Plymouth airport closing

[IO540]

Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13219590)

It said the airport, which employs 56 people, had suffered "significant losses in recent years" and was facing a £1m loss over the next year.

56 employees..... what exactly did they all do???

[englishal]

That is a shame as Plymouth was one of the best GA 'Airports' around. I hope that it doesn't become a housing estate.

I don't know why the local governments don't run these airports as per the USA and use them to encourage busniness in the area, rather than look on the airport as the money making venture in itself.

[S-Works]

Bugger all apart from making life difficult for visitors.

It was inevitible really. Prime building land. They will just extend the housing estate currently being built on the edge of the airfield I suspect.

Shame really as it is slowly strangling business links to the SW.

[VMC-on-top]

I don't know why the local governments don't run these airports as per the USA and use them to encourage busniness in the area, rather than look on the airport as the money making venture in itself.

Simply because local governments haven't got a clue what they are doing, needlessly spend money, waste money and have no clue whatsoever how to run a successful commercial operation!

For instance .....

Newcastle airport for sale as owners look to tackle debts (http://www.business-sale.com/news/article/newcastle-airport-for-sale-as-owners-look-to-tackle-debts-34757.html)

Bosses silent over Newcastle Airport sale claims - Today's News - News - JournalLive (http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/04/19/bosses-silent-over-newcastle-airport-sale-claims-61634-28542549/)

Before this, they ran the aeroclub at Newcastle until that went under!

[Biffo Blenkinsop]

Very sad. But it's economics - where are all those people in the UK who made horse bridles, dug coal, built ships?

Still sad though.

I have a terrible glum feeling that we've already lived through the best years of light aviation. I'll try to forget I said that - depressing.

[IO540]

Simply because local governments haven't got a clue what they are doing, needlessly spend money, waste money and have no clue whatsoever how to run a successful commercial operation!That's 1/2 the story.

The other half is that the hypothetical airport is traditionally run by an empire builder character who has a great gift of the gab and who feeds the local govt a load of bu11***t, using "safety" as the scare word to get his way whenever necessary (and local govt officials are petrified of any compromise on "safety") and it is only when the airport has recruited about 5x more staff than is needed and runs up £ millions of losses that the local govt numpties panic and get rid of it. And who ends up buying it? ;)

To hear that Plymouth had 56 employees makes me sick. But, in the UK especially, if you advertise a £100k job inspecting the thickness of chocolate bar wrappers, with a company car, thousands of people will apply.

Really the councillors responsible for allowing this to happen should be sacked. To say you've been had is not an excuse.

There are hardly any airports down that part of the UK already. Plymouth is a giant low-grade council estate and it will go down the pan even quicker without decent business links.

I have a terrible glum feeling that we've already lived through the best years of light aviation

I think there is a continual decline in N Europe, which is slowly shrinking down into its own "safety"-driven back orifice. GA facilities have been declining continuously for decades, and so have most things which involve individual privileges.

But there are bright bits abroad. The former communist countries have opened up, and in some cases (Croatia, Slovenia) have opened up superb destinations. You just need a decent plane to get there...

[connoisseur]

Simply because local governments haven't got a clue what they are doing, needlessly spend money, waste money and have no clue whatsoever how to run a successful commercial operation! For instance .....I hate to spoil a good tale but that is not always the case...........................

The airport is owned and managed by the Manchester Airports Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airports_Group) which is a holding company owned by the ten metropolitan borough councils of Greater Manchester , with Manchester City Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_City_Council) owning the largest stake and is the largest British-owned airport group.

Manchester was set up by its City Council pre-1939, run and developed by the same for decades and is now run by a public consortium led by the same. A rather successful long term commercial operation in the eyes of many ;)

[Morris542]

I was always surprised by the complete lack of activity within the small terminal building even before an Air Southwest Dash 8 was due to depart.

It's a shame because I've enjoyed the couple of flights I've done from there. However I had just made up my mind to fly from Bodmin instead as it's £50/hr cheaper to PPL hire a C152 (according to the 'Where to Fly Guide' in this months Pilot magazine). Looks like that decision would have been made for me anyway, it's just the trouble of getting there.

[IO540]

A rather successful long term commercial operation in the eyes of many

and

employing 56 people to run Plymouth airport

?

One cannot run smaller airports the way one can run the big ones. Look at Gatwick. The place is massively over-staffed. There is a yellow jacket standing on every corner, desperately trying to look busy. The only way the place can stay afloat is by getting a nice juicy landing fee off somebody every few minutes, and from massive commercial property income paid by the "duty free" ripoff merchants who sell you a £3 tube of hand cream for £8, after the yellow jacket chimp earlier on has confiscated your own one.

Places like Plymouth need to be run very differently (like a proper business :) ).

[gasax]

Plymouth City Airport Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, holds a 150 year lease agreement with Plymouth City Council for the airport (143 years unexpired at a peppercorn rent). The Company will retain the lease following the closure of the airport.


In line with its stated intention the Company is focused on waterfront regeneration and developing new opportunities closely related to its core marine and regeneration activities.


Which perhaps explains why there were so many people employed? Not exactly the same as building houses or running a marina.

Sutton Harbour have already sold their airline interests back in September 2010,

Air Southwest is to have new owners with the announcement that award-winning Eastern Airways are to acquire the airline.

For our customers, it is entirely "business as usual" as we will continue to fly under the Air Southwest brand.

Richard Lake, Managing Director of Eastern Airways:
"As market leaders in our respective catchments this deal makes perfect sense for Eastern Airways and gives us even greater reach across the UK. Air Southwest is well regarded by its customers and we want to ensure we retain that loyalty by continuing to offer excellent service and value for money. "


The sale of Air Southwest to Eastern Airways is subject to regulatory approval.


So Sutton Harbour appear to be the classic example of have to make a 'small fortune' in the aviation business!

[Sleeve Wing]

Damn it ! Yet another goes under, with the development vultures hovering in the vicinity.
Real shame. Good when it was just Plymouth Aero Club.

Did my first ever powered solo there 50 years ago this Sept. with the Britannia Flight.

Sad. :ugh:

[Jan Olieslagers]

Sorry guys, but I'm afraid you're just not getting it. Of your current favourite type of aerodrome, how many more must close down before you get it in? There is NO way an aerodrome can be a successful commercial operation with only or mainly recrational aviation funding. Whether the landing fee be 5 quid or 50 is irrelevant. Either they need big paying traffic like bizjets or airlines, or they need public funding. Both are becoming less by the day.

The only way out is to use the grounds of whoever owns a bit of land AND is enough of a fool to open it up to (more or less) public use - at her/his own terms, of course. So on the one hand be ready to offer a helping hand to any kind fool of that description to mow the grass or paint the runway centre line and numbers or do whatever needs to be done; and don't grumble at PPR on the other hand, at the contrary you should see it as a token of careful welcome. And be grateful there's a good many of that kind of fools around.

Privately owned, volunteer operated strips are the only viable alternative for those with limited pockets. Sympathise with and support their owners/operators when and wherever you can, be happy to don their modest landing fees, call them cheerfully for PPR, there is no long-term alternative for private flying on the cheap.

[IO540]

Sorry guys, but I'm afraid you're just not getting it. Of your current favourite type of aerodrome, how many more must close down before you get it in? There is NO way an aerodrome can be a successful commercial operation with only or mainly recrational aviation funding. Whether the landing fee be 5 quid or 50 is irrelevant. Either they need big paying traffic like bizjets or airlines, or they need public funding.

I don't agree with it quite as you have put it.

It's probably true that with the typical UK GA traffic density, and the fact that much of the pilot community is too stingy to pay even £10 (so they fly mainly to farm strips), an airport cannot maintain a reasonable tarmac runway and some basic facilities on landing fees alone.

But it doesn't have to. Usually there is room around the place for some commercial property. It is a natural place for schools and maintenance companies and these will all pay rent. There will also be a restaurant which generates even more money.

It can be done.

The problem is that ownership with aviation commitment is not continuous and the commercial property angle leads to its destruction once the original owner (if it is just an individual) sells out to some property shark who will then close the airport side, and probably redevelop the whole place.

Much depends on the catchment area. But a higher quality catchment area will also attract better funded property sharks....

In the right location, a GA airport would make sense, but it would take a bunch of well funded and committed people to do it, and perhaps some sort of trust ownership. One would need to start at the top of the market, with turboprops and light jets.

Plymouth is probably just massively over-staffed to have any hope of making ends meet.

[Wibblemonster]

I used to fly out of Plymouth weekly on Air southwest & BA before that. I actually work in Plymouth & live in the North East. The Airport closing the the cancellation of flights to Newcastle is a massive pain the @rse for me! I now have to travel to Exeter to get a flight.

Plymouth is a lovely little airport, I've flown a PA28 out of the a couple of times & was planning to hire a 150 this summer. The Flying school is very friendly, but not cheap. This is because Sutton Holdings don't want them there & charge a fortune, they backhanded the council to get the lease to run the airport about 10 years ago, with every intention to run it into the ground & then develop property on the prime land. They have already built houses at the end of one of the disused runways & now it looks like it won't be long before the rest of it is covered in houses that no one can afford, Plymouth isn't exactly affluent.

It really irks me that this has happened, I spend a large portion of my childhood living near this airport, the planes are not noisy & airline was a pleasure to use, certainly a lot better than Flybe.

/rant

[Biffo Blenkinsop]

they backhanded the council to get the lease to run the airport about 10 years ago, with every intention to run it into the ground & then develop property on the prime land


The story of so many airfields.


it would take a bunch of well funded and committed people to do it, and perhaps some sort of trust ownership


IO is right. It just takes a bunch of us to get together, form a trust and the airfield will remain in perpetuity.

But, the problem is, how does a trust - built up of enthusiasts - put enough money together to be able to contest developer's prices?

[POBJOY]

When the council ran the airport it was grass field with RN Britannia Flight (Tigers then Chipmunks) and a small flying club.It was also the base for Mayflower (Rapides) flights to the Scilly Isles.
In those days the Dockyard was busy and so was Plymouth as a Naval base and it was used by the services for com flights.
The man on the radio was perched up in a quaint little hutch attached to the hangar and i think they had a VDF and later a NDB.
Then along came Bill Bryce and "Brymon". This started its real venture into the commercial world and first with Islanders and later DHC6 and DHC7 the airport was getting busy (but the club went) At this time they were involved with the idea of "Stol Port" in Docklands and the Otters were still single pilot crew.The Dash 7 was on a profitable contract in Scotland so the operation sort of worked without it costing the Council too much.Of course when they had to start spending real money on all the improvements (runways, hangars, apron,ATC,ect) it was difficult for the Council to justify them subsidising a private company so it was leased out to Brymon on favourable terms.Brymon had been an intial customer for the 7 so when Brymon hit the down turn DHC helped them out until they themselves hit the down turn.As to the workforce well i seem to remember that due to the 7 the fire crew required to cover the services on a shift basis was about 20.A back of an envelope exercise will soon show you that no one can make any money out of all this so in the end with no buildings to let out or land to rent to industry (no subsidy no airport).
The fact that Exeter (just down the road) was capable of developing itself for larger aircraft and more destinations did not really leave Plymouth with a market that would ever cover the real cost of the operation.
The ensuing years saw it being surrounded with housing (and complaints) so it was ineviatable what its fate would be.
However history will show it did quite well to go on for so long considering it started life as a Polo Pitch on the outskirts of the City.RIP Plymouth Airport you served the City well.

[A and C]

I am not pleased to see Plymouth shut, I think it is very bad for the city and will hamper the local economy.

I am however very pleased to see the rude and obstructive security parasites out of a job.

[Wibblemonster]

Could not agree more about the security staff. They like to look in your wallet for razor blades.. funny, I've never had that at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Standstead, Newcastle, Glasgow... etc.

[Poltergeist]

We are already transfering our business interests away from the southwest due to lack of links. Ironic as part of our business is making airports work commercially.

I suspect the will to make this airport viable was not strong considering the statement about the rent, the high fees charged and the development aspirations of the operator.

Odd that many airfields are owned by developers, coincidence?....................

[IO540]

coincidence?..

Of course not.

I have known a number of UK land/housing developers and they all play a long game, positioning themselves into opportunities, just like perverts volunteering for the boy scouts...

Sometimes the process leads nowhere, but sometimes you make a fortune.

[robin]

We are already transfering our business interests away from the southwest due to lack of links. Ironic as part of our business is making airports work commercially.

We being who?

[GQ2]

IO540 is exactly right of course.

Over about a week, we get to hear of both Filton and Plymouth closing. Many other live under the sword of Damocles. Whilst there are certainly other contributing factors, such as the recession and Elf & Safety, the real driver here is greed, pure and simple. Between the developers and their placemen in the Councils and Local Authorities, they pose an even bigger threat to aviation than that other collection of self-serving gravy-trainers in the EU and it's representatives (EASA.) The fact is that any airfield is a potential Brown Field development opportunity for those whose imagination extends little further than their bank accounts. So many airfields have gone. From virtually all of the ex-manufacturers bases, to many of the city and town airports, right down to a local level. Of those currently under threat, directly or indirectly, again, Developers are the driving factor.

Ironically, if we look back to the 1930's, before all the politically-correct numpties had got this country by the throat, every town in the country was unashamedly 'Air Minded', and they were all competing to open their own airports first. What a dismal contrast to now.....

Developers know full well, just how (Rightly) hard it is to get Planning Approval on any Green Field site. They can simply and easily drive a coach & horses through the good intentions of our Planning laws simply by use of this definition. If aviation cannot, collectively, bring pressure to bear to alter this dynamic, the Developers will kill off aviation in the UK as we know it. They have already caused huge damage. Their (Huge) profit - our (Huge) loss. Sadly, they invariably win.

The only real answer to this endemic problem is legislation. I do recall, that the otherwise singularly useless John Prescott was supposed to have been bringing in a Statute to protect dormant 'Transport Infrastructure', such as disused railways and airfields. Both of these examples exemplify how greed and short-termism can lead to much greater expense in the longer term. If it ever reached that Statute Book, it certainly doesn't seem to be having any effect....!!!

What is clearly needed is something akin to a Preservation Order, or Listed Building status, so that such land may be set aside. If this can't be achieved, then, much as the big supermarkets do, and for much the same reasons, Developers will just keep coming back again and again and again, until they have worn-down resistance. If that doesn't work, they up the bribery, much of which is quite overt. With such huge sums of money at stake, Developers show more patience than a Cheshire cat. Supermarkets hide behind the false-flag of 'Jobs', when we all know that they destroy our high streets and drive-down wages. 'One more Tesco, one more ghost town'. Similarly, Developers hide behind the false-flag of Brown Field status, when the obvious fact is, any airfield can, self-evidently, easily revert back to productive farmland almost overnight. Hundreds did quite happily after the last war, and any remaining hangars have been put to good use too.

Ideally, aviation needs a more united front. We have a rag-tag army of disparate self-interest groups, - so already divided, we are very easily conquered. The Romans knew this. The EU absolutely thrives upon it. Individually, none of our representative groups have a lot of clout. United into something approaching a single entity, we could be a force to be reckoned with. Just look at the Trade Unions for example.

If we look to the USA, their aviation scene is much more dynamic. They have created a wholly different environment where aviation, in all of it's forms is fully-valued. We may look upon their admirable dynamism, in all areas of aviation and despair.

[IO540]

I agree with all you say, GQ2, but it also seems to me that if the said airport was run sensibly, the land sharks would not be able to get in.

If I have a business which is making money (I mean real money, not accountants' money i.e. a paper profit) then my only vulnerability is product liability, and I can insure against that.

Similarly if I own my house, don't have any loans, and have enough income to pay the rates and food etc, nobody can get me. Except some legal liability (some vandal drowning in the swimming pool, etc) but again I can insure against that. Well, a divorce remains a tricky one but one doesn't have to marry ;)

But if my business owes money, cannot pay its bills, and I have a big mortgage and then lose my job, I am over the barrel and any tom dick and harry can come and shaft me.

If airfields were properly managed, with a finger-up to the H&S parasites that drive staffing through the roof (to the maximum extent possible without actually compromising one's public liability insurance), and run by real people who know how to make things work instead of reading management books and building empires, the developers would not be able to get in.

To achieve any more you would need a real change of law (basically, enabling an airfield to set up under planning conditions which preclude property development) and I don't think it is going to come. It would be tricky to do that too, because an airport needs some commercial property, not only to make ends meet but also to host maintenance businesses etc.

And if British Aerospace want to close some site there isn't anything you can do anyway, apart from making them a bigger offer...

The #1 job has to be to stop existing airports from going to the property sharks.

The #2 job would be to find ways to get a PP for a completely new runway, in the middle of nowhere. Theoretically it can be done. The PP budget would be about 100k.

[POBJOY]

The City of Plymouth is not a job rich or business rich environment and has heavily relied on its Naval/MOD connections for decades.This is not the forum to debate the effect on the local economy of the systematic reduction in MOD establishments, but in practice the reality is to be seen all to clearly as the "spin off" industries closed.
The Airport was physically to small to reinvent itself as as regional airport and was always going to be constrained by the limitations of being only available to semi/stol commercial machines.
Until it got its ILS; running a schedule service was a lottery dependant on the South West's moisture laden conditions,but this was only one of the huge outlays that a commercial operation has to pay for out of its non existent profits.Had it stayed as a grass field with a very small club and the RN flight the costs "could" have been mimimal but a City Council with all the other pressures on its finances would have difficulty in even justifying that to its local population.The simple truth is that the Airport never had a large enough club or wealthy patrons to take it on when it was affordable and by the time Brymon was on its way out land values and regulations made it an impossible task.
The French seem to have the answer with the local COC running many of the regional fields, but alas the UK does not have the mindset for that.
We should look back and give it credit for surviving as long as it did given its size and how it was instrumental in assisting "Docklands" to start up. If Plymouth City itself had been able to reinvent itself as a "Silicon City" things may have worked out different.

[GQ2]

IO540;- Yes, in an ideal world, every enterprise would be run easily at a useful profit. The problem is, aviation isn't just a business. It's a facility, it's infrastructure. Everybody want's it to be there, even if they are not currently using it, especially pilots. Expecting it to cover it's costs is one thing, expecting a huge profit from such an already expensive and devilishly complex sector is quite another. The high costs and overheads in aviation are integral, so it's got to be going-some just to even break-even. This isn't the sort of country or economic climate where we can expect state assistance either.

I agree, a good business model will go a long way to meeting a basic budget. If I look back over my lifetime however, I can see a tragically repetitive pattern to the demise and dissolution of our aeronautical assets. Developers and Local Authorities have their own agendas. They pursue their interests with scant regard for ours. In both cases they seek to profit from the huge and complex exertions of our interest group. In the case of local government, they can see the tasty prospect of hundreds of houses bringing-in much more revenue than a runway and a couple of old RAF hangars. More grist to their gilded pensions no doubt. Not that it would cloud their judgement of course....

Yes, we must prioritise the extant operation, but we are not realistically going to be able to compete simply on economic grounds. We need legislative recognition of the Infrastructure status of aerodromes. After all, most railways make very little money, but they don't have to suffer the same constant assault that aviation does...

[GQ2]

...and I might add that the railways are also heavily subsidised out of the taxpayers pocket...!