Sywell Aerodrome Ltd to ensure a bigger stake-holding. While at the same time running the company into millions of pounds of debt developing the buildings, carrying out massive earth works and at the same time kicking out the only people who can help pay for all this - the tenants.

You hear BB’s cries to the County Council,
‘We need a hard runway to complement and help pay for our developments’.

The hard runway is a farce, a few movements a day of light turbo prop aircraft wouldn’t even pay for the £2-3 million cost of building it let alone the rest of the company’s debt. On being asked ‘Michael will you install an ILS for these commercial aircraft?’ his reply was ‘Why would we need one?’
None of the building refurbs have been carried out taking into consideration the size of commercial aircraft, so where are these business jets and turbo props going to be accomodated? All this leads one to believe it was never intended to happen in the first place.

This is just my speculation but see what you think……..

Make a hard runway application to the council to be seen to have airfields best interests at heart. Make fundamental mistakes in said application such as massively overstating proposed aircraft movements. Oops, council have thrown out application again.
Then make your play to the CC and local press.

‘We have tried to develop this airfield by spending millions spuriously, but it is crippled because you won’t approve the hard runway. We owe four and a bit million pounds and cannot operate a GA airfield while threatened by ‘planned’ developments at Deenthorpe. Therefore we no longer have any choice but to close the airfield and develop it with commercial buildings or houses to pay back the money we borrowed.’

Build on it to the tune of much more than 4 mil, sell up families now sizeable share holding and move to Bahamas.

Question is does Bletsoe know a good builder…..Wasn’t a certain Mr L Wilson of ‘Wilson Homes’ recently voted onto the board of directors?

NSF and Deenthorpe are not a threat to Sywell aerodrome Michael Bletsoe Brown is!

[inaspin]

All I know is when NSF leave (having been driven out by BB) the airfield will be completely dead to GA.
Fly there at a weekend and you will lucky to see another aviator, let alone socialise.

SYWELL....RIP

[Oxford22]

I have visited Sywell a couple of times in the last year, I think it is very sad NSF are leaving, they were very friendly but I do think that saying that all GA at Sywell will disapear is a little extreem. There are still a good number of private owners based there from what I have seen.

[inaspin]

The number of owners at Sywell is reducing month by month. They have dispersed to Turweston, Leicester, Deenthorpe and even Hus Bos. This will continue, as I know some others are looking at leaving in the near future.

[G-KEST]

What a tragedy this all is. I first visited Sywell in 1959 in a Magister for a Tiger Club aerobatic competition. Regular visitor ever since especially having lived in the county since 1965. It is one of the best grass aerodromes remaining in the UK and it would be awful if it were to disappear under houses and warehouses. A bit of the UK's aviation heritage that should be preserved - not destroyed.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:{

[BlueRobin]

Henry would turn in his grave if he knew

[Sir George Cayley]

"Ash" would too!:(

Sywell
Barton

Where next?

Sir George Cayley

[Oxford22]

Hang on a minute, I know NSF are going and I will take it on faith that a few others have left but I saw plenty of aicraft hangered there. There was some quite interesting suff as well, tigers, stearmans, a Yak 52 and a couple of chipmonks.

In addition there was quite a lot of rotary activitty and microlights all over the place. I have heard that the warbirds have all gone from Sywell (sold off, the owner didn't leave) but I do know there is a gentlman with a harvard based there during the summer.

[BeauMan]

Such a sad story if it's the case. I've only ever flown from Sywell once, as a guest of a fellow Prooner last year, and found the place utterly idyllic. I thought the NSF folks were very friendly and helpful, the atmosphere around the club was professional and approachable, and the fleet has enough variety in it for me to seriously consider switching clubs from where I am now.

Okay, so NSF aren't closing, they're just moving, but I do find it quite saddening that they should feel such action is necessary. I don't know the full story, but from my very limited viewpoint the airfield management's attitude does seem to be extremely counter-productive.

Good luck to NSF in their new home at Sibson, chances are I'll be poking my nose through the door in a few months. ;)

[strake]

There was an article about the NSF move to Sibson in the latest AOPA mag and I very much "read between the lines" the disappointment of the NSF management. Still, very best of luck at Sibbo...!!

What a real shame for my flying Alma Mater of twenty-two years ago...so many fond memories.

(sigh) "Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be....."

[Oxford22]

I read the same article, I don't think there was much to read between the lines. There are oviously some problems but I can't understand the logic of spending until you are £4m in debt then carying on. The finantual risk would then lie with the directors who would be in quite a fix if the whole thing went bust even if you did build houses on the airfield. They would not then be alowed to run a company again as I understand the law.

Why spend all the money on what was Fordair (who I was sad to hear left last year, Mr. Ford was quite a charicter although I accept the ovious i.e. he has left also). What I saw when I visited the airshow last year was remarkable, the new fuel instalation was unlike anything I have seen at an equivelant grass strip. Why put in all the effort rather than declare that you are £4m in debt, delcare bancrupsey and build now? I am sure I don't know anything like the whole story but I just don't can't see how it all adds up?

[Maxflyer]

I am sure I don't know anything like the whole story but I just don't can't see how it all adds up?

...says it all. Unless you are aware of all the facts it is best not to surmise too much. Appearances can be deceptive, it's what is going on beneath the surface that determines what happens in the future.

NSF are a well managed school with a large and loyal membership, they would not up sticks from the base that they love and move away unless there was a very good reason.

[Oxford22]

I see your point. Well I guess Arestahook's theory was, as he said, speculation, we will have to see what happens. I hope it's a load of rubbish but time will tell.

[inaspin]

Oxford, you did not see as many aircraft as you would have done 12 months ago. Yes there are a lot of microlights, but I was talking about light aircraft. The owners of aircraft have put up with arriving at the airfield to find gates, but had not been informed of the entry codes. Padlocks changed on the hangar, no new key issued. Padlocks changed again to combination locks, again no codes issued from the 'management'.

A certain prunner asked BB what was going on (covered in a previous posting) and was banned. This can only lead to speculation as BB refuses to speak to his tenants, and does not see why he has to. His attitude is 'if you dont like it, bugger off'.

Amazingly he his now complaining about lack of aircraft movements!

Sywell could be a fantastic aerodrome, but this will NOT happen until BB buggers off.

[S-Works]

The company does not have to go bust, it just sell the land to the developer which is worth vastly more than £4m, the debts are settled and the houses get built by another company.

Business is a very devious process..........

[Oxford22]

I am sure the land is worth a lot more than £4m. What I was getting at was why go to all the bother of redeveloping the hangers if your intention is just to just build houses or indutrial on the place? Why spend all the money on deliberatly bungeling the runway aplication? At the end of the day no matter what happens afterwards it is still lost capital spent on legal fees etc. It just seems a bit far fetched.

I can't coment on the number of lost tennants other than the well publicised ones and I know nothing of the lock problems but I certanly know of the barriers, which are a pain if you have flown in and are meeting someone, (and I have no doubt if you are a business operating aeroplanes of all types) but I suppose you could argue they are additonal security, not that they prevent people steeling aeroplanes!

The whole thing seems a very curious situation no matter what your perspective is on it. As a bystander it is all very interesting.

[S-Works]

Because to makes ones case truly plausable one has to go through ALL of the motions.

Hangers make equally good industrial units.

[Oxford22]

Sorry to keep playing devils advicate here! I still don't see a reason to go through this elaborate shirade. Even the most weathy bussnessmen and women are always after as much as they can get, why through so much unrecoverable cash away?

I take your point about the hangers though it isn't quite as simple as moving a buissness in, plumbing and whatnot not to mention heating and the draft!

[Maxflyer]

If you have to answer to a board of directors (even if it is to pay lip service a la MBB) then sometimes it is necessary to maintain a veneer of normailty regarding your plans for the future. However, if you are simply manouvering for a final coup de gras then any camouflage helps. This can look like a hanger, a new fuel setup or simply making your site resemble the outer perimeter of Colditz.

An earlier posting made reference to Sloane Helicopters. They own their building outright. They also have little need of a runway. Less of a problem in the grand scheme of things and easier to relocate (after a healthy repurchase) if necessary.

[inaspin]

I blelive MBB wanted to buy the Sloane building, but did not want to pay Sloane's asking price.

[Arrestahook]

That's something I didn't know inaspin. Interesting and fuel to the fire.
One of BBs quoted reasons for booting out NSF was that he wanted their slice of the action and planned to set up a flying school of his own from the Shackleton building using At3s -ultralights.

Setting up an FTO I would imagine having trawled through CAP 687 et al myself would not be a piece of cake, a long a protracted process with an enormous number of applications that are in the public domain. None of this has happened, there is no FTO to replace NSF, no CFI, no planes no instructors, nothing.
Well why isn't there? With NSF moving shortly there is a gap in the market with the NSF membership left behind in Northampton, why is it not up and running and ready to take up the slack. Good business planning surely?

Never meant to happen! Kick out NSF and eventually put the squeeze on flylight (Movements decrease - blame it on something else not the fact you have thrown out your aviaition operators) and apply for change of use.