DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT - 5 [Archive] - Page 13

VentureGo

27th Oct 2013, 20:16

DTVA is on the Balkan Holidays website for next year:

Durham Tees Valley Airport flights to Bulgaria (http://www.balkanholidays.co.uk/flight_only/durham-tees-valley-airport.html)

Ops Monday morning 4 August-1 September BGH5583/84 08.30-09.30 Hardly a program! - More ... an opportunist selection of peak period breaks! (Less than a month in duration)

On a more serious note, which I know will be controversial to the "die hards" of Teeside; DTV is a joke as an International Airport and the arguments against all aversity to keep it as a viable "major" passenger port in our North East region is only delaying its funeral ... and more importantly, delaying the emphasis which should be applied to Promoting Newcastle Airport as a true International Airport serving a greater population to a wider international market.

We can then resource better rail and Express coach links from Teeside and Northumberland (as proposed in the plan submitted by Lord Adonis)

The North East via Newcastle can then be as sucessful as Manchester is for the North West! - Please read Lord Adonis' report. All of Teeside could connect to Newcastle International Airport in less than 50 mins!! .... (Less than centre of London to Heathrow!!) - and would attract links to US, Asia, More of Europe etc... with its increased market / population capture area!

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8120668&noquote=1)

Northbound A1

28th Oct 2013, 11:00

Peel in the HMRC tax news again! Eurobonds.
Transport hubs in Eurobond tax avoidance controversy - 25 Oct 2013 - Accountancy Age (http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2303052/transport-hubs-in-eurobond-tax-avoidance-controversy)

P330

28th Oct 2013, 14:35

Has the pulling of 2014 IT flights been confirmed then?

I did hear it mentioned as part of the business plan to "grow" the business but haven't seen anything official yet.

If this proves to be the case, this does really change the shape and direction of the airport - we start to focus on what makes money (presumably) and a diverse operation.

Looking at passenger numbers and wish lists for new routes will become a thing of the past....as it will be totally irrelevant.

Northbound A1

28th Oct 2013, 15:37

Hmmm, if DTV goes the same way as Sheffield Airport did under Peel, any interest in Peel will also go away if Sheffield was anything to go by.

No holiday flights means one thing, no passengers = no airport.
What a master plan :hmm:

No comments in the press either?

P330

28th Oct 2013, 15:47

North, I don't think things are that straight forward.

No IT flights does not mean no passengers and therefore no airport.

Whilst I am yet to understand the logic of how dropping them improves things, there has to be a conclusion made that the future has to be different from where we are now. And, for all the Peel bashing, I'm far from convinced that the future is based on a lo-co coming in or growth in IT flights - the world has moved on.

I don't want to lose the IT flights, but I would rather a business remain and if that means focussing on profit and diversity, whilst retaining some regionally important services like KLM, then so be it.

The future will be different (or there won't be a future at all).....

skyman771

28th Oct 2013, 15:58

Winners & losers !
All this hype about Peel !, it was made clear long ago on this forum as to what their attitude is.
Basically they develop land / property, the bigger the better, that is their business plan. Having "land banks" scattered all around simply assists in this model.
The current winner (if you can call it that) is Liverpool, where Peel have bought up a significant amount of the development land going, & getting in bed with the Chinese to bankroll the projects. There are grand plans indeed to renovate the docklands. Conveniently, Peel also own & operate LPL fairly near to the new development, & predictably there is no talk of anything other than growth all around.
Now take Teesside & specifically DTV which couldn't be any more different also owned by Peel then no development, no talk of regeneration down at Tees dock to speak of, & no Chinese (though that is probably not so bad !:oh:).
Do those at LPL share the same attitude as those on this forum?, I doubt it.
One could say that it's not actually Peel at all, but is simply all down to whether geographically, the area faces out to the East or to the West :E

inglebyboro

28th Oct 2013, 15:58

If you search on the Thomson website they state that no flights are available from DTVA for the Summer 2014 season

Northbound A1

28th Oct 2013, 16:04

Does that mean DTV will be just a glorified Bagby or Fishburn airfield for a select few but with a longer runway?
Surely Peel can't justify keeping the ILS and other systems running, or employing staff such as firemen and ATC under a reduced operator list?

Peel removed the ILS system at Sheffield prior to closure which is why the operators pulled out.

How much of the promised £20m was ever invested by Peel? £1m or less?
Have Thomson made an official announcement yet?

skyman771

28th Oct 2013, 16:14

P330
I don't want to lose the IT flights, but I would rather a business remain and if that means focussing on profit and diversity, whilst retaining some regionally important services like KLM, then so be it.

Surely you don't really believe that this is a viable business model !
Where is the profit?, i.e. "Revenue less costs & overheads " ...I guess Peel are hoping that there are many more who share your view,... though I wonder what KL are to make of all of this..:uhoh:

NorthSouth

28th Oct 2013, 16:38

Surely you don't really believe that this is a viable business model !Sadly I think it is entirely viable in 21st Century Britain. Buy an asset and sit on it. Profit = income minus expenditure is for little people.
NS

P330

28th Oct 2013, 17:02

Skyman - I have no way of knowing whether this is a viable model or not, as I am not on the inside. As I have said before, being prepared to lose flights does not strike me as a sensible move, but one can only assume that it costs more than you earn OR the move isn't sensible.

As for a future without IT flights and whether that is viable - that entirely depends on whether there is enough profit in the non-passenger sector. You would hope someone has done their sums and figured out the answer is 'yes'.

In all honesty; none of us know what is going on. But I am clear that the future has to be different to the past and DTVA has to be a differentiated or niche product to survive and prosper. It would have been nice to think we could have achieved this difference and niche WITH charter flights however....

P330

28th Oct 2013, 17:05

P.S. I don't think KLM will care. KLM will only be interested in their own yields. Providing those yields remain above the minimum they seek for the route, or a more lucrative yield can't be achieved by deploying the aircraft elsewhere, then I think KLM will remain.

Of more concern to KLM right now must be the slow but steady decline in passenger figures recently and I'd be interested to know how close we are to that yield minimum.

davidjohnson6

28th Oct 2013, 19:42

KL may find there are No friends of DTV this year to help clear the snow for Whittaker who has £2,300million stuffed in his back pocket
Why did FoDTV ever believe they were not being taken advantage of ? Temporary labourers available on demand whenever you want who ask only for the odd cup of tea.

No wages to pay. No national insurance to pay. Not even any extra employers' liability insurance as they're not employees. If they slip on ice and break a limb, the NHS pays the medical costs and any claim for injury is probably invalidated by virtue of volunteering and not acting under supervision. And, even better, FoDTV want to spend their free time actively promoting your company. If you're the boss of the company just give a few scripted words telling these people what a great and important job they're doing and then retire to your warm office while they do the work for you.

P330

28th Oct 2013, 19:49

So, now confirmed - pretty much the end of an era.

We are now an airport that will rely on KLM and Eastern all year round for passenger numbers. I expect the pending announcement will talk about restructure, focus on non-aviation revenue and non- passenger aviation revenue. I would expect that the terminal will be slimmed down and that no-one will be spending money chasing new services with all but non-essential support functions dropped.

Let's hope the new future is a more sustainable one and one that fits the 21st century.

davidjohnson6

28th Oct 2013, 20:07

Based on CAA stats up to 30 Sept 2013, and also for Oct/Nov/Dec 2012, it looks like passenger numbers will fall to about 158,000 for 2013, putting the airport for the first time below the level achieved in 1972.

As a comparable, Plymouth airport achieved 157,933 passengers in 2009

HH6702

28th Oct 2013, 20:29

What effect will the loss of Thomson flights have on the figures for next summer

Around 2000 a month?

Northbound A1

28th Oct 2013, 21:18

There is also a very large advert in tonights Evening Gazette.
Its for caravan storage at DTV.
I bet that lone DTV night security guard wont be sacked for a while, unless Peel tell the duty officer to start manning the camera :bored:

davidjohnson6

28th Oct 2013, 21:24

For 2014 (Jan-Dec) if everything remains unchanged except for the loss of Thomson passengers, you are probably looking at between 135,000 and 140,000 passengers, putting DTV at about the same level as 1971.

This is of course a rather wild guess as it depends very much on there being no other significant changes between now and Dec 2014

DTVAirport

28th Oct 2013, 21:54

Have Thomson axed the flights or have Peel told them to leave as was mentioned as a possibility earlier this month when the master plan was first mentioned? Either way, very very sad.

FoDTVA knew exactly what they were getting into, they're not stupid people, if they didn't like the terms of their agreement with the airport or felt they were in any way being conned, they would shut up shop without a seconds hesitation.

P330 has more or less got the right idea. I would feel a lot better if Peel was able to say "OK we're not really a passenger airport anymore but we are now going to make the aircraft movements go through the roof in other areas".

Losing the flights is one thing, I just hope we remain in a position to take them back some day. A number of suits have been seen in the terminal over the last few days with tape measures so I would expect a resurrection of the 'split terminal' concept.

In any event, the airport still has a future even IF Peel didn't want it to have one - it simply cannot be closed, even Peel themselves admit that much!!

DTVAirport

28th Oct 2013, 22:19

There's several reasons, it's been discussed extensively on here already if you go back through the posts, I'm not going to go over old ground.

SWBKCB

28th Oct 2013, 22:19

Yes, were TOM pushed or did they jump? Maybe Peel were courting TOM as we had been led to believe and then got wind that TOM were actually pulling out and decided to dress that up as a strategy ("Oh charter was never really the future and we can save money by not serving them...") or put it another way "I haven't been dumped, I dumped her first!".

I'm a bit baffled though as to where the savings are - you still need a terminal for AMS and ABZ, and the flights aren't that far apart that you can shut up shop for large parts of the day. And while there probably wasn't a load of money in two flights a week, symbolically it sends out the message that you aren't open for business.

Ah well, all will be revealed in the master plan...

Skipness One Echo

28th Oct 2013, 23:37

Sorry this getting silly now. It's over.
Management appears to be saying they can't deal with IT business at a profit, this is a loud,clear and seemingly intentional message to the market signalling that even if you want to come here, we don't really want you. KLM won't lose anything by dropping MME as the exisiting traffic will use KLM at NCL or even LBA.
The exisiting owners have a plan, never mind what they're saying, it's clear what they are doing. Teesside as it is now, isn't commercially viable and couldn't be sold as a going concern for any price Peel would accept. It's the next Coventry, who can honestly see passenger operations much beyond next summer?

Head over heart? This is a painful thread to read as there's no one to help like the Scottish or Welsh governments, though mainly because MME lacks strategic value sadly in a way PIK and CWL do not.

Keyvon

29th Oct 2013, 09:20

Seems like that Balkan Holidays is to pull the plug on their MME flights soon.

Only 3 departures confirmed for the S14 so far.

Newmarket Air Holidays have confirmed just ONE flight to Verona.

That would mean MME will be left with almost no charter flights at all.

S14 will see just a couple of scheduled flights to AMS and ABZ plus the weekly Jersey.

10 DME ARC

29th Oct 2013, 12:06

Sounds like Peel want to get rid of more fireman or pax's totally!! Could be turned into 'industrial' type airport with fire cover when if required!!

Last one out..........

P330

29th Oct 2013, 12:10

The latest echo piece is interesting.

It appears to confirm that Thomson were pushed. That being the case, it would seem certain that the one-off charters, Jersey and Balkan will follow suit.

There appears a contradiction with the councillor who says the punters should have used them or risk losing them, as it seems Thomson would have been quite happy to continue. So, to blame the public in this case doesn't seem entirely fair.

Whilst I generally refrain from "bashing", I have to say I'm shocked the owners are letting all the negativity and comment come out first. Surely, in a major announcement like this, you would expect them to get on the front foot - tell the public what is happening and at least "try" and show there is a sense of purpose and direction to the plans, however difficult the message is. Instead, the public are fed rumours, snippets and the truth via the back door with nothing other than a "watch this space" from the owners. I am a Director in business and this is not the way you treat customers.

Interesting to see what the plans will be!

paarmo

29th Oct 2013, 12:21

I don't know which " airport model " these people are looking at but I suspect Tonka are the main suppliers.

ted320

29th Oct 2013, 12:26

I fail to understand what downgrading the airfield means (as mentioned in the press)? What category do you need to handle a 737 flying to Palma vs an 80 seater Fokker 70 flying to Amsterdam?

If we still have flights to Verona and Bulgaria, then surely the airfield could still handle Thomson 738 flights?

P330

29th Oct 2013, 12:26

And another P.S on KLM.

I said to Skyman yesterday that I don't think KLM will care providing the yields hold. Unless the owners manage this properly and on the front foot, this could have a quick and dramatic affect on KLM passenger numbers.

As soon as the KLM leisure passengers and the business community are fully up to speed with all this news, would you book with KLM from Teesside?

I can tell you now that if I had a business trip to plan now for 3 months time, would I book via Teesside or Newcastle whilst the only source of information from the owners I have is "watch this space"? I think the answer is obvious.

Peel need to get a credible, understable, strategic, reassuring announcement out TODAY if part of their plan for the future is to retain the services of KLM and Eastern airways.

davidjohnson6

29th Oct 2013, 12:41

I would still book KLM / Eastern to/from DTV if the price was no higher than from Newcastle / Leeds.

Either the DTV flights will operate or the airline will offer me a transfer to my choice of nearby airport at a time of my convenience but at the airline's cost. Furthermore if DTV loses service I would retain the option to ask for a refund on a ticket whose original conditions of sale state its non refundable.

Yes, this is a way of effectively gaming the system at the airline's cost. I accept however that customers booking under the expectations I've just mentioned are less than ideal for an airline.

fl dutchman

29th Oct 2013, 16:03

Could there be someone waiting in the wings who does not want any competition from another opperator hence the TOM situation. Only to reveal all when they have an exclusive deal.
Possibly the silliest post ever.
Probably pie in the sky, but who knows??

Northbound A1

29th Oct 2013, 16:03

The press should be trying to obtain a copy of the Peel-council contract.
Dont know if there was another contract after VAS sold their shares?

I would be very interested to find out just WHO benefited from the councils giving the airport away to Peel.

Why did Hughie prefer Peel???? as I heard there were 10 other interested parties who wanted to buy the airport BUT were not entertained by the management? WHY? Can the press interview Hughie and whoever was on the DTV board at the time of the sale to Peel???

I read somewhere, might have been on here that Peel now value the DTV land at £30m in their own accounts.

Lots of questions need to be asked.
The press should be trawling back through the post here to get some clues as to WHO has got rich out of these deals.
Anyone from the press been in touch with KLM, Eastern or Cobham about the latest fiasco at DTV?
Winters coming, lets see how many times the airport is closed due to snow as Peel havent invested in equipement either :mad:

skyman771

29th Oct 2013, 16:47

It is interesting that in continuing to read this thread that in most cases the "penny still hasn't dropped", to restate that if there was ever any doubt that Peel's current strategy is to close the airport to commercial operators, it has now become very clear.
It would, even for Peel, be politically unacceptable to simply "lock the gates" so instead they have adopted the more subtle approach of simply withdrawing investment and addressing each and every service in a negative way.
Put simply "if you pull away enough of the foundations then eventually the building will collapse".
All this on going talk of airlines apart from TOM, do you really think that Peel's attitude will be any less negative ?, No Chance !, The party line by the current management is that we will not be open for business next summer do not come ! or as they have said " Following a business review of operations by Durham Rees Valley Airport, Thomson and First Choice have been notified that they will no longer be able to operate their flights from the airport"
So forget all none current operations as Peel clearly are not interested, as to those still operating, principally KL, then there is in place a "service contract" between them and DTV, rest assured as soon as there is any chance to terminate it by Peel, then they will. Unfortunately there is no other rational or logical conclusion to all of this.:(

skyman771

29th Oct 2013, 17:00

Skipness One Echo Teesside as it is now, isn't commercially viable and couldn't be sold as a going concern for any price Peel would accept.
You make a lot of sensible & valid points in your posts, however you have missed the key one above. Peel have never had any intention whatsoever of disposing of the airport. They saw it as valuable development land, which was a good fit for their portfolio.
The issue that frustrates "Northbound" & many others is how they were able to be able to put "one over" a bunch of incompetent idiots in it's acquisition in the first place !

Skipness One Echo

29th Oct 2013, 17:36

Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear. They appear to be running the business down with an intention to close commercial passenger operations and monetise the land. Painful. I hope someone stops them!

SWBKCB

29th Oct 2013, 18:18

Whilst I generally refrain from "bashing", I have to say I'm shocked the owners are letting all the negativity and comment come out first. Surely, in a major announcement like this, you would expect them to get on the front foot - tell the public what is happening and at least "try" and show there is a sense of purpose and direction to the plans, however difficult the message is. Instead, the public are fed rumours, snippets and the truth via the back door with nothing other than a "watch this space" from the owners. I am a Director in business and this is not the way you treat customers.

Got to agree, P330 - the silence is deafening. Would be nice to know what the strategy is, and how turning away 'blue chip' customers like TOM contributes towards it.

Also, assuming BGH and BE follow but just haven't been confirmed yet, does this mean that all other pax flights which need the terminal are now not welcome? What about freight?

***Thread drift alert - can anybody remember a similar instance of an airport turning away a customer of this stature?***

Shed-on-a-Pole

29th Oct 2013, 19:18

It seems ironic that Thomson customers are being encouraged to switch to Doncaster Airport services in lieu of DTV. Now which company owns Doncaster Robin Hood Airport again? And aren't Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford Airports closer and more convenient for Teesside originating customers? How interesting!!!

Interesting too that Thomson should receive a "we don't want you at MME" message when they are also the principal airline left holding things together down at stablemate DSA! Hmmm ….

Top management!

apaul

29th Oct 2013, 19:30

According to tonight's Look North there will be an announcement tomorrow that all charter flights will be stopped. Can't see the two scheduled airlines lasting longer than a year or two then Peel can get on with property development plus scrapyard, caravan park etc.

A couple of idiotic quotations from local MPs. MPs raise concerns about loss of charter flights from Durham Tees Valley Airport (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10770728.MPs_raise_concerns_about_loss_of_charter_flights_fr om_Durham_Tees_Valley_Airport/)

highwideandugly

29th Oct 2013, 19:34

Well it's been an interesting 48 hours(or maybe months) one of the busiest threads on pprune and certainly the saddest?

My fear is the adverse pr is going to send shivers up Kim and Eastern and peel will get what they desire.

". It's not our fault,we had no option,everyone deserted the airport". I can see the echo headlines now.."we had no option but too close". If I were klm I would get out now before their reputation is tarnished and dragged down

PEEl you are a disgrace and an affront to. Uk industry.I am sorry I am just so angry...:mad::mad:

P330

29th Oct 2013, 19:57

The latest Echo piece quotes a councillor saying he knows it costs the airport a lot of money to run security, fire etc..for these flights. This backs up the thought that the only logical reason you would do this is if it loses you money.

What I don't get is aren't you still going to need fire coverage, security and check in staff for the residual services? So, how does scrapping charter flights save cash?

Most IT flights landed on a w rotation mid afternoon. That is the time the afternoon Aberdeen service is on, so does this flight not require security and fire coverage?

Really looking forward to seeing the public face of this logic tomorrow. We know Peel enjoy spin, so they're going to have to be at their best to make this sound good.

airhumberside

29th Oct 2013, 20:12

It appears to confirm that Thomson were pushed. That being the case, it would seem certain that the one-off charters, Jersey and Balkan will follow suit.
I don't get why Jersey would necessarily go. It uses the same size aircraft as KLM, and the airport will be open on Saturdays for KLM anyway. And technically it's a scheduled service

You might need some extra staff to service a B737 (compared to a Fokker 70), but surely not for a Dash 8 or EMB-175?

SWBKCB

29th Oct 2013, 21:04

Might be worth repeating an earlier post - from the Northern Echo in early 2003 (my underlining):

Quote:

Peel Holdings are believed to have offered to pay £500,000 for 75 per cent of the shares owned by the five local authorities who own Teesside Airport. It will also contribute £100,000 towards the costs of doing the deal. The report says the cost of transferring the airport could be as high as £500,000 - meaning the authorities may end up receiving £100,000 between them. Following the sale, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar and Cleveland and Durham county/Darlington councils will retain a 25 per cent share in the airport, which will eventually fall to 12 per cent. A statement from the five shareholding councils said "In reality it will result in a massive investment, running into many millions of pounds over the next five years. As was made clear by the shareholders, when the choice of Peel Airports as the 'preferred bidder' to become a strategic partner in the airport was announced in January, they believe that this is the most viable option for securing the levels of investment needed for the key projects which will enable the airport to maximise its own potential - and contribute to the regeneration of the communities its serves. The interest of the shareholders in negotiating the agreement with Peel is to maximise investment in the long-term future of the airport - not to generate short-term returns for themselves."

John Williams, the leader of Darlington Borough Council, said Peel had a good track record, having already turned around the fortunes of Liverpool Airport. He said the deal was the only way forward. "Anyone who uses the airport can see that it urgently needs major investment, The £20m private sector investment will give Teesside Airport a future. Without this, it will be stuck in a cycle of decline which will eventually lead to its closure."

Councillor David Walsh, leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, and a member of airport committee, said: "In the present situation, it is the only way the airport can get in the investment that it needs to prosper and grow. It has to be a calculated risk. There was no way that the local authorities would have the money at their disposal to turn it into an airport fit for the coming decades. But we are getting £20m from Peel, who are to remodel the terminal and apron, providing more slots for aircraft, and attracting retailers into the departure lounge. This money will go hand in hand with cash from One NorthEast which is going into the infrastructure and providing better access to the airport."

Hugh Lang, airport managing director, said the Peel development would provide everything the public sector cannot fund - such as buildings and land - and provide long-term investment. "We are trying to identify areas of investment so that we can hit the ground running as soon as everything is signed." he said. A spokesman from Peel Airports said: "We totally endorse the statement of the shareholders." The company has promised to refurbish the main terminal building and construct a new parallel taxiway for aircraft serving a cargo depot. It will also work with One NorthEast to create a 400,000 sq ft business park on a 25-acre site, complete with its own access road, and has said it would be happy to offer each of the local authority shareholders a seat on the airport's board.

So it is clear why it was sold to Peel - promise of investment which the councils couldn't afford. It would seem a legitimate question as to was the £20m investment made and on what, and if not - why not?

HH6702

30th Oct 2013, 00:15

Talk to workers???

Fear the worst then NO MORE passenger flights !!
Close the airport building and then turn the terminal into another hanger to break aircraft up!!

Shame really

Wellington Bomber

30th Oct 2013, 06:32

The Eastern J41 need fire category 4 and the SAAB 5 if that helps anybody, do not know what the KLM and 737 need, but it will be higher

ted320

30th Oct 2013, 08:04

If the fire cover is downgraded will sycamore still be able to fly 737/320's in for scrapping? Does it go on aircraft size or number of pax?

highwideandugly

30th Oct 2013, 08:43

Look on the bright side...maybe Peel have made a pact with the devil and persuaded Ryanair to set up a low cost base with three aircraft ??

OOps sorry just woke up..will have to stop eating cheese before I go to bed...

10 DME ARC

30th Oct 2013, 09:48

I have said it before Peel are a land ownership company and if you look at all of there airports you will see asset stripping.....of land which is what they know how to do!! You will see a half hearted attempt to run an airport but its all about the land use!!
Still rumours of there biggest airport Liverpool struggling to make a profit!?

skyman771

30th Oct 2013, 11:33

Cabby some excellent posts !
Why did the darlington council leader come out with the comment that if the public dont use the flights what do you expect. Has he become a Peel convert?
I also wondered as to what planet Bill Dixon was on, I feel that it may be as simple as "open mouth without engaging brain" .
My view is that since 2003 the management of DTV has been totally inept, whether by those appointed to official positions at DTV, or those to whom they were answerable on whatever council committee.
Once they signed the conttact to sell 75% or whatever %age to Peel, they were out of their depth & from that moment on they lost control, just as in any business that once you have 75% control, and are thus able to pass "Special Resolutions".
Upon signing all the councils became ineffective in their ability to have any effective say in the management of DTV, simply that ! there is no conspiracy theory as to their subsequent rolls as some would suggest.
However I feel that there is a great deal that requires explanation as to the events "pre 2003" that led up to the signing of what has proved in retrospect to be a fundamentally flawed sale agreement in particular HL's involvement.
It has been noted on the forum that there are similarities to events "up the road", it should be noted that in this case an attempt to bring those legal representatives advising the airport failed, basically due to the incompetence of certain employees occupying high positions. Unfortunately given the time lapse and potentially that it may not be in the "best interests":E of the councils to go down this road, then nothing will come of this. One can't really say that Peel have now won & obtained delevopment land for virtually nothing.
More like Peel won back in 2003 when the councils signed the contract of sale.

Wellington Bomber

30th Oct 2013, 11:35

Fire cover needed for positioning empty aircraft is only 1

davidjohnson6

30th Oct 2013, 11:56

While those who believe DTV may have been doomed ever since the local Govt sold the airport to Peel, it's worth considering a separate aspect. An airport is simply a transport facility - it does not have a magic right to exist. A passenger airport is sustainable only if there are enough people with enough money who want to fly places. Running and maintaining an airport is expensive - if those costs cannot be funded ultimately from there being lots of passengers paying money to the airport via their tickets, then the airport will slowly shrink and die.

Where are the growth businesses with corporate cash to pay for business fares ? Where are the international corporate headquarters ? Where are the companies selling software to rival silicon valley ? Where are the locals earning over £50k per year with a high propensity to travel ?

I seem to recall reading that Redcar was one of the most vulnerable areas of the UK following the credit crunch in 2008. The NE of England doesn't have anywhere near as many people or as much economic activity as Manchester - to equate the two is just a dream.

Even 10 years ago, there was barely a real need for DTV to exist in addition to NCL. The UK mainland has far more passenger airports than Germany despite its much smaller population and land area; there are simply too many passenger airports in the UK, and economics has simply asserted itself over time.

skyman771

30th Oct 2013, 12:31

Davidjohnson6
Even 10 years ago, there was barely a real need for DTV to exist in addition to NCL. The UK mainland has far more passenger airports than Germany despite its much smaller population and land area; there are simply too many passenger airports in the UK, and economics has simply asserted itself over time
You may be correct in the fundamentals, though dual existence or not, is now largely irrelevant. What you totally miss is that one can have far fewer number of airports supporting far larger areas of population as long as they are served by a fully integrated transport structure, something the North East as a whole has failed abysmally in this respect, then any comparison with Germany in particular is meaningless !!
As a starter for ten consider their road & rail transport infra structure.:ugh:

apaul

30th Oct 2013, 13:15

I doubt mainland UK has a lot fewer passenger airports than Germany. If you drew up a list of German airports Ryanair has flown to in recent years there are plenty in a similarly category to MME - Lubeck, Weeze, Altenburg, Erfurt etc. Spain and France have probably even more surplus airports.

davidjohnson6

30th Oct 2013, 13:44

At the risk of thread drift...
Germany (26) - RLG, SXF, TXL, LEJ, DRS, CSO, LBC, HAM, BRE, DTM, DUS, PAD, FMO, SCN, ZQW, CGN, NRN, FRA, HHN, FKB, STR, HAJ, FMM, MUC, NUE, ERF
German population - 80 million
German land area - 357,000 sq km
German GDP - $3.23 trillion

England (25) - BHX, BLK, BOH, BRS, DSA, MME, EMA, EXT, HUY, LBA, LPL, LCY, LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN, STN, MAN, MSE, NCL, NQY, NWI, SOU, CBG, GLO
Scotland (6) - ABZ, EDI, GLA, PIK, INV, DND
Wales (2) - CWL, VLY
N Ireland (3) - BFS, BHD, LDY
UK total - 36
UK population - 63 million
UK land area - 244,000 sq km
UK GDP - $2.49 trillion

I'm ignoring airports that are very remote / on small islands, or which have extremely low levels of commercial passenger service (e.g Lydd in Kent)

The UK has almost 38% more airports yet it also has 21% less population, 32% less land area and 23% less GDP

I really believe that DTV is just one of those airports which comes under the "too many airports" category

Spain is not a good example for deciding how many airports to have. Look up Castellon, Ciudad Real, Lleida and other airports to get an idea as to why

skyman771

30th Oct 2013, 15:02

Fire cover
Where are you going with this? It would seem you have an issue with the police helicopter.
I often see numerous helicopters at public events, a racecourse being a good example, they don't have fire facilities & it isn't a big deal, so why make it out to be?

Skipness One Echo

30th Oct 2013, 16:12

Will it come back on Peel if there is a crash involving ploddy on a night and there is no fire cover at DTV? Wonder if the local PCC's know or even care if its legal??
Glasgow City Heliport doesn't have fire cover, I don't think they need it for rotary wing? There has never been a business I can think of which has cut losses by turning away business in this manner, the notion that one can attract more retail by cutting footfall and put a business on a sustainable footing by sending away bread and butter passengers is a piece of nonsense. It's a clear path to terminal closure pure and simple.

apaul

30th Oct 2013, 16:17

The 'masterplan' confirmed. Small planes and small terminal only. Durham Tees Valley Airport confirms end of charter flights (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10772881.Durham_Tees_Valley_Airport_confirms_end_of_charter_ flights/)

Durham Tees Valley Airport scraps ALL mainstream holiday flights - Gazette Live (http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/business/business-news/durham-tees-valley-airport-scraps-6255612)

Can't believe there will be much demand for shopping.

skyman771

30th Oct 2013, 16:54

These will enable us to work towards expanding and diversifying our aviation and non-aviation activities across a broader base and grow back passenger services

Ahhh!! I've got it !! DTV has shelved Charter / IT to build up sheduled services... "The Heathrow Model".............Oh dear !!!;)

jetstar.8

30th Oct 2013, 17:07

just need some direct routes and airlines to fly them now instead of flying via Amsterdam

SWBKCB

30th Oct 2013, 17:10

The fact that the Jersey is to continue but not the Balkan or Thompson seems to firmly point to this being a cost cutting measure, probably around fire cover - especially if the BE sticks to its mid-afternoon schedule, slap bag in the middle of the gap between the morning and evening KLM, so you can't even lock uo the terminal for the duration (do you even need the terminal building any more for less than 100 pax at a time - couple of posh portakabins?)

Also only pax flights (those on an AOC with over 19 pax?) need fire cover, otherwise at your own risk.

Yellow Sun

30th Oct 2013, 17:25

The issue raised is why do other airline operators need fire cover to fly into DTV at NIGHT and plod don't when the airport is closed and there is nobody around?

The RFSS requirement can be found in CAP168. I shall give you an even better clue just look at Appendix 8C.

YS

Jamesair

30th Oct 2013, 17:29

Have the MOD large aircraft charters moved elsewhere? This must be a bit of business worth hanging on to, I expect they must need a high category fire cover.

GrahamK

30th Oct 2013, 18:14

Have the MOD large aircraft charters moved elsewhere? This must be a bit of business worth hanging on to, I expect they must need a high category fire cover.

I'd have thought NCL would be happy to take them.

Any potential new operators will have seen how TOM/BGH have been treated and won't touch the place now I wouldnt have thought.

highwideandugly

30th Oct 2013, 19:02

They will bribe the firemen to come in for these,it's happened before.

They are on call anyway...if they had any sense they would look elsewhere,but that's easy for me to say.

It's a shambles and really it would guess most of us are lost for words.would you in your right mind book a jersey flight or any flight for that matter from such an unprofessional place?

It's reputation in the airline/aviation world must be rock bottom now...

Let's hope eastern and klm think the same as peel or else it's curtains:ugh::ugh:

10 DME ARC

30th Oct 2013, 19:03

Yes NCL will be very very happy to take charter traffic!! And even happier to take the scheduled pax's shortly!!!

P330

30th Oct 2013, 20:04

I think everything has pretty much been said but my concluding thoughts on this week's fiasco is such.

I remain convinced the owners needed a radical change of direction to create a sustainable future and any decision was likely to have been met with disappointment. So, no major surprises in that this week and there is a chance their plan could work.

BUT

The way this whole thing has been handled has been horrendous. Take away the merits of the decision, there has been little in the way of explanation; the way the airlines and passengers have been treated mean the decision is almost irreversible; all the publicity was made by everyone else before the airport got their act together; the damage done to the confidence of KLM and its passengers remains to be seen and throughout all this, we're barely any wiser as to what the master plan is, despite the articles today.

An operational and PR balls up of the highest order!!

SWBKCB

30th Oct 2013, 20:15

the damage done to the confidence of KLM and its passengers remains to be seen and throughout all this, we're barely any wiser as to what the master plan is, despite the articles today.

How long before AMS and ABZ pax turn up at NCL because the publicity leads people to think that MME has actually shut, in the same way people did when the LHR stopped - self-fulfilling prophecy!

DTVAirport

30th Oct 2013, 20:28

*IF* Peel can pull it off, what Mr Gill describes as the future direction of the airport in the Northern Echo article sounds fair enough, providing they can start bringing in the extra business.

At the end of the day, it's a business that isn't making money, they've identified the area that's not making money, and done something about it. It's not like they haven't tried to gain more holiday flights, but they're not forthcoming and that's not likely to change given the state the industry is in, so they've taken action. Sure Peel may have very deep pockets, but there is only so long you can justify sustaining a £2m annual loss.

As for the way it's been handled, a fiasco as P330 put it, well this forum could well be to blame for that, I've heard this news was to be announced as part of the masterplan but someone working at the airport leaked it on here, the press picked it up and Peel's hand was forced.

I know I'll get shot down for trying to defend Peel (believe me I often wonder why I bother) but the fact remains that 8 in every 10 posters on here are 'arm-chair CEOs' who think they know best but simply don't know the full facts of any given situation.

DTVAirport

30th Oct 2013, 20:41

Beafer, you've proved my point perfectly regarding the last paragraph of my previous post.

No, fuel prices will not rise, if anything they're trying to get them reduced, and no-one is being run-out-of-town, the business is having unprofitable areas removed. TNT flights ceasing has nothing to do with Durham Tees Valley Airport, a newly promoted TNT executive thought it would be cheaper to move a large chunk of their air operation to Poland, DTVA was one of four or more airports to get the chop, the move turned out to be more expensive and the executive was dismissed. Yes I noticed the MD mention fire category and ILS - he said they would be unaffected.

SWBKCB

30th Oct 2013, 20:55

As for the way it's been handled, a fiasco as P330 put it, well this forum could well be to blame for that, I've heard this news was to be announced as part of the masterplan but someone working at the airport leaked it on here, the press picked it up and Peel's hand was forced.

So who was it who floated the masterplan idea to MP's - complete with the idea of dropping charter flights? Who changed Thompsons website so that those booking DTVA flights got re-directed to DSA? Don't think it was Ppruners

Couple of other points, if TNT saw this coming and that is why they stopped flights, can they also predict lottery numbers? Their flights stopped YEARS ago!

At the time DTVA was sold to Peel, Peel were flavour of the month as they had performed miracles at LPL (which was in a worse state than MME is in now when they bought it) and were also developing DSA - MME needed developing and the LA didn't have the money. Stobarts was a haulage firm.
Ten years later Stobarts have invested £100M plus in SEN - serving the richest part of the country. Who would spend that on an airport in one of the poorest?

SWBKCB

30th Oct 2013, 21:14

if the fire category is remaining unchanged, what are the losses associated with the three charter flights a week, how are the savings being made, and why were these flights being sought and brought in only a few months ago?

Surely the pax for these type of flights have a higher propensity to use the car parks and spend in the terminal than ABZ/AMS pax?

Anybody got an explanation?

EK77WNCL

31st Oct 2013, 00:24

The MOD flights were mentioned earlier... Does anyone know if they're still happening and if so from MME. They usually start coming in about this time of year, does anyone know if they are due or if they have moved to NCL as was suggested due to the fire cover. Would be better for me if they have haha.

Thanks

P330

31st Oct 2013, 11:50

We can't change what is going on folks and however irrational the decisions appear to us, one has to assume there is reasonable logic behind it and that people who know the facts know what they're doing. (Don't laugh :))

I can't help but feel though the lack of detail in the plan released is somewhat worrying and making statements like we can upscale back to holidays flights again in the future is at best optimistic, at worst naive, given the apparent way the existing airlines have been treated (let alone the customers). Confidence must be shot at the handling of this debacle and it would take some serious bridge building to reverse that loss of confidence.

As for the way it's been handled, a fiasco as P330 put it, well this forum could well be to blame for that, I've heard this news was to be announced as part of the masterplan but someone working at the airport leaked it on here, the press picked it up and Peel's hand was forced.

DTV, I know this forum can be a dangerous tool and I know the airport has privately said this forum has at times been "the bane of their lives." What is said on here can have a material effect which is why we must all go careful what we say whilst at the same time realising this is a public place for people to air their views and concerns - it's a balance. In many examples, I would agree with you - I know things leaked from here have caused problems for the airport, but in this particular case, the first news came from the airport themselves (with minimal detail) and it was Thomsons themselves who removed flights and made a public statement that the airport didn't want them. I'll stick to my point therefore that their handling of this has made the situation materially worse than it needed to be.

DTVAirport

31st Oct 2013, 12:24

Yes Thomson had already been told by Peel but it was supposed to be under wraps, the only reason Thomson were honest about the situation is because they were asked by the press after they picked it up, the only inaccuracy in my original post is it may have been from social media of some kind, not necessarily from on here, though it is likely and the principle is the same.

And for the last :mad: time, the airport cannot be closed outright, there are simply too many obstacles for Peel to have to overcome before they could make such a move.

davidjohnson6

31st Oct 2013, 12:45

P330 - you mentioned that airport management consider this forum a bane of their lives. Is this really the case, and if so why ? From what I can tell, the only info on here has been either info readily available in the public domain, or from intelligent guesswork, piecing together various other public domain info.

Northbound A1

31st Oct 2013, 13:08

Its a good job this thread is running or Peel would get away with a lot more.
As for DTVAirport saying that Peel cant close the airport. I would say it already on that path.
Whats going to be the classification of it being closed, one plane or one helicopter operating.
It sounds like the dead parrot sketch care of Monty Python.
I wonder if Peel use it in their training courses ;)
Monty Python- Dead Parrot Sketch FULL - YouTube

P330

31st Oct 2013, 13:11

Just racking my brains for an earlier announcement and came across this:

AMBITIOUS proposals which will see Durham Tees Valley Airport move to a unique ‘twin terminal’ operation have been revealed today. The plans — which will see the terminal building divided in a ‘premium’ area targeted at scheduled services and business travellers and another area which will handle holiday charter and ‘low cost’ services — are part of a wholesale business review designed to ensure that the airport is able to respond to the current economic situation and be in a position to secure its long-term future.

Airport Director Kerry Quinn stressed that the new-look airport had been developed following detailed discussions with airlines and was already delivering results—highlighted by Eastern Airways’ recently-introduced service to Southampton.

"The good news is expected to continue in the near future, with talks ongoing with other airlines about new business opportunities at the airport," a spokesman said.

Airport chiefs believe that the changes will help deliver a significant increase in passenger numbers in the coming year.

As well as the new scheduled services it has already been announced that next summer will see new flights to Jersey and additional flights to Turkey.

Ms Quinn said: “All the feedback we have received on the plans from our airline partners and customers has been resoundingly positive. There is a clear need for a local, convenient and passenger-friendly airport serving the Tees Valley, Durham and North Yorkshire. That has always been the philosophy at Durham Tees Valley — and it will be strengthened by the changes we are making as a result of this major business review. We will be able to offer a year-round service in our ‘premium’ area, providing the quality of service which scheduled service passengers—especially business travellers—now expect, such as dedicated lounge facilities, speedy security lanes and wi-fi internet access. The other ‘leisure’ area will be brought into operation to meet the peak holiday periods, again with the right range of services for that market, aimed at making people’s experience as stress-free and relaxed as possible. We have also decided that it makes economic and operational sense to reduce our normal operating hours from 4am to 10pm, whilst retaining the flexibility to handle aircraft outside those hours if required.”

The proposals by the Peel Airports Group announced today also involves changes in workforce levels, working arrangements and terms and conditions and the airport has begun consultations with staff and trade unions.

This was from 4 years ago during another announcement phase. Here the article talks about a split terminal. What ever happened to that plan? Was it ever followed through?

P330 - you mentioned that airport management consider this forum a bane of their lives. Is this really the case, and if so why ? From what I can tell, the only info on here has been either info readily available in the public domain, or from intelligent guesswork, piecing together various other public domain info.

The feeling at the time was the airport were struggling to deal with comments on forums that were feeding into the general public or the wider media which simply weren't true and it was a recurring battle having to respond to such comments when forced publicly. I think they felt they were doing the best they could with the resources they had but had to spend unecessary time fighting media fires that had been inflamed from here.

I also "sensed" that whilst we talk about Peel creating a downward spiral of their own making, their was a retort that the constant negativity back (much of which they believed was untrue) would create a self ful-filling prophecy. In other words, the more the media knocked, nibbled and talked things down, the more difficult it is for Peel to do their jobs and therefore the very actions of those knocking cause the outcome they fear.

DTVAirport

1st Nov 2013, 02:06

Ah Doris!! The hated councillor who over the years has actually done the airport more damage than Peel!! The first part of the first comment under the Northern Echo article hits the nail on the head:

"Everytime DTV wanted to further business the locals kicked off, well serves you right for being so narrow minded."

The residents also fit the description I mentioned in an earlier post, people who simply don't know the facts

SWBKCB

1st Nov 2013, 06:48

The hated councillor who over the years has actually done the airport more damage than Peel!

Ah, so it's all the fault of Ppruners and a parish councillor called Doris?! Unbelievable...

DTVAirport

1st Nov 2013, 12:06

No not by any means, but they are contributing factors, Doris has put the block on many airport plans over the years and now she's trying to offer words of support?!

Peel are to blame - but the original pre-VAS Peel, the current Peel have been trying to clean up the mess but as far as passenger operations go it seems the damage was beyond repair.

DTVAirport

1st Nov 2013, 12:11

Tell you what, you're all quick to criticise from behind the safety of a keyboard and monitor, why don't you all put your money where your mouth is and voice your concerns at tonight's FoDTVA meeting, 7pm at The St George Hotel.

TSR2

1st Nov 2013, 12:26

why don't you all put your money where your mouth is

I assume that you are planning a buy-out then.

blahblahblah

1st Nov 2013, 13:52

To be fair DTVAirport you've done your fair amount of keyboard criticism over the years, so not sure you should be taking the moral high ground now.

Also not sure what you mean by this Peel lot been different to the pre VAS Peel...board members look pretty much the same to me?

Northbound A1

1st Nov 2013, 15:38

Re the gazette news. They have put a gallery of pics through the years.
I noted a couple of Hughie smiling broadly. I wonder what he makes of all of this. He's a non executive director at James Cook Hospital Trust now!
While browsing the photo's I noted a BMI advert on the terminal.
What happened to the court case and millions which were due to be paid out to Peel?
Durham Tees Valley Airport should go for Government cash a third time, claims Sedgefield MP - Gazette Live (http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/business/business-news/durham-tees-valley-airport-should-6262956)

NorthSouth

1st Nov 2013, 16:09

The only rational explanation of the announcement is surely that they have identified that the number of staff required to handle aircraft larger than F70 size doesn't warrant the cost. Hence the Flybe Jersey also being retained. Because if it was just timing, they could have adopted a policy that says "charters only accepted if they can be timed to operate either shortly before or shortly after a schedule".

And they are presumably re-modelling the terminal so that it never handles more than an F70 and a J41 load at any one time - 105?

NS

fa2fi

1st Nov 2013, 17:17

It ws actually quite sad to see that photo gallery. It is a shadow of its former self. I myself have some great memories of holidays from there. The highlight being an AIH DC10. When was the new fascia installed onto the terminal?

SWBKCB

1st Nov 2013, 17:19

I've been wondering about the Baby court case as well - last mention I can find is back in May 2010 when the airport won at the Appeal Court. No mention since.

Airport wins its legal battle (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2010/05/13/8163727.Airport_wins_its_legal_battle/)

EK77WNCL

1st Nov 2013, 18:08

So let me get this straight, IF ever someone like Jet2 happened to come along and say, right we want to base 2 737's here in the summer and 1 737 here in the winter and open, say 6 new routes. They wouldn't be able to?

Unlikely but not impossible. I don't actually think it would have much effect on their NCL services, they seem to have stagnated at NCL with no new 2014 routes... Looking at EMA on the other hand is staggering!

davidjohnson6

1st Nov 2013, 19:09

Why would Jet2 want to have bases at Newcastle, DTV and Leeds ?
Costs a fair bit of cash, incurs management time and adds overall complexity to an airline's business to have an additional base.
Anyone living in Middlesbrough is more than capable of travelling to NCL or LBA for their summer holiday. Why should Jet2 cut their profit margins when they can make the customers come to NCL / LBA instead ?

Grahamy

1st Nov 2013, 19:17

[QUOTE] Anyone living in Middlesbrough is more than capable of travelling to NCL or LBA for their summer holiday.[QUOTE]

This is why this airport is in the state it is.

EK77WNCL

2nd Nov 2013, 01:12

Davidjohnson6, I understand what you mean, and with the risk that MME would be it could prove to be more costly, hopefully not but still...

To be fair, however, if you look at the locations of Jet2's bases, especially their 3 largest, EMA, LBA and MAN, they are all within 50nm of each other. So they must know what they're doing.

Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MME,+C:NAVY,+LBA,+EDI,+BLK,+EMA,+BFS&R=50nm%40MAN,+50nm%40NCL,+50nm%40GLA),

skyman771

2nd Nov 2013, 02:32

I for one don't believe that Peel can't close the airport any time soon. In reality a skeleton service of KL / Eastern & the low pax volumes are simply going to cause more problems than solutions. Running a "part time" airport with "part time" staff is fraught with potential problems. As an example how to deal with delayed flights is one particular example.
As for the terminal, then errecting a wall to reduce the available area and attributable costs says nothing of the passenger experience, believe it or not a fact that often seems overlooked, is that pax travelling through any airport do not enjoy the experience !, however many cafe's/pubs/fancy goods shops are on offer to absorb the waiting time.
Anyhow if they are proposing to close part of the terminal, then why not close part of the runway as well, after all with the largest aircraft likely to be F100's / EMB's then you don't need more than 5,000ft. I'm sure that Peel would seize on such an oportunity when they work it out, it would simply reflect progress on their grand scheme to run the place down.
Finally as to accessibility then the road access to anyone living away from the "A66 corridor" is awful, & the reality is that the only people DTV was ever going to serve were local, incidentally, when driving down the A1 yesterday & I notice there are still signs to "Teesside Airport" drew my attention, though I expect they won't be needed in any form, so there's a cost saving no need to get any paint out.;)

SWBKCB

2nd Nov 2013, 07:42

I notice there are still signs to "Teesside Airport" drew my attention, though I expect they won't be needed in any form, so there's a cost saving no need to get any paint out

The row about who was to pay for changing the road signs from Teesside to Durham Tees Valley which kicked off years ago was one of the early signs that things weren't right

Interesting to look at the pax stats for August 2003 (year Peel took over) - figures from the excellent DTVM website.

Int schedule - 18,411 - bit more than now! still KLM AMS plus RYR DUB
Dom schedule - 14,439 - mainly BD to LHR (give or take a few this is the same as Aug 13 total throughput!)
Int Charter - 46,669 - totally collapsed to less than 2,000 in Aug 13.

ted320

2nd Nov 2013, 12:30

Int Charter - 46,669 - totally collapsed to less than 2,000 in Aug 13.

Where did all those people go? Nowhere of course! They still live here, they still want to go on holiday, most will still have the money to afford it compared to 2003. There is still a market for Int Charter at MME.

All of my friends and family are taking more trips than ever before, sadly having to travel to LBA/NCL now.

highwideandugly

2nd Nov 2013, 17:28

my mate says almost all the assistants are getting the pucsh and a quarter of the controllers...so how does that leave us placed for ant sudden expansion it takes quite a while I think to train a contoller??

also fire will have to be cut as no need for the bigger fire category?

787luton

2nd Nov 2013, 17:39

Durham tees has been suggested to try and get more funding, but surely they need to use this to expand. If so why did they only 3 days ago axe more flights from the airport? Durham Tees Valley Airport should go for Government cash a third time, claims Sedgefield MP - Gazette Live (http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/business/business-news/durham-tees-valley-airport-should-6262956)

DTVAirport

3rd Nov 2013, 00:37

Are people really so ignorant that they think FoDTVAs duties are limited to snow clearing, and that said snow clearing isn't beneficial/appreciated?? Come on wake up man.

They have the respect of the airport, and they are quick to make sure they're not being taken advantage of, as said before, they're not stupid people. They have a solid Chairman who is respected across the airport and a 3-figure strong following, which for a relatively new scheme with little advertising is not bad at all.

Want to help the airport improve? You've got a damn sight greater chance as a FoDTVA member than as a poster on a seedy forum.

davidjohnson6

3rd Nov 2013, 00:54

DTVAirport - while FoDTVA's aims are likely laudable, the same aims have not been communicated well, either on this forum or the FoDTVA website. The website talks about litter picking, snow clearing and baggage handling, all activities which airports would normally handle on their own account and be unlikely to delegate to a volunteer group, particularly when the airport is substantially owned, controlled and operated in the commercial interests of a for-profit private sector company rather than being majority owned by a community / public sector entity.

Perhaps you could ask someone in FoDTVA to edit the website, to better state why FoDTVA exists, and provide clear convincing reasons as to why it should not be regarded as a free labour source for commercial gain ? And no, a simple claim that you're not just there to act as a free labour or that "no we are not stupid" is insufficient - you need to give clear reasons for why you undertake unpaid activities like baggage handling or snow clearing for a private sector company.

Communicate better as to who you are, what you do and why you exist, and you'll get more respect from non-members.

MMCMME

3rd Nov 2013, 12:26

Where has this fascination with FoDTVA snow clearing come from all of a sudden?

Similar Friends groups are set up at numerous airports around the country but don't seem to get a slating like the guys at DTV!

As said above, these guys are not stupid, they have a brain of their own and would be quick to see if ever they were being taken advantage of.

If you have spare time, some people would prefer to put it to good use instead of withering away behind a computer screen.

DTVAirport

3rd Nov 2013, 17:36

davidjohnson6 - point taken and I'll be sure to feed that back to FoDTVA, but my original post is still valid.

Beafer - FoDTVA haven't and never will effect the amount of people employed at the airport, careful steps are taken to ensure that remains the case.

The Friends group was formed largely from efforts by the existing and very well respected Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. As for having no say in plans, well, you'd be very surprised.

If you're going to criticise at least make it constructive like davidjohnson6, as opposed to taking the :mad:. At least they're doing something.

SWBKCB

3rd Nov 2013, 18:49

Eight pages since the first posts about Thomson and Balkan being binned, but don't seem to have seen an explanation why a Dash-8 on a Saturday afternoon is OK, and an A320 on a Monday morning isn't - sure it must be cost based, but what is the actual difference?

EK77WNCL

3rd Nov 2013, 21:54

SWBKCB, E-175 on a Saturday afternoon ;)

N707ZS

3rd Nov 2013, 21:55

SWBKCB the Jersey flight was an Emb 175 this year, does that thicken your plot, perhaps its only got to do with profit per passenger.

Poor Doris, wiped out, presume the rest of the burger flippers garbadge is staying though.

Skipness One Echo

3rd Nov 2013, 21:59

As for having no say in plans, well, you'd be very surprised.
Yes, fall off my seat onto my huge inflateable rubber backside surprised. I think the issue when one is passionate about a local issue such as this is that you lose persepctive. I know I have done so in the past.
From a business perspective, having a willing group of enthusiastic volunteers willing to do the donkey work for nothing is a gift. I am assuming anyone handling customer baggage for free is also CRB checked as per Dft guidelines? My local airport was PIK but they managed to make money with only Ryanair as they had a management who cut costs to the bone then went looking for charter business. This went terribly wrong once the airport was sold to a more "commercial" operator who added costs galore because frankly they didn't understand what made the business make money in the first place.

Management at MME are turning business away because they say they can't afford to handle them. This then sends a signal to the airline business, loud and clear that MME is off limits for charters, and also anything adhoc, last minute or outwith the wee box they've built for themselves. No management would do this accidentally, this is intentional. It took PIK years to remind the wider business that the airport hadn't closed when BAA sold the business off. This is an intentional two fingers in the air to new business, go elsewhere, NCL or LBA will help you. This is not about stemming losses, this about a managed run down and closure of commercial passenger operations, it is astonishing to me that people are not seeing this.

So bearing that in mind, what say in the plans for the future of this business do the "Friends" have. The Americans have an expression, stop drinking the Kool Aid. It's time.

skyman771

3rd Nov 2013, 23:14

Yes "Skipness" as you suggest there are undoubtedly a number of posters on this forum in denial, I have to assume that they are awaiting salvation in the publication of the new "grand plan" which I suspect is being rewritten on a daily basis on the misguided basis that Peel can somehow blag their way through to a blameless total run down of commercial aviation activity.
As for the FoDTVA then good luck to them if they choose to throw free labour in support of what seems to be a hopeless and lost cause. However I really suggest to any of those individuals reading this that they look to obtain some form of comfort / assurance that they are not simply allowing themselves to become an uneccessary distraction in the greater scheme of things.:suspect:

Nakata77

4th Nov 2013, 09:19

Is the airport being closed?

P330

4th Nov 2013, 09:27

Wow – this must be one of the most populated and used threads on this site. Just goes to show the amount of emotion our little airport stirs up.

I want to add something on the “deliberately run into the ground” theory. I see three possibilities and likely outcomes:

1) The airport is being deliberately run into the ground and the owners are simply going the long way around to close it.

2) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, however the consequences of their actions last week mean it will be very difficult to expedite as confidence ebbs away from the core business (customers and airlines).

3) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, and, because the plan could be focussing more and more on non-passenger revenue, there is a chance that any consequences could be limited and it could work.

If I was a betting man, I’d suggest outcome 2 is probably the most likely, with scenarios 1 and 3 having even weight.

However, another dimension to consider; who is the management? My gut feel is that the local management; i.e. the ones we hear and see on the TV; the ones who come up with the plans; the ones who interact with the community/FODTVA are actually a bunch of folks with the best of intentions; trying hard to make the airport a success. However, if there is to be some question marks about “intent” and “ambition”, maybe that should be directed at the ultimate owners; those who we don’t see and who, potentially, could find a more lucrative way to earn off the land should the airport not remain.

As for FODTVA; I think some of the comments are unfair. An enthusiastic group of people who want to help; coupled with local management who need as much community help and support as they can get. I don’t see any wrong in that. Are they being taken advantage of? Well, I suspect they are big enough to look after themselves. Is it morally right? Well, both parties are consenting so who are we to dispute?

I also don’t think another RGF bid is necessary. That ship has sailed. RGF success requires solid business plans which promise growth and local jobs. RGF is also supposed to be a “catalyst” – i.e. the business plan should state that without RGF support, the business plan wouldn’t work – with RGF, it would – it isn’t meant to be just ‘free money’. This in theory ensures the money goes to plans where the government believes the money would catalyse success. (i.e. transform). This is a big requirement and the fact that they’ve been turned down twice tells you something.

As for the constant questions about Peel, special handshakes, council deals etc… these questions have been posted countless times now and we must be running out of new ways to ask the same question. So, for those interested in finding out the answers; why not investigate yourselves; take it to the local media or the local council. I’m struggling to understand what asking the same question time and time again here adds?

P330

4th Nov 2013, 12:43

Cabby - are you and North related?

Same questions, different day. Why don't you ask Peel if they are trading illegally? Why don't you ask Peel if they have the necessary insurance? If you believe they are - report it.

Whilst some valid questions are being asked, I don't see the validity of repeating them? Or is the thought that if you ask them enough times, someone will give you the answer?

Let's move on....or ask the people that can give you the answer....Peel or the Media.

In the meantime, anyone care to give an educated guess as to what is in the Masterplan? ;)

DTVAirport

4th Nov 2013, 16:50

Nakata77 - no, contrary to what some on here believe, the airport is not being closed, the airport is not even close to being closed, it's just diversifying away from passenger operations to focus on ancillary services.

DTVAirport

4th Nov 2013, 19:07

Hmm, I think I might have misunderstood the term ancillary services, but what I meant was any on-site operator paying the airport rent:

Cobham Aviation Services / Cobham Flight Inspection
Durham Tees Flight Training
Great North Air Ambulance
Police Air Unit
Private Aircraft Owners Group
Serco
Sycamore Aviation
TNT Express
Weston Aviation

Cobham and Serco are two powerhouses as big if not bigger than Peel, if Peel did try to close the airport, they along with the other above mentioned companies, would soon stop them.

highwideandugly

4th Nov 2013, 20:06

Sorry dtv if peel decided to close the airport it's doubtful anyone would/could stop them.what might be a possibility is that they could get together and maybe buy them out...500k anyone?

EK77WNCL

4th Nov 2013, 20:25

I agree that MME will not close and I think that the services DTVAirport mentioned should be protected, but not at the expense of charter flights etc.

I would honestly like to see Peel get a massive smack in the face by TOM pulling out of DSA for Peel messing them about, I'm sure someone would fill the void, FR for one most definitely.

davidjohnson6

4th Nov 2013, 20:26

Just a thought but... are the company that owns the land and the company that operates the airport the same company ? Alternatively, is there a way to strong arm clients and suppliers inot novating their existing contracts so as to achieve legal separation of companies ?
I'm wondering (only in theory) what could be achieved with a clever insolvency practitioner. Perhaps wind up the airport operating company, and see who bids for any lease that may exist over the land. The rationale for insolvency being that a company that is perpetually unprofitable and thus cannot pay its bills must stop trading. The result would be ownership of land but aviation activities killed off.

Only a thought and I have no reason whatsoever to believe this would happen.

Any thoughts ?

SWBKCB

4th Nov 2013, 21:02

Cobham and Serco are two powerhouses as big if not bigger than Peel, if Peel did try to close the airport, they along with the other above mentioned companies, would soon stop them.

SERCO may have Peel in a fight, but Cobham would get a kicking.

Also, does it matter to SERCO if MME is an active airfield? Either way, I'm sure Peel could find a way of getting what they wanted.

TNT are the only other residents of any substance, and they don't need MME to be an active airfield - the rest are lightweights.

DTVAirport

5th Nov 2013, 21:57

A few good points there Northbound, but Cobham tried to move elsewhere two years ago and they quickly realised it was unfeasible, and I think Cobham would easily take on Peel! The Wright Brothers may have invented aviation but Cobham more or less developed it thereafter!

I personally don't have anything to back this next statement up, other than I've heard it from multiple people, but apparently, if Peel do want the land, it's a damn sight more valuable with an airport on it, so providing they make moves to build up the airport as well, let them crack on a build whatever takes their fancy elsewhere on the site (I still think they're very limited with what they could build, if anything).

When this master plan gets released, Peel are going to have to try and pull something special out of the hat to bring in some very positive PR.

Skipness One Echo

5th Nov 2013, 22:55

if Peel do want the land, it's a damn sight more valuable with an airport on it,
That might be true if the airport was "Heathrow", "Narita" or "JFK". Given that it's loss making Teesside that can't make any money on Thomson (hardly the Ryanair of airport fees), I reckon it might be more valuable with some <insert random noun> on it.

Cobham and Serco are two powerhouses as big if not bigger than Peel, if Peel did try to close the airport, they along with the other above mentioned companies, would soon stop them.
What's the contract issue between Serco and Peel? It is likely to have a termination clause with some degree of compensation surely, nothing unusal in that, it's not WWIII by any means. Worst case scenario is a truncated runway with taxiway access and flog the rest. btw Galway Airport just closed for good, following Plymouth's lead and Filton and Woodford.....

Who's the remaining handling agent at MME? Did Aviance and Servisair merge into one Servisair operation?

When this master plan gets released, Peel are going to have to try and pull something special out of the hat to bring in some very positive PR. I think PR matters not one whit here, people heard baby leaving and assumed BMI also left at the same time, the same people hear no more charters and job losses at the airport will also assume the airfield is closing. It's not PR you need to worry about, it's market credibility and presence.

10 DME ARC

6th Nov 2013, 08:25

I am sorry to all you Peel believers out there but this is run the airport down until it is economically un-viable then do what they really what with this brown land and build on it!! I am sure Eastern and KLM will get sick eventually!!:(

flybar

6th Nov 2013, 17:30

N707ZS

6th Nov 2013, 17:47

I see Oxford Aviation Academy have based four Cessna's at Durham this week.

N707ZS

7th Nov 2013, 13:08

Saudi Air Force in today been in visiting local companys.

Northbound A1

7th Nov 2013, 13:12

Peel have announced in their aviation page that they have made a Huge investment in DTV with a new road to the terminal building etc.

Didnt the regional fund pay for that? Wasnt it the ONE governement agency? Are Peel making misleading points on their webpage?
Aviation - The Peel Group (http://www.peel.co.uk/activities/aviation)

Rumour has it that Peel are also after the houses on the north side of the A67 opposite the tennis land which they have just bought for £5m.
Talks have been going on with local land owners north of the A67 road.

N707ZS

7th Nov 2013, 13:36

Northbound A1 you obviously don't have a clue about industry in the Teesside/ Durham area.

10 DME ARC

7th Nov 2013, 13:42

I think you will find the Saudi G4 is far from 'Air Force Business" more like golf and shooting or what ever else the Saudi Royals/Government get up to!!

N707ZS

7th Nov 2013, 15:11

Knockers out in under 6 minutes quicker than an Australian beech! And the Gulf was in for buisness.

OMGitsDAVE

8th Nov 2013, 10:46

As good as a shopping mall to that extent sounds (and with good transport links, if trains stopped half hourly - and im sure a bus would work too!), I think businesses may be reluctant to investing in such an area, with it being close to Teesside Park, Darlington & Middlesbrough - all of which have a large presence of the Big Brand names.

In all honesty though, it could be a good shout; what with Peel's previous history of shopping centre management.

But, only time will tell, I suppose.

skyman771

8th Nov 2013, 15:07

As good as a shopping mall to that extent sounds (and with good transport links, if trains stopped half hourly - and im sure a bus would work too!)
I wonder if I'm the only one who sees the irony here. We have the BR rail station which became a national joke due to it's lack of use, when adjacent to DTV, potentially becoming a vital and integrated part of the transport infra structure supporting a "shopping mall development" on the DTV site, whatever next ?:rolleyes:

highwideandugly

8th Nov 2013, 15:38

yes sounds like an embryo metro centre!! and unfortunately I'm sure, much more lucrative than an expanse of empty airfield ?

Tees side Park is vastly overcrowded and could do with decent competition?

fa2fi

8th Nov 2013, 16:40

So who's going to use the shopping mall? There's Teesside retail park not 20 minutes away, metro centre and the designer outlets at York. I'm not seeing where a shopping mall would fit in. I don't think Darlo alone could support it and why would people travel to it?

OMGitsDAVE

9th Nov 2013, 13:39

Skyman - I'm pretty sure, in the eyes of business, Northern would be able to conjure up some plan to stop their trains at this station - if it was deemed profitable based on a new shopping centre which could in fact be linked to the platforms as at the Metro... Obviously, based on the current situation there will be no increase.

mattfalcus

11th Nov 2013, 13:45

Just to deviate from the usual subjects on here for a moment...

There's a talk on 23rd November in DTVA's terminal by the Lightning Association about the English Electric Lightning. Get yourselves there - should be good.

Tickets from:
Lightning Presentation 2013 - FoDTVA (http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a7834a44c00aaa9478e305c79&id=6808428c04)

highwideandugly

11th Nov 2013, 16:51

just heard through the "grapevine" that St.Georges Flying group have ceased operation.I know not alot of business but a loss non the less?? Feel sorry for the guys but I'm sure they will pick up employment at some local go ahead airport!!!!

DTVAirport

11th Nov 2013, 17:05

highwideandugly, St George Flight Training are no more but not in the way you're thinking, they were bought by the other flying school Durham Tees Flight Training who merged the operation into their own, all staff/aircraft were kept on.

highwideandugly

11th Nov 2013, 18:58

Great news!

EK77WNCL

12th Nov 2013, 00:01

I also believe that DTFT are owned/have a close relationship with Northumbria up at NCL. St Georges at NCL has been integrated into Northumbria up there and NFS/DTFT often play swapsies with their planes.

DTVAirport

12th Nov 2013, 12:09

I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the guy that wholly owns DTFT is also the majority, if not the sole owner of Northumbria Flying School and Northumbria Helicopters.

Northbound A1

12th Nov 2013, 15:36

Gazette news.

Peel made a £3.6m pre tax loss in the last year compared to a profit last year. Peel blame the following reasons.
Durham Tees Valley Airport: Slump in passenger numbers leaves airport £3.6m in the red - Gazette Live (http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/durham-tees-valley-airport-slump-6295032)

Probably just offsetting their other mega profits in the Whitty kingdom :yuk:

SWBKCB

12th Nov 2013, 15:59

Interesting comment:

Airport bosses said the previous year’s profit had been boosted by compensation from a former customer for breach of contract.

Presumably the bmiBaby money?

10 DME ARC

12th Nov 2013, 16:07

First dumping passengers on cost grounds.....then posting a loss......more excuses.....just need to p off KLM & Eastern!!

apaul

12th Nov 2013, 16:09

Yet another local Labour MP who thinks the government should hand over £4 million to Peel at MME. I doubt many taxpayers will agree. Peel could use the BMI money to invest if it chose to.

davidjohnson6

12th Nov 2013, 16:13

Some may have seen Flybe's announcement yesterday after a strategic review. Given that 500 redundancies are being considered (legal nicety - they will almost certainly happen) anyone want to predict whether Flybe will actually fly DTV to Jersey over summer 2014 or not ?

SWBKCB

12th Nov 2013, 16:19

Why not? What else will they be doing with their a/c on a summer Saturday afternoon?

highwideandugly

12th Nov 2013, 17:03

Makes you wonder how long KLM would want their name tarnished with an association with an airport which..lets face it...just doesnt care.

I dread the first ice and snow and closures.Do we all,in all honesty beleive that the authorities will spalsh the cash to provide de icing and man power...guys if I were you...over December,January and February...if you want reliability and tight connections choose Newcastle or leeds!! Im sorry if its harsh but its true!!!:ugh:

P330

12th Nov 2013, 19:11

And I've done just that. 3 trips planned in January and February, a couple of which are the red eye starts. I've gone for Newcastle on all three - rightly or wrongly I think it gives me a lesser chance of disruption.

SWBKCB

13th Nov 2013, 21:25

Your comparing apples and oranges as the article states '...Airport bosses said the previous year’s profit had been boosted by compensation from a former customer for breach of contract...' - presumably the bmiBaby money.

So the 'profit' was boosted be a one off payment and had nothing to do with passenger throughput. And weren't they claiming £9-10m in damages?

SWBKCB

14th Nov 2013, 05:43

No, it's not a wind-up...

LOSS-making Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) will today (Thursday) unveil plans to protect vital air links by building up to 400 houses on the site.

Airport bosses say the sale of land for housing would fund the redevelopment of the terminal building, and pay for new aircraft hangars, warehouses and offices.

The DTVA master plan, which goes out for a two-month consultation today

The plan proposes between 250 and 400 homes on land to the west and north of the terminal, including a field previously earmarked for a business park.

To view the master plan, visit dtva-master-plan.co.uk

Seems to be password protected at the moment, nothing on the DTVA website :ugh:

Consultations events will be held at the St George Hotel at DTVA on November 21 and at the Dolphin Centre, in Darlington, on November 28. More events are planned, the airport said.

Durham Tees Valley Airport reveals housing estate plan to secure future (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10806905.Durham_Tees_Valley_Airport_reveals_housing_estate_p lan_to_secure_future/)

Housing at heart of Durham Trees Valley Airport blueprint for future (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10807005.Housing_at_heart_of_Durham_Trees_Valley_Airport_blu eprint_for_future/)

SWBKCB

14th Nov 2013, 06:41

Just looked at the map of the proposed development linked in the second Northern Echo story - changed my mind, it is a wind up...

The new link road from the roundabout to the terminal now goes through the housing estate, the house estate seems to go up to the apron fences, and the only access to the southside development is along the old access road, alongside the new housing development, through the current hangar area and then looping round the eastern end of the runway...

N707ZS

14th Nov 2013, 07:25

Local Council Doris Jones will be fumeing about houses, she hates new houses more than the airport.

It will be interesting to see what happens as Peel will have to spend millions on new drains and water treatment for a start.

skyman771

14th Nov 2013, 08:37

SWBKCB
..Airport bosses said the previous year’s profit had been boosted by compensation from a former customer for breach of contract...' - presumably the bmiBaby money.

So the DTV 'profit' was boosted by a one off payment from BMI Baby and had nothing to do with passenger throughput. And weren't they claiming £9-10m in damages?
Yes all noted, perhaps the point is that these "damages" received by Peel, which must by simple maths been around £8 Million plus were simply "trousered" by Peel and diverted into their own cash reserves as if some windfall !
What they have not done, which is as it was on day one when they acquired the airport, is to INVEST, and indeed when they did receive the cash settlement they chose to apply it to other projects within their group.
Obviously as a course of their subsequent and ongoing actions then Peel have had to finance considerable losses which are to a great extent the result of their own actions, though clearly they will still come up on top to the tune of £ Millions & this is BEFORE they seek to reap the benefits of whatever "Grand Plan" be it housing or whaetver that they now propose to attempt force through quoting the usual cliche's of employment, area improvement etc.

apaul

14th Nov 2013, 08:51

Peel didn't invest the BmiBaby money into the airport. It would be even less likely to put the profits made from housing into the airport. So a few hundred houses would do nothing to help the airport. As the comments on the Northern Echo site say, the new houses, if built, would not have to put up with much aircraft noise. If the public can see through Peel why can't the MPs and councillors?

DTVAirport

14th Nov 2013, 09:08

P330

14th Nov 2013, 11:19

Firstly, the announcement seems to play nicely into the hands of the cynics who say this was the plan all along. Yet again, the owners have failed to discredit and blow away the criticism.

I like the idea of building hangers and creating a sustainable airport future - all makes sense though one could argue the money from the BMI win could have provided the same cash to do such a thing. Moreover, if the rents from the hangers would provide such a sustainable future, then why couldn't Peel have provided a loan from their other companies? If the business plan is so sound - why not self-fund?

On another note...I don't fully understand how this protects passenger services. For the passenger services to remain, they have to be profitable in their own right; which can only happen from increased revenues and/or lower costs from that side of the operation. Does the re-structuring of the terminal and a few redundancies make passenger operations profitable?

If the answer to that last question is 'no', then all this additional investment will make for a profitable business but will simply subsidise the passenger operations. Any accountant or business person within the company though would have to ask why bother with the passenger side in the long term - let's focus on the stuff which makes money.

If the answer to my question is 'yes' - passenger operations are now profitable...then there is a chance that the airport will survive.

If not, we're looking at an airfield rather than an airport. Or worse still, simply development.

My conclusion is that Peel have created a masterplan for a sustainable business, which is good for the region. I have to question though whether this is a masterplan for a sustainable airport.

skyman771

14th Nov 2013, 13:36

DTVAirport
Surely you have "woken up & smell the coffee!", you are being stitched up big time.
It actually isn't the size of the proposed housing development that is the main issue, more the precedent that is being established. It's the commencement of the erosion of airport land for other purposes. It is actually a self fulfilling prophesy, as once the development exceeds a critical mass, then those new inhabitants will actually side with developers to restrict & actually "get rid" of that "nasty noisy airport" that someone had the audacity to construct on their doorsteps all those years ago !
Unfortunately it's the way things are !, if you consider this far fetched then review as to how much trouble was caused by very few inhabitants prior to the construction of the second Tyne Tunnel.
Anyway even if all this goes over your head then who in their right mind builds housing on airport land when the view for UK development in the UK is completely the opposite?:ugh:
Unfortunately it may possibly transpire that the best contribution that Peel may offer to those currently employed at DTVA is in the proviosion of their shares as a home for redundancy monies.;)

Lancelot37

14th Nov 2013, 13:50

In other words a massive con trick for which so many fell. There was never a plan for a successful airport, just a plan for a billionaire to make even more money. And the people of Teesside and the Councils were the suckers.

Spend £500,000 and make millions.

LGS6753

14th Nov 2013, 14:55

the people of Teesside and the Councils were the suckers.

...but I bet they will vote Labour again!

Parsnip

14th Nov 2013, 17:51

What a surprise....to some of you it seems . I was rubbished five years ago when I put forward the view that this was peel holdings medium term plan to build on the site .The 400 houses you hear of today is merely phase one of a number of phases. Housing sites aren't built near airports one will have to go and by now even the most optimistic poster will realise what it is that's going ( which was always the plan) mr lang ms Quinn et al were all just pawns in a very big game that was being played out from the first few weeks in 2003 when the hard up councils sold their interests in the place.Before anyone starts knocking the politicians of the day they had no choice ,no council in the North East could afford to spend money on an airport, things like schools libraries bin men and street lights come first and rightly so.No doubt someone will accuse me of trolling here but how many of you have seen the inside of Peels boardroom?...

SWBKCB

14th Nov 2013, 18:48

Today's press articles are completely misleading, the housing development is a tiny part of the master plan which includes up to nine new aircraft hangars. The houses are not up to the perimeter fence and are on land unsuitable for airport development

Am I misinterpreting the map at post 3313 - that red area labelled 'housing development' and that area marked Western Apron look pretty adjacent to me, and nearer than even I would like a Fokker 70 starting up at 06.00.

Also not a 'tiny' area in terms of the total development.

highwideandugly

14th Nov 2013, 19:06

So much to take in.my initial thoughts were great...then I looked in depth.
So many questions...that western apron and housing...will people be renting out their rooms for the spotters?
That eastern road...traffic lights for movements or reduced distances on the runway...surely the ils will be affected?

Infrastructure through and around msg...surely costing more than the development it self?

Access to large aircraft to south side freight areas..new taxiways? Who pays for those ...us ?

There are lots more questions but those are open for comment to start with!

MMCMME

14th Nov 2013, 19:45

The housing looks far more distant from the perimeter fencing in this diagram:

http://dtva-master-plan.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/wp-imagezoom/zoom.php?id=tLKYQ

Taxiways to the south side development look to be the old runways which would probably just need a clean up and a resurface?

TSR2

14th Nov 2013, 19:46

will people be renting out their rooms for the spotters?

Long lets only ;)

skyman771

14th Nov 2013, 21:24

Guy's! why do you keep on considering the interaction between an active airport & housing when actually there wont be an issue as the place will have closed !
The only issue is as to how long Peel will be forced to maintain a licenced runway for aircraft dismantling.
At this rate KL will see out their contract & then they will be off too, as there simply wont be any pax, even if they don't get lost in housing estate side streets in trying to find the place.;)
On another tack I can suggest as to just how ridiculous this all is:8. Say you are a pax looking for a car parking space, then there would be many residents happy to capitalise on their location & quite prepared to rent out their drives / garages for £30 - £40 p.w. or more :uhoh:
The whole scheme is as has been said already, only about one thing, how much money can Peel extract from the site development & absolutely nothing about contributing to the long term benefit of the local ecconomy. But then you really can't blame them, Peel were and still remain the same animal they were when they bought the place - property developers, there were simply too many stupid enough to be taken in and sell them the place in the first place.
The old american comedian W C Fields quotation sums it all up "Never give a sucker an even break !".

paarmo

14th Nov 2013, 21:46

This is just a plan. No one has even applied for planning permission yet ,let alone received it. Pie in the sky ( pardon the pun ). If the airport is to continue then you have Typhoons doing overshoots and a helicopter running 24hrs a day. Would you buy a house in a place like that?
It's either the houses or the airport and not both.

skyman771

15th Nov 2013, 07:47

Paarmo It's either the houses or the airport and not both

Precisely ! & in proceeding with a policy of undermining the airport, as in step one “withdraw all IT flights”, then it appears that the strategy of Peel has already been taken to address this particular issue.
However note does need to be made that there are a number of reasons as to why DTV has not been successful in recent years that are nothing to do with Peel, i.e. that fundamentally the whole area economy has declined / changed and there is no longer no giant petrochemical / steel industry remaining on Teesside, replaced by what ? service industries, & small pockets of overseas investment? ….DTV / Teesside airport, call it what you may, has simply followed the trend.:(

MMCMME

15th Nov 2013, 08:48

A little off topic but only 8 days left until the Lightining talk if anybody is interested:

Lightning Presentation 2013 - FoDTVA (http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a7834a44c00aaa9478e305c79&id=6808428c04)

DTVAirport

15th Nov 2013, 15:08

The bulk of the people slating the place have little or no understanding of how airports work and/or just like to criticise for criticising's sake, those same people want me to defend the place so they can achieve a thrill trying to pick apart my defence, so after this post I think I'll join Beafer by giving up on pprune, bar the odd post.

Airport development and land development go hand-in-hand these days, Peel are port operators as much as they are land developers and have done nothing different to what most other UK airports have done, capitalised on land adjacent to an airport to bring in extra income.

I do have one question for Beafer however, if Peel are not a company you wish to be associated with, does that mean you'll be leaving the flying school? Because if not, like it or not, you still have an association of sorts? Just curious.

P330

15th Nov 2013, 15:44

Well I'm not giving up on PPrune. There are some sensible and interesting reads between the "repeat" posts.

That said, if we didn't have all the repeats, we'd have little to discuss.

I think the reality in all this is there are those who doubt, and who quite frankly are being proved right at every opportunity by the owners, and those who are more optimistic and trusting of their intentions.

I spent an hour last night reading the full 179 page plan. On the face of it, it is a great plan...a plan that reads well and talks sense. It is a plan that has probably cost of lot of money in consultant fees to write too! And I would love to believe that the plan would come off, because if it did, it would be good for our airport and good for the region.

The problem is, there have been many plans, many promises, precedents set elsewhere and crucially a truly dreadful track record on delivery (some of which is down to economics, granted) that simply feeds the sceptics. And until Peel actually start delivering, or at least getting their PR right for starters, the doubters will remain.

I want this plan to work. It can work. But until Peel build up a track record of success, this will simply be another plan and crucially its a plan that talks about building houses...something which many said would always happen.

A300BOY

15th Nov 2013, 15:51

I believe Blackpool Airport built some houses and industrial units around the perimeter and it seems to be booming as an airport again. Its never over until the fat owners sing.

davidjohnson6

15th Nov 2013, 18:42

Rather less confident that Flybe will show up for summer 2014 now...

jetstar.8

15th Nov 2013, 18:46

For those who want to know more about the proposed delovment and discuss with the team
there is a public exibition at the St George hotel at the Airport on 21 November 3pm to 7pm and at the Dolphin Centre Darlington on 28 November 3pm to 8pm

SWBKCB

15th Nov 2013, 19:14

DJ6 - you seem to have a rather a downer on the weekend Jersey BE flts. Can you expand as to why?

Also, when did you last see a phrase such as ...booming as an airport again... applied to Blackpool? :ok: Being serious, Blackpool did have a large area of underused land which got sold off for retail etc development (I'm thinking of the area around Morrisons) and survived, as did Liverpool, so there is nothing wrong with the model as such, just at first glance the DTVA master plan looks a bit flakey (suppose I better finish reading the document now!)

davidjohnson6

15th Nov 2013, 19:21

SWBKCB - because Flybe are closing their Jersey base. Yes, the route could operate as a W route, but with flights just once per week for a very short season, and the non charter seats struggling to pull in fares much above £50 one way and a new CEO who seems keen on immediate action and reducing costs, DTV-JER all becomes a bit tenuous

DTVAirport

15th Nov 2013, 21:52

The Jersey route is operated by a travel agent, can't remember the name, Jersey Travel perhaps, Flybe just won the contract and may have another season or two left to run, if they decide not to bid again and Jersey Travel feel the route is successful (I think pax numbers did increase a little thanks to the larger E175), then it will just go up for tender for another operator to move in.

The problem with the Jersey route is it doesn't run the full season, I have family who would love to use it but they always fly outbound on the last weekend it runs, so with no return flight they have to fly from elsewhere.

highwideandugly

16th Nov 2013, 06:22

October Down again..wonder what happened to the joint marketing campaign...obviously not too successful?

BTW Newcastle KLM up again.
However Aberdeen slight increase but unfortunately overtaken for the first time ever by Newcastle !!

total airport figures also continue to fall...maybe Peel have got it right?

SWBKCB

16th Nov 2013, 06:36

total airport figures also continue to fall...maybe Peel have got it right?

or self-fulfilling prophesy?

TSR2

16th Nov 2013, 07:14

total airport figures also continue to fall...maybe Peel have got it right?

Perhaps the master plan is to appeal to the minority ... and have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams !

skyman771

16th Nov 2013, 17:14

P330 I'd like to believe "The Plan" and note your optimism.
As to the cost & effort in it's preparation then there is no need to apportion any credit for effort etc. as it's publication is in effect mandatory in the process of supporting Peels position & what remains of their public image.
Like many plans they can, just like Peel's initial promises on acquisition of DTV, quite easily be "amended" with a bit of maneuvering and a little "spin" at the appropriate times.
The cynical view on all of this is that the process will proceed as a "war of attrition". Peel will earn substantial revenue from housing development and the runway maintained in an operational state in some form or other. However "eventually" there will be a "shift" in the plan whereby ALL aviation operations will move to the South of the runway with the total demolition of the Terminal & ancillary aviation related sites to the North. Proposed southside develoment would in reality cater for any relocation necessary from the north side including facilities for a mininimal no. of pax. Thus some 40%+ of the airport land will be released & available for development by Peel whether housing or whatever. Such release will more than cover what in the greater scheme will be incidental costs of relocation.
You must ask yourselves as to whether other than a few upset residents (and of course those airport employees who stand to lose their jobs), who would not actually endorse such a plan? After all the down side to "Joe Public" is at this stage likely to be minimal, it's not as if they have lost an airport, as it will have effectively ceased serving their needs (bucket & spade) some time prior.
As I referred to earlier as it being a "war of attrition" then "war" as oposed to "battle" is the key point here, & where is it all likely to end? as there is no guarantee that the development will stop at this point, and that issues will continue arise an issue in respect of further land disposals.:E

Lancelot37

17th Nov 2013, 01:27

And we can almost guarantee that Planning Permission will sail through with the Council giving its blessing and no opposition.

Northbound A1

17th Nov 2013, 10:47

Yep planning permission will already have been sorted with all of the nodding council directors on the DTV board.
How much do they earn again :hmm:

Peel have won this one. RIP Teesside airport.
The pold will have the place to themselves when KL pull out if Peel dont clear the snow off the tarmac this year.

Whats the betting Peel accidently dig up the power cables or drains to the hospital to try and close that place too. They want that land as well.

SWBKCB

17th Nov 2013, 17:17

Council leaders give their backing to Durham Tees Valley Airport masterplan (From The Northern Echo) (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10815058.Council_leaders_give_their_backing_to_Durham_Tees_V alley_Airport_masterplan/)

skyman771

17th Nov 2013, 22:59

Northbound, it would perhaps be better if you were to follow through with your own enquiries, rather than undermining your credibility with your latest comments.
The whole DTV situation is lamentable, but various pops at Peel are achieving nothing. If you are concerned as to how the compensation was dealt with, obtain a set of their published accounts!, then if you have issues as to these, then there are various actions open to you.
I note your frustration, there are undoutedly quite a number of individuals out there (brain dead or otherwise) who should, in an ideal world, be unable to look themselves in a mirror.
However when faced with no evidence of corruption or otherwise, and I am confused as to how you claim to establish a "masonic connection"?, then you ought to put up or shut up rather than continued snipes on this thread.
However if on the contrary you have some evidence or grounds for reasonable belief, then it would achieve a lot more if you were to make these known to the relevant authorities, or I'm sure the press would love a good story, but alas not a load of wishful fantasy!:ugh:

P330

18th Nov 2013, 12:01

North - Nothing wrong with having a pop at Peel as you put it....problem is, you are asking the same questions repeatedly. No-one is giving you an answer on here because they don't have an answer. In which case, isn't it better to ask the question of the media who can put your conspiracy theories to the test? Or is the theory that if you mention it enough times, a Peel person will pop up on Pprune and answer all of your questions?

Skyman - I suspect you're right on the war of attrition. I think it will be very hard to grow a passenger airport when what little there was has been deliberately eroded. I still maintain the plan can work, but I think they've given themselves a harder task with their PR mess-ups and also turning away charter business.

My interest now turns to KLM. I'm interested in the latest figures and hoping David posts them on here shortly. If and when those KLM figures/yields drop below the tipping point and KLM withdraw, then the master plan will quickly move to revision B. I really wonder how close we are to losing KLM? How close are KLM to saying this route is no longer profitable?

davidjohnson6

18th Nov 2013, 12:33

Hate to disappoint, but the CAA stats for October tell exactly the same story as June, July, August and September.

P330

18th Nov 2013, 12:50

David - do you know what the LF has now dropped to? I presume its a continued downward trend for the last 6 months?

I'd love to see a graph (or the data) that shows the monthly KLM figures/LF for the last 2 years to see if that gives us an indication of where we are heading. Do you know where I could get that information easily?

davidjohnson6

18th Nov 2013, 14:15

UK Airport Statistics | Aviation Intelligence | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&pageid=3&sglid=3)

Looking at a load factor for a rolling 12 month window, beginning with the Jan09-Dec09 window, and finishing with the Nov12-Oct13 window, the load factor on the KLM DTV-AMS route has fallen from about 63% to 58%
In terms of raw passenger numbers over a rolling 1 year window, there used to be 50.25 passengers per DTV-AMS flight, now it's 46.5 passengers per flight

At the same time, for ever 100 passengers on DTV-AMS, during 2009 there was an average of 240 passengers on NCL-AMS. Over the last 12 months, for every 100 passengers on DTV-AMS, there are now 360 passengers on NCL-AMS

Remember - everything in this post is about a *rolling 1 year window*. This means that one month being a blip has very little effect - we're looking at long term averages here.

P330

18th Nov 2013, 15:13

Thanks David...

This certainly indicates a steady and determined decline.

Using the website, I pulled the following rolling 12 month numbers from November last year and it shows a drop in the rolling average number of KLM passengers every single month.

These are the annual rolling figures for each of the last few months:

Nov 12 - 101,119
Dec 12 - 100,700
Jan 13 - 99,912
Feb 13 - 99,219
Mar 13 - 98,790
Apr 13 - 98,555
May 13 - 98,197
Jun 13 - 97,811
Jul 13 - 97,501
Aug 13 - 97,349
Sep 13 - 97,118
Oct 13 - 96,737

That represents almost a 4% drop in the last year. I would *expect* the recent announcements to have another negative impact on the numbers, but unless the current trends change, then you must surely be looking at KLM operations lasting another year to 18 months at best?

Of course, this analysis takes no account of yields....

P330

18th Nov 2013, 15:39

Just to add...

For me, all eyes must now be on KLM. It would appear to me that KLM will have a major, and imminent say, on whether revision A of this masterplan goes ahead. At this rate, you would have to think they'll pull the plug before it gets off the ground....and then we're into Revision B........

I said earlier KLM won't care about the plan, but they will care about their yields and numbers and the worry is this trend was evident BEFORE the masterplan was announced. The numbers for October, November and December will make interesting reading.....

davidjohnson6

18th Nov 2013, 15:49

How long KLM stay on the DTV-AMS route is likely to be determined by a number of factors besides just the load factor.

- Do KLM want to go from triple daily to double daily, as they do at Manston ?
- What are KLM's fleet plans for the F70 ?
- How reliable are the F70s ?
- What's slot availability at Amsterdam like at the relevant times for a DTV route ?
- What's the breakeven revenue / load factor+yield of running a F70 ?
- How much equity capital is being used to keep the DTV route, and what return are KLM seeing on this equity ?
- Is there demand for F70s from other airlines ? These are old aircraft, Fokker have gone bust, so there are no new aircraft being made with type commonality
- What are projected staffing levels like at KLM cityhopper for pilots on F70s ?
- Is there a particular need for 80 seat aircraft elsewhere in the KLM network ?
- From looking at postcodes of customers flying to/from DTV and NCL, how is consumer demand shifting between DTV and NCL ? If DTV were to be closed, how many customers would be significantly inconvenienced ?
- Are there are impediments to adding capacity to NCL, either as more aircraft or as larger aircraft ?
- What are the contract terms between Peel and KLM ? When are they next up for renegotiation ?
- Are Peel making life difficult for KLM and KLM's passengers in any way ?

P330

18th Nov 2013, 15:58

The other factors are indeed relevant.

For me though the most relevant is do KLM have a contract with MME until a set point in time and when is this? If the answer is no, then KLM will leave when they can yield a better return from these aircraft elsewhere. What is worrying is that with such an obvious and clear decline, the number of alternative uses will increase each and every month.

On the future of the F70, we know they're not the most reliable and 7 will leave the fleet shortly. The remaining 19 will stay for a handful of more years until they decide on a replacement.

Sadly, if the current trends continue, we won't be around to worry about whether MME can sustain E190 operations or not.

Bigger aircraft at NCL with the odd extra frequency may not be a bad idea....

SWBKCB

18th Nov 2013, 16:19

One factor to consider on KLM is that in the 12 months referred to EZY have joined NCL-AMS, so it's likely that its the low end of the market which has shifted to NCL - probably not hugely significant to KLM.

KLM clearly has a good base of business users who prefer MME to NCL, and until these desert the route it looks safe - subject to the wider issues mentioned below.

Robert-Ryan

18th Nov 2013, 18:51

The housing estate prediction has come true though...hasnt it.
No. The prediction was that the housing estate would replace the airport not add to it.

Regarding KLM - I would take all this as just rumour though it seems to be common knowledge at the airport, but the current KLM contract is said to have 12-14 months left to run and that a resurrection of the 'World on your Doorstep' marketing campaign is imminent. What I tend to notice is the flights go out either chocka full or like ghost planes, rarely in the middle. A lot more full than empty I would have said but the stats seem to suggest otherwise.

highwideandugly

18th Nov 2013, 19:58

So looking at the above posts...half are full half are mt it looks the best bet for klm. I s to reduce the flights to 2 per day?

Feel like its a period of reflection by all while we watch the drama unfold!!

NorthSouth

18th Nov 2013, 20:05

P330: I think it will be very hard to grow a passenger airportBut who's proposing to grow it? The Master Plan proposes (or estimates? or assumes? not clear) that pax will "grow" to 200,000 by 2020. But that's barely 22% of the peak figure in 2006, and only a 20% increase on the 2012 figure. More importantly, the Master Plan doesn't envisage anything other than the existing KLM/Eastern/Flybe Jersey services operating in 2020, so it assumes that the whole of the pax growth (including making up for the pax lost from holiday charters) is from those routes. I don't see that as a plan at all. I think the Master Plan is essentially an admission of defeat. The 200k figure isn't their own projection based on their own plan to attract traffic, it's simply a regurgitation of DfT's own 10-month-old estimate of the dismal future prospects for this beknighted airport.
Another aspect: look at their cargo plans. Lots of ground infrastructure, but for what? Three B737 flights a day. And how will they attract that? We're told the demand for specialist inbound industrial freight on KLM flights shows there's a future. But that freight amounts to less than half a tonne a year - so little that it doesn't even register in the CAA stats.
This is just a glossy brochure. All fur coat and nae knickers.
NS

NickBarnes

18th Nov 2013, 20:32

I believe KLM Cityhopper from what has been said are looking at the Emb170 to replace the F70 but of course it is only rumours

P330

18th Nov 2013, 21:26

Thanks David. I've updated my post with the October numbers. With this addition, it shows we have had 12 consecutive months of rolling KLM decline. Now I know there is a core user of this service but surely this decline can only go on for so long.

Robert - I've heard the same about a marketing campaign, hopefully it can add some impetus to the service. When I use it, it is generally full but then again that is likely the 6am Monday flight I am using. More interesting is your rumour of 12 months of contract left. You would have to say that if that contract was to be renewed you would want to see the decline stop, if not reverse. A continuation of the decline would surely put a new deal at risk?

I'll keep a tab on these specific numbers from now on as I'm certain this is where the next chapter in this story will come from.

onyxcrowle

18th Nov 2013, 22:33

As Im not familiar with DTV what routes does it offer?.
How frequent is the KLM operation?. Only if they only have KLM and a route to Aberdeen then those figures cant be that diabloical.
Going by the posts about how bad it is, It seems that two airlines using one Tiny prop and a small Ageing jet Bring in almost 100 000 passenger's a month.
Has there been an official reason for binning holiday flights , beyond the probable thinking that they are only any good seasonal and with the downturn they've had , A bucket and spade route isnt going to pull in the numbers?.
Does anyone have a link to the masterplan please?.
Also based on all this. KLM seem to be onto a good thing, What about Someone Like SAS to Copenhagen . Airfrance City jet Avros to Paris and LCY.
Maybe even BA?.
Bmi seem like one to aim for. Perhaps theres something to be said for a new better terminal.
And like Flybe said going bacl to its routes and original plan to serve regional airport to regional.
Scotland to England is so limited.
Inverness isnt Covered. Maybe Flybe might see Dtv as an opertunity to screw a fantastic deal out of.
Perhaps compete on The Ams slots.
And daft as this may sound but teeside with all its industy might a route to Sumburgh/Scatsa aimed at oilworkers etc.
Ive done that route from Lba Via Abz and its a pain. Perhaps An E170 into Sumburgh direct , Something nobody does now might work.
How about Stavanger. Belfast and Glasgow.
And Klm no Props any more leaves all these Fokker 70's looking like their not going to be around forever.
Anyway all that said im not an expert. Just have a keen interest in all this and would love a bit of debate woth you guys on which Carriers and Routes realistly would work.
Ps if Klm does pull out and I dont wish that on them. But Dsa in an email indicated they was working on a hub route imminently.
Would they go there?. Or increase HUY to a 737 and more rotations.
I hope Dtv succeeds after all we are talking about real peoples livelyhoods and job losses.
So perhaps we can try move this thread away from doom and gloom and back toward Ideas and so on to improve it. Perhaps even take them To Dtv Management.
Otherwise it seems like a self forfulling prophecy.

davidjohnson6

18th Nov 2013, 23:38

As Im not familiar with DTV what routes does it offer?.
Perhaps you could look at the DTV website via Google ?

How frequent is the KLM operation?Perhaps you could look at the KLM website ?

Only if they only have KLM and a route to Aberdeen then those figures cant be that diabloical.An airport having just 2 routes is diabolical - makes an airport utterly dependent on just 2 customers.

Going by the posts about how bad it is, It seems that two airlines using one Tiny prop and a small Ageing jet Bring in almost 100 000 passenger's a month.Could I refer you to the CAA website to look at the stats ? The Amsterdam route brings in 100,000 *per year*. The Aberdeen route brings in 30,000 *per year*. Combined they bring in 130,000 passengers per *year* or about 10,800 per month - about a tenth of what you are suggesting.

Has there been an official reason for binning holiday flights , beyond the probable thinking that they are only any good seasonal and with the downturn they've had , A bucket and spade route isnt going to pull in the numbers?.
Have you been reading this thread properly ? Thomson made clear that the airline had been told to p*ss off by the airport.

Does anyone have a link to the masterplan please?.Perhaps you could visit the DTV website or look at Google ?

Also based on all this. KLM seem to be onto a good thing,An airline flying from an airport to their main hub - isn't that what network airlines are meant to do ?

What about Someone Like SAS to Copenhagen .SAS fly from Newcastle to Copenhagen and soon Humberside. Do you really think there's demand from DTV as well ?

Airfrance City jet Avros to Paris and LCY.Cityjet are losing tons of money right now - I think they lost over 100 million euros last year. Air France is desperate to sell Cityjet to anyone with a bit of cash. Cityjet have been cutting routes - expanding is not on their agenda.

Maybe even BA?.Why on earth would BA want to use a precious Heathrow slot on DTV when it can be used on a flight to the USA with lots of high spending premium class customers instead ? Gatwick cannot even support a Manchester route, never mind DTV.

Bmi seem like one to aim forBmi (before being taken over by BA) used to fly to DTV. They stopped because they realised the value of Heathrow slots compared to the ticket sales at DTV. Bmi regional are in the middle of cutbacks right now, not growth.

Perhaps theres something to be said for a new better terminal.A nice new terminal costs a ton of money. If Peel aren't paying, who will pay ?

And like Flybe said going bacl to its routes and original plan to serve regional airport to regional.
Flybe are closing their Newcastle base along with 5 other bases and making an additional 500 staff redundant. Opening new bases is not part of their plan right now.

Scotland to England is so limited.Really ? There are a ton of flights from London, southern England, the Midlands, East Anglia and Manchester to Scotland. Is it possible that with a very fast train line along England's east coast to Edinburgh that there just isn't the need for flights between DTV (or Doncaster) to southern Scotland ?

Inverness isnt CoveredInverness is a modest city in the middle of a very empty and rural area. Inverness' metropolitan area has just 60,000 people. Low density of population doesn't encourage air routes. Flybe are closing their Inverness base.

Maybe Flybe might see Dtv as an opertunity to screw a fantastic deal out of.If the customers won't pay for Flybe at Newcastle, then there certainly isn't enough money at DTV

Perhaps compete on The Ams slots.DTV-AMS works only because of people connecting to other places on KLM's network. Easyjet and KLM also both fly Newcastle-Amsterdam. Flybe operating DTV-AMS in competition with KLM would be commercial suicide

And daft as this may sound but teeside with all its industy might a route to Sumburgh/Scatsa aimed at oilworkers etc.
There is already a route from DTV to Aberdeen aimed at oil workers. Once at Aberdeen, there are onward connections to Sumburgh and Scatsta. Remember that Sumburgh and Scatsta are still pretty small airports.

Ive done that route from Lba Via Abz and its a pain. Perhaps An E170 into Sumburgh direct Eastern can't make an E170 work to Aberdeen. Why would it work to Shetland ?

Something nobody does now might work.We're at the end game of airline consolidation. The time for off beat ideas and experiments was over 10 years ago.

How about Stavanger. Belfast and Glasgow.Eastern operate Newcastle-Stavanger. Easyjet and Flybe both operate Newcastle-Belfast. Flybe are shrinking Newcastle, and Easyjet already have chosen Newcatle as their base in the North East. How long does it take by train from Darlington to Glasgow ?

Ps if Klm does pull out and I dont wish that on them. But Dsa in an email indicated they was working on a hub route imminently.
Would they go there?. Or increase HUY to a 737 and more rotations.The nearest airports to DTV are Newcastle and as a 2nd best, Leeds. KLM already fly to both Newcastle and Leeds, so are likely to grow their service at those 2 airports. Humberside as 3rd best might get a tiny crumb of extra service, but the increased availability will be overwhelmingly Newcastle and Leeds. If Doncaster gets a hub route, it will not be because of events at DTV

I hope Dtv succeeds after all we are talking about real peoples livelyhoods and job losses.
If anyone working at DTV doesn't already expect job losses, they're living in a rather naive world.

So perhaps we can try move this thread away from doom and gloom and back toward Ideas and so on to improve it. Perhaps even take them To Dtv Management.
Look up FoDTVA on the web - bunch of people who are given the odd bit of face time by airport management in the hope that Peel will be seen a listening to the community and supporters of the airport.

Otherwise it seems like a self forfulling prophecy.Agree with you

P330

19th Nov 2013, 08:53

Looks like the one-off Lapland charter is still going ahead next month. Last year the operator cancelled it, so better news. However, how does this fit with the strategy of cancelling charter flights?

Or is it simply that the programme is in, its a one-off so let it go but next year they won't be allowing 200+ excitable families through the door for a Lapland adventure?

Richard Taylor

20th Nov 2013, 17:04

Roll up for a one off santa flight.
Fly off to visit Father Christmas in Lapland with one-off trip from Durham Tees Valley Airport (From The Northern Echo)

Dear Santa Claus,

We've been very good. Please may we have a new airport and owner for DTV...

:}

AndyH52

23rd Nov 2013, 15:36

Cabby, you're article is a little behind the times...the NWDA was abolished in 2010.

N707ZS

23rd Nov 2013, 16:17

I'm giving up on PPRuNe

Agree with Beafer its a done deal. As they say on the Dragons den, I'm out too.
Make your minds up!

MMCMME

23rd Nov 2013, 18:14

Urgent runway repairs today. Runway closed from 1600hrs but the royals made it out of dodge early before Paddy and Mick turned up http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Is it true that the runway is subsiding?

Urgent runway repairs? Not quite sure where it says that.
If the runway was subsiding, surely that would take more than 5 hours on a Saturday afternoon to fix...?

Merely patching a few potholes.

Beafer

24th Nov 2013, 16:34

The memory is an age thing, it affects us all in later life :}
In for a penny or should that be the pound which Peel paid for Sheffield?

How much BMI compensation did Peel get in the end, was it £8m?
Why wasnt that invested in new hangars instead of needing to build 400 houses?

Has anyone seen Master plan part 2? Are Peel planning a further 1000 houses on the south side in phase 2? Word down the pub is its a done deal with the council.

Mickey Kaye

24th Nov 2013, 19:30

Someone please remind me.

When Peel paid 500 grand for the aerodrome how much did they Promise to pump into the airifield?

My memory fades a little but when I was last there I got the impression they have't spent a penny.

Piltdown Man

24th Nov 2013, 19:46

Closed from 1600 till 2100.

Is that a time or a date period?

PM

Piltdown Man

24th Nov 2013, 19:58

...but while I'm here. The article in the Northern Echo:

The rescue plan, unveiled last week, proposes to build between 250 and 400 new homes on land to the west and north of the terminal, including land previously earmarked as a business park.

Now call me a cynic, but wouldn't that kill the airport? Imagine how many noise complaints there will be. When the lovely people who will eventually buy these houses move in to discover, shock of all shocks, that there's an airport in their back garden. Should there ever be an increase in movements, the new residents will be out there in their onesies, complete with grubby baby eating a Greggs pasty, complaining about the 100% increase in flights and how it will poison their goldfish etc...

PM

TSR2

24th Nov 2013, 20:59

When the lovely people who will eventually buy these houses move in to discover, shock of all shocks, that there's an airport in their back garden.

The lovely people will/should be well aware of the circumstances prior to purchase.

EK77WNCL

24th Nov 2013, 22:03

That's probably part of Peel's plan! Fill the houses up with Nimby's and wait for the complaints to start flooding in... Bish bash bosh, airport closed, sell the land, more houses, everybody's happy... :mad::ugh:

DTV is a splendid little airport and I hate to see it heading this way.

tubtruck

24th Nov 2013, 23:38

Starting to get used to always flying from other airports now, doubt I will miss MME in the end, goodbye MME you are easily forgotten by me.

davidjohnson6

25th Nov 2013, 21:40

Do Eastern run a Sunday-only flight between Durham Tees Valley and Southampton any more ? Eastern's website doesn't seem to want to know about it...

N707ZS

25th Nov 2013, 22:13

David, yes and no, the flight comes down from Aberdeen to DTVA and then on to Southampton and back again. Only thing you cannot do the Southampton part of the flight from DTVA.:ugh:

I see from DTVA movements KLM produced an Embraer ERJ-190 on one of the flights today.

SWBKCB

28th Nov 2013, 21:18

Swiss Cessna HB-CIU is a new resident, it will operate for a new start-up parachute school based at the airport.

This from the guys at the DTVM website...

cym

29th Nov 2013, 11:18

Same applies to the people that live under the flight paths into LHR, LGW,STN, BRS - the airport was there long before they moved in and if anything aircraft noise has reduced substantially over the years- does it stop them complaining? Hell no!

When the lovely people who will eventually buy these houses move in to discover, shock of all shocks, that there's an airport in their back garden.

The lovely people will/should be well aware of the circumstances prior to purchase

apaul

29th Nov 2013, 12:16

Living near MME is not exactly comparable to living under the Heathrow flight path. There are hardly any flights to make much noise.

Robert-Ryan

2nd Dec 2013, 12:38

Two pages worth of content have been removed from this thread in the last few hours, not overly bothered but a reason would be nice?

ALL Deleted by Original Poster.
Hogg

N707ZS

2nd Dec 2013, 16:43

Looks like Caddy has been deleted!:eek:

No, OP deleted his/her own posts.
Hogg

highwideandugly

2nd Dec 2013, 19:42

Oh dear! Is this peel pressure? What happened to freedom of speech?

Problem is nothing is happening(or nothing aviation wise)!and so people s minds and typing wander.....

jetstar.8

5th Dec 2013, 17:21

Has Work stopped on the hangar for the police helicopter

NorthSouth

8th Dec 2013, 19:31

A parachute school? AT DTV? I don't believe that. How on earth could that work with the schedules, Cobham and the training schools?

NS

F4TCT

8th Dec 2013, 19:37

certainly doesn't make sense when you have peterlee parachute centre just up the road...

bad bear

8th Dec 2013, 20:22

Parachute Club at Teeside? Perfect location, in my view. Today no scheduled movements after 11 am till dark'o'clock.

bb

Robert-Ryan

8th Dec 2013, 21:18

By all accounts it hasn't gone down well at all and objections have been filed left, right & centre. H&S hasn't been considered whatsoever and the opposition seems to be so strong that at the very least the planned drop zone near the Charlie taxiway will likely not go ahead. Whether that means the firm would still move in or not I'm not sure, full credit to the airport for trying to bring extra business in, but it's not been very well thought through on this occasion, a prime example being if the Air Ambulance needs to depart on an emergency call-out but has to delay due to parachutes falling, it could make the difference between life and death for some poor begger.

If this goes ahead, I fear one bit of new business could lead to the loss of existing business(es).

Lancelot37

8th Dec 2013, 21:55

More Peel bungling?

bad bear

8th Dec 2013, 22:23

Where can I read the full details of the proposed parachute operation at Teeside?
It founds like an ideal project for this sleepy airport. Perhaps the guys will need a couple of DZs to cater for the issues that some have flagged up. But, it could give some extra life to this sleepy airport and perhaps some free flying for aero-club members driving the drop plane. Parachuting people are really good fun to be with and will certainly liven up any aero-club bar !!!
An off airfield Drop Zone would negate most problems.

Possibly the most exciting idea for Teeside in ages.

bb

N707ZS

8th Dec 2013, 22:33

Piston GA-8 is going to be interesting droneing up and down.

I wonder who might take up all of the new hangars on the master plan.

EK77WNCL

9th Dec 2013, 00:34

How about turning the mothballed 40% of the terminal into a landside aeroclub/pub/bar, reopen the "beer garden" it could attract a few people. Offer a happy hour, free parking etc... Never know.

skyman771

9th Dec 2013, 19:03

More Peel bungling?
Probably more like very creative thinking on their behalf :E
Unsure as to where all this is going, from what I hear the airport is not keen at all on granting leases & supporting aviation related development. No doubt there are two sides to this, but I haven't heard the balanced argument.
Not saying more, as appears that one needs to watch their backside on this site now!:suspect:

N707ZS

9th Dec 2013, 19:52

skyman771, how come Sycamore and IASA medical are at DTVA then.

SWBKCB

9th Dec 2013, 20:02

How about turning the mothballed 40% of the terminal into a landside aeroclub/pub/bar, reopen the "beer garden" it could attract a few people. Offer a happy hour, free parking etc... Never know.

If you look at the masterplan, it's more likely to become a community centre for the housing estate - Doctor's, nursery, etc

Parachute school should go down well with the new residents - what better on a summers weekend afternoon than to watch the pretty parachutes floating down.

Just add in the two based rapid-response helicopter units, what could possibly go wrong? :O

bad bear

9th Dec 2013, 20:50

SWBKCB

Just add in the two based rapid-response helicopter units, what could possibly go wrong?

Im only guessing but if its Mr Ivory behind this Parachute project he is more than capable of assessing and mitigating the risk. I have seen his CV and seen his presentations, if its him... it'll be fine at Teeside.

Lets be realistic, how many times do the helicopters launch per week? What would happen if there were 3 IFR inbounds? would they all have to go-around if the helicopters scramble? Its not beyond the wit of man to find a DZ on or near the airport that won't compromise the helicopter ops. A simple radio call before dropping to check the Helicopters have not been scrambled on a life or death mission should ensure there are no "meat bombs" on their way down.

This is just the sort of thing that the airport needs.

Now, where should we site the glider launching winch?

bb

SWBKCB

9th Dec 2013, 21:08

I'll take my tongue out of my cheek on the helicopters, but is a parachute school really compatible with hundreds of new houses? Somebodies being kidded here.

skyman771

10th Dec 2013, 10:28

skyman771, how come Sycamore and IASA medical are at DTVA then.
Maybe you should speak to them......

N707ZS

10th Dec 2013, 10:56

Maybe I do...:eek:

DTVAirport

10th Dec 2013, 18:43

The Evening Gazette isn't exactly a reputable newspaper and since when has Joe Public had a clue about operating airports??

Peel may have their faults, but I wouldn't take a great deal of notice of what that article states.

What the airport has been finding at their consultation events, and FoDTVA too at their meetings, is that people have been crashing in with both feet and attacking the airport, then when they've had the master plan explained to them and their questions answered, they've left feeling quite pleased.

VentureGo

10th Dec 2013, 20:16

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8199138) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8199138&noquote=1)The Evening Gazette isn't exactly a reputable newspaper and since when has Joe Public had a clue about operating airports??

Peel may have their faults, but I wouldn't take a great deal of notice of what that article states.What the airport has been finding at their consultation events, and FoDTVA too at their meetings, is that people have been crashing in with both feet and attacking the airport, then when they've had the master plan explained to them and their questions answered, they've left feeling quite pleased. Wake Up & Smell the coffee! - DTV is finished as an airport in any sense we would wish to see. Peel are determined to implement their plan to maximise potential for their "investment"! in whatever way they see fit. If you believe their spin - then more the fool you!

DTVAirport

10th Dec 2013, 20:30

You reckon? We'll see.

SWBKCB

10th Dec 2013, 21:18

Presumably somebody at these meetings has asked why next summer's charter flights were turned away?

What was the answer, as I don't think I've seen it properly explained.

HH6702

10th Dec 2013, 21:33

Well the planned TOM pmi flights for summer 2014 are now going up the road to NCL! Shame the airport don't want passenger flights

DTVAirport

10th Dec 2013, 21:44

VentureGo

10th Dec 2013, 22:08

SWBKCB - I'm not at liberty to say exactly how much (though if you look hard enough the figure can be found online) but the charter flights were costing the airport a significant amount of money per passenger.

The axing of charter flights coupled with the mothballing of 40% of the terminal is expected to cut the annual loss by as much as half, which is not to be sniffed at, as sad as the loss of flights may be.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8199455) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8199455&noquote=1)So customers are costing the airport money and contributing to its demise!! I now see your point - sorry for my earlier response! Let me contribute therefore, and advise All former DTV customers to travel via Newcastle International Airport and save DTV all the money you've been costing Darlington Airport over the years!! .... But then on a serious note..... Let's invest the taxpayers money on subsidising better surface links to Newcastle International Airport, attracting more flights (possibly a transatlantic daily service) with promoting a wider catchment area, and saving DTV the annual loss by trying to serve direct services from Darlington!! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
Sarcasm - "The highest form of intelligism!"