Plymouth City Airport protected til 2021!

[WOWBOY]

Today the City Council passed the notion of safeguarding Plymouth City Airport from development til 2021, with possibility of increasing til 2031. They are protecting it as long as legally possible. And also are lobbying to Central Government to make it a national asset and state ownership. This would make it easier to take the lease away from SHH.

I think its the first step in a long path that will hopefully see PLH reopen :) Very happy today, the airport should never have closed and was run down with the intention of development.

There are people with backing who want to take the airport on, its the lease that has become the problem :). The city is fighting for its Airport and im dam proud they are!

[robin]

Any chance of GA returning as an unlicenced facility?

The developers must be wetting themselves as it will put quite a blight on the houses. Anyone looking to buy a new housewould not be expecting to be next to an active airfield.

Interesting ...

[WOWBOY]

Yes well its there own fault! They shouldn't have held up the other side of the bargain. I would guess GA would be welcome.


Here is more info and a video:

Councillors vote to make airport a national asset | Westcountry - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2012-09-24/re-open-plymouth-airport-demand-campaigners-as-council-prepares-to-debate-its-future/)

[davidjohnson6]

While I understand that the council is not likely to grant planning permission for redevelopment any time soon, at what stage does this week's motion become enforceable in any way and what exactly is the legal impact ? I'm trying to decide if this is just hand-wringing for votes or if it means anything would really happen

[Heathrow Harry]

The developers will appeal and will almost certainly win

They can point out the commercial history of the airport and the need for housing etc etc

[racedo]

It may be protected from development but doesn't stop the digging up of the runway and taxiway does it ?

It could be a Pyrrhic victory unless there are real plans to develop it with the cash.

A desire for having an airport is good but not convinced local tax payers may feel the same way if they have to pay for it when services elsewhere being cut.

[paully]

Is there an election due soon by any chance :ugh:

[devonish]

rumour here in plymouth, is that stobarts are going to be the backers of viable. that would be a game changer!

[PlymouthPixie]

Just had the elections paully.

Plymouth Airport will be back, I can assure you that...;)

Interesting comment devonish, very interesting indeed :D

[JSCL]

rumour here in plymouth, is that stobarts are going to be the backers of viable. that would be a game changer!

If Stobart have involvement in any way (which I would remain speculative about), it will not be as you word it. It will be a StobartAir operation no doubt a PLH-SEN flight will be involved if that is the case and I can see VIABLE being established as a check and balance by the council to ensure the airport is being operated as it should and to act as 'Governors' of the lease. But I don't think StobartAir has the cash at the moment. They've had to have a heck of a lot of external funding outside of Stobart to develop Southend. The cash just isn't there. (Would LOVE to be proven wrong).

Good luck to all at Plymouth.

[GROUNDHOG]

If the 37000 people that have signed the petition are so confident the airport is a future profitable business why not stick a hundred quid in each and bingo you have £3.7 million. Better yet stick in a grand each, form a company and all become shareholders and you could buy Newquay as well!

Suddenly I think that 37000 might become a handful.

[Aero Mad]

Will willingly put £100 in through a debenture to be paid when a suitable and pre-arranged amount of capital has been pledged.

[ATP_Al]

Count me in as well!

It will take time, but PLH will open again and this is a big step in the right direction.

Well done to viable and everyone who has signed the petition.

[Pain in the R's]

If Stobart have involvement in any way (which I would remain speculative about), it will not be as you word it. It will be a StobartAir operation no doubt a PLH-SEN flight

Passengers want to fly to London and not just to another coastal airport. Far better to use a real London Airport.

[SWBKCB]

Which one do you suggest could support a commercial service using the aircraft types which could operate from a re-opened PLH?

As I understand it, the largest is an Atr-42 (or weight restricted Atr-72), so I think SEN (or possibly STN at a stretch) is the best that can be hoped for.

[PlymouthPixie]

SWBKCB, the first step before any commercial services would be a runway extension alowing the airport to handle Embraer 190's, so larger aircraft could be used to the capital or farther afield than the ones you suggest.

[Expressflight]

I don't want to be a killjoy but I really cannot see Stobart becoming involved. Surely they have enough on their plate at the moment with continued investment at SEN (the terminal extension) and a large sum needed to redevelop CAX as per the recently granted planning consent. They would need the support of institutional investors if they wanted to add a third airport to their portfolio and I doubt that would be forthcoming.

If they have any spare cash, which I doubt, they would more likely use it to support Aer Arann's ATR-72 re-equipment plans as that would be of direct benefit to both SEN and CAX.

[Phileas Fogg]

Regardless of the complexities of any runway extension at PLH just how the hell is one going to fill an Embraer 190 when PLH could barely fill a 50 seater without combining it with NQY?

[PlymouthPixie]

You've answered your own question Phileas, via Newquay. Passengers didn't want a 15minute flight plus 15minutes on the ground before even heading towards Gatwick.

Besides, Plymouth only had a number of allocated seats, the other alocations where PAX from Newquay to Gatwick and PAX from Gatwick to Newquay that where already on the aircraft at Plymouth. This left about 20 seats for Plymouth. There have been dozens of reports where people couldn't book because of a lack of seats across their entire network due to this arrangement.

[Phileas Fogg]

Pixie,

And in the days when PLH had direct services to/from LGW the route was operated by a DHC6 and with average load factors of some 50-60%, 10-12 punters per 20 seater aircraft.

The successful route was NQY to/from LHR operated by a HPR7 with average load factors of some 70%, 35 punters per 50 seater aircraft, punters don't actually want to go to/from an airport in the West Sussex countryside, they want to travel to/from LHR where they can connect worldwide and preferably on a codeshare such as the codeshare Brymon had with BA.

Then they combined the successful NQY route with PLH, average loads to/from PLH less than 25 punters per flight, then BA 'stole' the LHR slots forcing ASW to an airport in the West Sussex countryside and the rest is history, or so one thought, but now some bright spark has come up with an idea to spend millions lengthening PLH's runway to operate 100 seater jets to accommodate previous load factors of less than 25 punters per flight.

Or have I missed something? :)

[GROUNDHOG]

Great guys, only got to get the other 36998 people on board and the deal is cracked! No Phileas that about covers it.

[Aero Mad]

punters don't actually want to go to/from an airport in the West Sussex countrysideWith all due respect, I think this view is somewhat outdated. Without wishing to get onto the merits of LGW too much here, you are 30 minutes from Central London and have a increasingly wide range of international connections available. However, obviously codeshares would be useful and BA/Brymon was always a good way to ensure this in the past.

Also, the figures you quote regarding bums on seats are somewhat dated. We know that since the 1970s/1980s the commercial aviation industry has grown hugely - fares have come down and traveller numbers have gone up. This can only be reflected by more patrons of any PLH - LON service.

I would be confident in a SEN service working out on ATR 42s, Dash 8-300s or Jetstream 31s/41s. Door-to-door from Plymouth would be 45 minutes check-in, 45 minute flight, 10 minutes to pick up luggage and then 52 minutes to Liverpool Street - total is 2h32m, compared to an average of 3h20m by train. Given that train fares aren't cheap (to say the least), this could probably work pretty well.

[PlymouthPixie]

I'm not saying a 100 seater would be used on a London service - i'm mearly describing the potential a runway extension could serve in Plymouth with the type of destinations you could offer.

The Viable plan is to set up a Plymouth - Stansted & Plymouth - Manchester service using 2, 19 seat, Jetstream 32 aircraft.

Without the Newquay connection and the cost of landing fees at Gatwick, that route would certainly be Viable. Runway extension or no extension - Viable have the figures, the aviation experts who've been involved in aviation for years, both in Plymouth and Worldwide.

The Council quite rightly pointed out this week that we've got to stop living in the past and concentrate on the present and future.

[robin]

... and to start letting GA use the airfield??

[Phileas Fogg]

AeroMad,

The punters that normally take flights normally take flights to, as near as damn it, their final destination, very few take a flight first to then connect with a train, a bus, a boat or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, having grown up in Croydon LGW is not only in my old stomping ground but my commercial aviation career commenced at LGW back in the 70's so, if anything, I've got a soft spot for the old place but LGW simply doesn't provide the connections LHR does so to/from LGW is would neccesitate a coach around the M25 wkith journey times often oimpossible to predict, the coach might be scheduled as 1hr 15mins but best allow 3hrs!

Pixie,

As with my previous career and soft spot for LGW in a previous life I also had a career at PLH, I have many fond memories of times at PLH not forgetting the early evening cricket matches whereas the old runway 06/24 served as the 4/6 boundary and the controller would wave from his pink control tower if we needed to stop hitting balls across the runway due to an inbound aircraft. :)

PLH/MAN should work because MAN is the UK's 2nd airport for business connections, punters can route PLH/MAN to connect with the mainstream carriers worldwide, far moreso than they can from LGW.

But STN ..... Nope, punters would be flying over London to reach Bishops Stortford Regional Airport, unless they are connecting with a LoCo they'd then need to catch a coach or a less than fast train in to London, then if they're continuing their journey by air they need to, invariably, get across to LHR by whatever means.

There is such a thing as the 'buggeration factor' whereas a punter calculates costs versus times etc. to/from PLH and LHR before deciding "Bugger it, I'll take a hire car, a train or a coach, it simply isn't worth all the buggering around".

A LON service needs to be to/from LHR but with slots literally impossible to come by then it's not going to happen.

[Expressflight]

I tend to agree with Phileas and cannot see either STN or SEN cutting the mustard as a LON arrival point. Most travellers will surely continue to use the train from Plymouth if anywhere in Greater London is their final destination. Getting from either STN or SEN to LHR for onward connections is a total non-starter and there is absolutely no chance of getting LHR slots.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "A LON service needs to be to/from LHR but with slots literally impossible to come by then it's not going to happen."

Exactly, another reason why LHR needs more rwy capacity! It is vitally important for smaller UK airports to have adequate connectivity with LHR, indeed, their viability can depend on it (MME for example).

In the absence of LHR expansion, NHT could be used for non-trunk domestic routes. It would, of course, need an efficient surface link (non-stop bus?) link to LHR.

With its already excellent links to London, no-frills and charter business could operate out of NHT as well, making it a viable small regional airport in its own right, rather than the barmy idea of it being LHR's "third rwy".

Good luck PLH, hope it goes well!

[PlymouthPixie]

Yes robin, most certainly GA, the conversation here has always been around the commercial aspect, so lets shed a little light on other aspects.

Plymouth Airport isn't just a necessity for commercial services, does it need them? Ofcourse it does, but there's a variety of other factors at play here which, in the not to distant future could cause Plymouth to take a rapid down turn.

For many years, the airport has housed the FOST section of the Royal Navy in Plymouth, using 2 Dauphins to provide ship to shore movements with near 25 flights a day. As a consequnce, FOST has had to relocate Newquay meaning that staff and pilots face a 50minute trip to pick up the chopper, before flying back to HMS Raleigh to pick up the personnel. FOST is currently on the barebones of operation, with many staff having left to find alternative employment, the FOST flying unit won't keep going, as it is for much longer.

FOST overall, aside from the flying section is a huge part of the dockyard and without it would face yet another nail in the coffin and yet another reason to close down and move operations to pompy.

Devon and Cornwall Air Ambulance/Police has said closure of the airport will place restrictions on its operations around Derriford which is now the major trauma centre for the South West. Night flights has become impossible as will landings while the helipad is occupied and helicopters will no longer be able to refuel near Derriford or receive METARS local weather information.

Search and Rescue helicopters make use of the Airport. It is the only suitable local facility for the large rescue helicopters. These are vital for divers suffering from decompression and makes hyperbaric operations at Derriford more difficult, so far there have been several cases where divers have been flown to Poole late at night after 30 minutes of searching for a suitable landing site in Plymouth.

Transplant organs are regularly flown into Plymouth by fixed wing for operations at Derriford. Rail and road do not offer the same ability to get organs here from as far away as Scotland, this has ceased since the closure of the airport.

Plymouth has had an active Flying school here for many years training pilots and opening aviation to many. This is all part of the quality of life offering from Plymouth.

Aviation engineering services have employed people at Plymouth for decades. Plymouth offers a good low cost competitive venue to attract new businesses.

General Aviation is a large user of Plymouth bringing with it users of hotels, restaurants, bars and the marinas. The loss of this community and facility would reduce Plymouth's attraction to many interested in the South West.

[robin]

Quite. And as an ex-user of the airfield to visit family and friends, I'd certainly like to do so again as soon as possible.

It doesn't need a lot of infrastructure, just for the owners/operators to say yes. It doesn't even need to be licenced reducing the operating costs, but the sooner this happens the sooner the message will get out that the airfield is back in business.

[Heathrow Harry]

Mr Fogg wrote:-

"And in the days when PLH had direct services to/from LGW the route was operated by a DHC6 and with average load factors of some 50-60%, 10-12 punters per 20 seater aircraft.

The successful route was NQY to/from LHR operated by a HPR7 with average load factors of some 70%, 35 punters per 50 seater aircraft, "

you know neither of those numbers looks like the basis for a successful commercial operation

the train to London takes 3 - 3.5 hours - you don't save any time by plane & the hassle is awful - unless you are interconnecting

Even then either the bus from Reading or the Express from Paddington to LHR are relatively easy add-ons

[Aero Mad]

Heathrow Harry, I refer you to post #22 (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/496395-plymouth-city-airport-protected-til-2021-a-2.html#post7434069) where I have already addressed these points in some detail. There is a significant time-saving, and the guarantee of a seat on the service! The trains are reasonably expensive, take longer and are often overcrowded. I remain confident that there would be demand for a service from Plymouth to London

[Phileas Fogg]

HH,

Precisely, the DHC6 LGW service barely paid for itself and once Air UK pulled off the EXT/LGW route Brymon jumped at the opportunity to operate PLH/EXT/LGW picking up/dropping off a mere 2 or 3 pax in EXT on the way thru.

The NQY/LHR HPR7 route was profit making, 70% (ish) load factors on those kind of airfares was a good load factor, BMA had operated the HPR7 route before Brymon, alas Brymon part exchanged the HPR7 towards the purchase of 4 DHC7's (2 for ABZ, 1 for PLH and 1 for NQY), PLH and NQY services were only supposed to be combined for one season and until the 4th DHC7 arrived but the 4th DHC7 never did arrive and services remained combined for nigh on the next 30 years!

[GROUNDHOG]

When comparing the train with flying on business trips, especially day returns an important factor and advantage of the train is that if a meeting or your day over runs there is normally a later one.

I have done a lot of research on this, although the journey may be a little longer many business travellers also feel they can work on the train which they cannot on a short flight.

It isn't quite as simple as just comparing journey times and a few pounds on the cost.

[WOWBOY]

People here saying the airport cant support air services? Well if the airport was in 2009 UK's Fastest growing airport and merely a year later becomes unviable then something is up. The problem with Air Southwest was that they combined and restricted the number of seats, i recall people saying "well your sat around and stop in newquay for half an hour" its easier to go to Exeter.


The Glasgow, Manchester and London routes were really popular. And the reason they didn't attract more people over the years is because they started putting the price up. I have also heard reports of SHH actually refusing Landing slots to airlines but i am not sure whether this is true or not.

Aer Araan said with an expanded runway they would operate from the airport, however this was back in 2008/9.

Was the combinabtion with NQY actually something to do with Fuel Load?

[JSCL]

I have also heard reports of SHH actually refusing Landing slots to airlines but i am not sure whether this is true or not.

Don't think PLH was ever slot controlled? If an airline is prepared to pay the list fees outlined in the schedule, it's not up to SHH who they do/don't want. The now ex airport manager was very much pro-expansion and pro-Savin the airport, but SHH didn't want it. It's up to the airport manager to decide who does/doesn't land ultimately.

I understand great hate in spotters for SHH but please, no need for "BS rumours" for the sake of damaging a company.

[robin]

Certainly Plymouth had a bit of a reputation amongst GA for being a bit above themselves. It was never a welcoming destination, and the security was seriously over the top.

[WOWBOY]

Nobody has made up rumours!!!! It was in reference to something heard many years ago. Circ 2008!

[jabird]

If PLH can be reborn for everything but CA, then good luck to them, but our experience here suggests it is needed, not just because of the handling fees, but also due to increase fuel uplift, and the major add-ons like parking, even a hotel was talked of here (now getting nearby as part of other development).

As for commercial? I seriously think you are pushing it, but I wish you lujck.

Two big killers - firstly, double dip APD really hurts in the pockets of the discretionary travellers you need to fill the seats, and this is before you consider an additional user fee (NQY style).

Secondly, as groundhog has already pointed out, the train is always going to win hands down on frequency, and sheer number of seats.

Comparing walk up rail fares, used by 2% of pax, with air is simply not telling the whole picture. It is also untrue to say you won't get a seat. There are numerous ways regular rail passengers will use to get a seat virtually every time, and for the higher yielding pax you'd need to attract, this includes going first class, aswell as reserving ahead. Not to forget that most trains to London get busier as they approach the capital - so board at Plymouth and you should get a seat, in the unlikely event you don't, stand in the middle of the carriage until Exeter where there is always some offload.

Given the way the modern aviation system works, most people will prefer to be treated like cattle on a busy train, knowing they can turn up most times of day, rather than go through airport screening for a cattle class airline seat on flights which realistically won't be operating more than 3x daily rotations.

total is 2h32m, compared to an average of 3h20m by train

That really is a very small difference. People tend to lock in to the fastest times, in this case 3h dead on, so even if the distance is less, we're talking similar times to Paris-Marseille, where the train still wins the lion's share of the market, despite going against a shuttle service that offers more departures in an hour than this route will in a day, and which offers global connections through CDG.

Viable have the figures, the aviation experts who've been involved in aviation for years, both in Plymouth and Worldwide.

And who have been brought on to make the case, so they'll play the best hand. I suggest that between the various commentators on this thread, there is more than enough expertise to say that PLH as a commercial airport is distinctly un-VIABLE.

The successful route was NQY to/from LHR operated by a HPR7 with average load factors of some 70%

Look how even NQY is struggling today, despite being up against a FAR worse rail service. What yields are the airlines getting at NQY? Is NQY even really viable?

One final thing to remember if you don't want to take what myself and others here are saying. Take a trip into Paddington, then pop over to Euston. What difference do you notice between the two train types - (not the superficial difference in age / traction)?

Now come back and tell me that yields for a PLH to London Parkway Airport service will still be viable.

[Cyrano]

People here saying the airport cant support air services? Well if the airport was in 2009 UK's Fastest growing airport and merely a year later becomes unviable then something is up.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if you are going to argue, at least do so with reasonable evidence. If I run Little Fotherington Airfield with a total of 10 scheduled passengers in 2010 and it gets 100 passengers the next year it'll have 900% growth year-on-year and be the UK's fastest growing airport. That says precisely nothing about whether the routes or the airport are sustainable. Go back and look at Manston's year-on-year growth when EUJet launched if you like - I'd say they were high up the growth stakes that year, just off a very low base.

As a general point, I am just not convinced by some of the numbers used by the pro-PLH campaigners. Again, this is not having a pop at anyone, but airline economics is my business and I would find the argument for Plymouth much more convincing if it were based on a sounder economic case. For example, here (http://www.viable.org.uk/archives/the-figures-just-dont-add-up/)'s an analysis by VIABLE from a couple of months back which purports to show that a £10 Airport Development Fee would have made PLH profitable. The problem is that they assume that increasing the cost of a flight by £10 has zero impact on demand, i.e. that demand for air travel to/from Plymouth is completely price-inelastic. Hmm.:rolleyes:

[jabird]

which purports to show that a £10 Airport Development Fee would have made PLH profitable. The problem is that they assume that increasing the cost of a flight by £10 has zero impact on demand, i.e. that demand for air travel to/from Plymouth is completely price-inelastic

Well at least the £10 is only charged on the outbound. Then again, which arrival airport were we coming into? Not LHR or LCY (in travelcard zones) - so add a good £8 each way for the airport shuttle.

Now the starter fare to Paddington is just £13 - £3 more than the user fee, which is on top of the PSC and APD, all being vatable if the Lib Dem MPs that might say they back the airport get their way.

Now NQY is a totally different ball game - the earliest and fastest train still takes just over 5hrs, arriving after 3pm, great for a day's business! And NQY still struggles!

[Phileas Fogg]

(Was the combinabtion with NQY actually something to do with Fuel Load? )

WOWBOY,

The combination with NQY was, originally, due to an airframe equipment shortage due to a tightening of purse strings and then, clearly, beancounters being allowed to call the shots rather than clear and sound commercial sense.

Brymon's maintenance approvals and ratings were DHC (De Havilland Canada) for DHC products, initially the DHC6, then the DHC7 and finally the DHC8, when ASW took over they merely took over the existing maintenance approvals.

The optimum sized airaft for PLH's catchment area would be between 18 and 36 seats but the next available upgrade from the 19/20 seater DHC6 came the 50 seater DHC7 hence services became combined, the original DHC8 was a 36 seater but by then a combined 50 seater market had been recognised, the beancounters loved it, 2 pilots are cheaper than 4 pilots to employ, 2 engines are cheaper than 4 engines to maintain etc. etc. etc. and over the course of some 30 years the beancounters successfully p1ssed off so many punters that, apparently, both the airline and the airport became unviable.

Besides the original 36 Seater DHC8 DHC didn't make an optimum product to, seperately, serve PLH and NQY, at a point in time Brymon, or ASW, could have opted to replace their DHC products with Dorniers, ATR's, BAe Jetstreams or whatever but that's where the beancounters would have come in, the larger the aircraft the cheaper per seat it is to operate, why would we want to trade in our 50 seaters for lesser equipments? ..... Because, just perhaps, it's what the punters want or they ain't travelling with your airline!

I made a comment on pPrune some years ago regarding beancounters (accountants) ruining the industry and others spoke up, flaming me, in support of the beancounters however an airline needs to provide what the public are prepared to travel on, this takes commercial knowledge, customer relations etc. to establish and it won't, and never shall, be established by a beancounter sitting behind his/her abacus!

[jabird]

it won't, and never shall, be established by a beancounter sitting behind his/her abacus!

Surely the abacus shifters must have worked out that a London shuttle needs to run on a strict ptp basis, otherwise the whole thing becomes far less attractive, especially given that the rail option has so much more frequency.

Would they not have fare data showing that the double dip option meant significantly lower yields?

[Phileas Fogg]

They even built a runway specifically for the DHC8.

PLH's original tarmac runnways were 06/24 & 12/30, 06/24 couldn't be extended and on the 12/30 heading they couldn't extend enough to accommodate DHC8's thus they realigned building runway 13/31.

Watched a Caravelle do a touch and go on the old, half tarmac half grass, runway 30 one day ... that was an interesting sight to see :)

[WOWBOY]

A little update on PLH.....

The council sent the signatures and 400+ letters to Downing Street. And a surprising response to the petition is that a transport minister is coming down to talk speciffically about and to visit the airport in January 2013. I assume this can only be good news. They wouldn't waste effort getting down here if it was a flat out no get stuffed kinda response. Fingers crossed for this one

[Phileas Fogg]

Just to talk and not until next January?

Yep, they're really taking this seriously, surely the sooner the airport may re-open, before people begin to forget there ever was an airport and/or they lose faith of any re-opening, the better, the minister is really pulling his finger out for this one!

"They wouldn't waste effort getting down here"

Mmmm, has it never been heard of for MP's to milk and/or fiddle their expenses! :)

[Aero Mad]

Probably why he said 'effort' and not 'money'.

The people of Plymouth will take a little while to forget their airport. Even if it were to reopen in five years time, they would still have an inkling that it had existed and local press hype (repeated front pages on the Herald etc.) would probably be such that they certainly wouldn't be able to avoid knowing about the reopening.

So we shall see. But it certainly hasn't been too long since it closed to reopen it.

[Akrotiri bad boy]

Whilst I was waiting for the Akro Chariot to be serviced I thought I'd take a stroll around the perimeter. I wish I hadn't, I knew I shouldn't, but I couldn't help it and now I know I'm just going to have to RANT!

I stood on the rather uninspiringly named "Runway Road" and looked down the length of the shorter runway. The "development" done here is nothing but spiteful damage and is shocking to behold. The road bisects the runway with housing developments at either end. The tallest of the buildings in each case is smack on the centreline. I know the developer was expected to provide a new access road to the terminal; but right across the airfield!

The government, local and central, has made it clear that no public money is available, fair enough. However if a private enterprise is willing to invest then where's the problem? I think it's today that we "celebrate" 50 years since the erroneous Beeching report was produced. Revisionists have pointed out that the aim then was to promote journeys by private means. However that was then, today we all know it is entirely the opposite and all forms of public/mass transport should be positively encouraged. And yet here I am staring down the disused runway of a perfectly viable airport.

There is currently an impasse between freeholders, leaseholders and aspirant operators. The crux of the problem appears to be an "Armageddon" clause written into the existing lease agreement. For those involved in this secretive agreement the truth will prevail and then......, it's belts off trousers down and by George it's going to smart!

Nurse?, Nurse! Quickly, bring me my TABLETS!

[WOWBOY]

There is often much misconception, especially here in plymouth that the aiport has gone or is being built on.

But found this picture taken this week that shows its still there, looking a sad state :(. I have faith it will reopen, the opinion is slowly changing in favour of "plymouth needs its airport" and the longer SHH are left with it, more likely they are to sell up. As they are refusing to sell as an airport :(.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=429491840480930&set=a.429491107147670.1073741827.429443777152403&type=1

[davidjohnson6]

With the railway line at Dawlish closed for at least a month and quite possibly longer, how feasible is it to set up a temporary air service between Plymouth and maybe Luton or Gatwick, at least until trains are running normally ?

I'm aware that Govt cannot normally tell the private sector what to do and there are multiple legal risk of getting too deeply involved, but Govt often has all sorts of reserve powers for emergencies. Presumably the CAA can do things on a temporary basis it wouldn't do normally if there is political desire at a very high level.

[tibbs87]

Would be a good idea, but I thought they had stripped the airport of it's facilities i.e. control tower functions, runway lights, nav equipment, unless they can source temporary equipment?

[oldpax]

As a regular user of the airport(when it was open!)from 1978 up I always enjoyed the service it provided to get me to work.Now I am retired I come to plymouth less often only to see family.This entails leaving heathrow either to Reading and the train and last time my wife and I stood all the way(it was friday),as a pensioner I find this inexscusable by the rail company on safety grounds.Going by coach now takes almost five hours !Returning to london ,if you leave before 0900 you pay premium prices and going by coach then you must use the "red eye"special to get there early!Please ,please open the airport again!!!

[Groundloop]

and last time my wife and I stood all the way(it was friday),as a pensioner

All trains have "priority seats" that must be vacated for people who need to sit down. Did you try finding one of those?

[rog747]

FGW issue a priority seat card too so you can show that

[trafficnotsighted]

Although all the ATC equipment is still in place exactly a per the day it shut. There is no way it could open up on a temporary basis because of the work involved in getting the CAA regulations and approvals and not to mention getting staff and training them. So that is a non starter.