Sheffield City Airport Petition [Archive]

pug

29th Nov 2012, 20:57

The FSB started up the petition, if you think they are in the wrong or naive then I suggest you contact them. Is it possible that they may know more than me or you on the matter, being quite a large organisation and all?

Ive already mentioned one person who approached Peel with an offer.

Last ditch bid to save Sheffield city airport - Local Business - Sheffield Telegraph (http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/business/local-business/last-ditch-bid-to-save-sheffield-city-airport-1-5041423)

Is it in the Sheffield tax payers best interest for the airport to be sold for £1.00 for it to be redeveloped to great benefit of the developer? Are you another one suggesting that airports should turn a profit over night, or that business routes can establish themselves over night? If that were the case then I can think of a number of airports that should be closed by now.

My point. They are petitioning for an independent public enquiry before the runway is dug up. Something that should have been done years ago, particularly as alot of public money was invested in the scheme. I appologise if I'm not being clear, I'm not saying that the airport was/is definately viable, but that there should be an impartial enquiry into the matter. Its very easy for a property developer to prove the operation non viable if they have other (more profitable) ideas for the site.

ShyTorque

29th Nov 2012, 21:05

They should re-open it as a heliport. It's ideally placed as it sits about halfway up the country.

Groundloop

30th Nov 2012, 07:26

They are petitioning for an independent public enquiry

And public enquiries cost the PUBLIC money. So they are asking for more public money to be poured down the drain at a time of cutbacks.

If they think there is a strong case for the airport to be reopend they should have the courage of their convictions and club together and make Peel an offer they can't refuse.

paully

30th Nov 2012, 07:42

Public Enquiries are money pits for lawyers...I bet there`s one beavering away behind the scenes on this one..

pug

30th Nov 2012, 17:20

If they think there is a strong case for the airport to be reopend they should have the courage of their convictions and club together and make Peel an offer they can't refuse.

Not read the links I've posted then? I still havent found the original link to the story of the local millionaire businessman who had attempted to talk to Peel re. a takeover and was unsiccessful in even getting a response.

It may be just me, but I find that some people on here are all too happy to dismiss something they have a clear lack of knowledge of, without even bothering to do their own research beyond a quick glance at wikipedia.

BKS Air Transport

1st Dec 2012, 21:09

Ok, so the FSB start by comparing the airport to London City and its 3m pasengers. Naive on two counts

1. Runway length. London City's runway is 23% longer. Very significant.
2. Comparing Sheffield's potential passenger catchment profile with London City's is nonsensical. The same goes for their attempt to compare their situation with Toronto.

They want to hold up development of the site whilst an expensive public enquiry is held. Are they offering to pay for it? No. Are they offering to subsidise an operational airport if they get their way? No.

Which MP's are supporting it? Is the council supporting it?

Size of an organistion is no guarantee of common sense.

Will I write to the FSB and tell them this? No. I will content myself by not signing their petition, and having a wry smile when it ends up where it belongs.

I do tend to support the view that Sheffield is held back by a lack of suitable aviation links at present, but Robin Hood is the way forward.

TimmyW

2nd Dec 2012, 09:35

Exactly. DSA is a short journey away - why not begin business traffic from there if there is a need for it?

Mickey Kaye

2nd Dec 2012, 10:07

From a GA perspective Finningly is simply too expensive. The handling charge for a 172 is 78 quid and thus the place is dead. There is also a fair swell of opinion that once Peel has got the council to pay for all the roads to be redeveloped the place will close and morph into industrial units as well.

Nottingham Tollerton exists yet EMA only 12 miles away. So it can be done. You also only have to look at some where like Staverton which appears to be going from strength to strength and I would say Sheffield has a much larger population.

But then that’s missing the point the place was doomed from the moment it was sold for a quid with the proviso that it can be redeveloped after 10 years.

TimmyW

2nd Dec 2012, 10:31

Peel don't own the majority now do they though?

Although, I do share the opinion, that unless there is a change at DSA soon, it will cease to be.

pug

2nd Dec 2012, 10:54

I do tend to support the view that Sheffield is held back by a lack of suitable aviation links at present, but Robin Hood is the way forward.

BBC Radio Sheffield - Rony Robinson, Robin Hood Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010r6p9)

I take it that someone credible wanted to buy the airport is inconveniant to your argument?

TimmyW

2nd Dec 2012, 14:20

pug - what is your agenda against DSA?

Seems there is suddenly some overhwhelming need for Sheffield to have an airport on its doorstep, yet those moaning about it are unaware (or unwilling to remember) that one is already in spitting distance up the M18.

Is it the fact that it doesn't lie within the Sheffield boundaries that is the sticking point with some folk? Certainly appears so. If there is such demand, then just operate the flights from DSA.

pug

2nd Dec 2012, 15:45

I have no agenda against DSA, but it seems a strange accusation for you to make Timmy considering your posting history.

Ive said enough on here anyway, its interesting that the FSB petition is generating discussion and I suppose thats half the point of it.

jabird

5th Dec 2012, 03:49

refuse the then airport director £5000 to advertise a new route to Billund, yet at the same time expect him to turn the airport around. So many of our elected representatives have escaped from toy town and are best suited to chastising Noddy for driving too fast!

Well they should have been sent back to Billund (also a city airport if you count all that plastic) Toyland International to look after the driving school then!

Not sure one route to a remote Danish village with a seasonal tourist attraction is quite the best way to "turn round" an airport, but it does at least have plenty of models of other destinations to think about!

The FSB started up the petition, if you think they are in the wrong or naive then I suggest you contact them.

Well they are the FSB, not the FLB.

Is it in the Sheffield tax payers best interest for the airport to be sold for £1.00 for it to be redeveloped to great benefit of the developer?

It is a simple question of accounting. You are making the assumption that the site starts off having a positive present value. Airports as going concerns have huge operational costs, so even if the land does have value, better get rid of the thing for £1 than run a loss making airport for donkeys years - which I can assure you never happened at CVT!

The other challenge is that even if the land might be developed, the site might still need a huge clean up job, and any planning application could be subject to hefty Section 106 (planning gain) clauses.

jabird

5th Dec 2012, 04:10

after it was stolen from the council tax payer.

It wasn't stolen. It was bought for £1, with a whole load of clauses attached. So if someone buys a house for £1, spends a huge amount of time and effort doing it up, and then sells it on for a profit a thief too?

Hopefully one day there might be some money around to get it going again

Business doesn't work on hopefully and one day. Either there is a business case to do something, in which case someone can give it a go, or there isn't. Even in the case of the former, having a business case and executing it are two different things.

It would be of great benefit to the Advanced Manufacturing Park which is developing apace across the road.

Airports don't develop for the sake of a few industrial units. For routes to succeed, they need volume, and they also need that volume to generate the right yields. If a very large bank was moving its whole operations to Sheffield, then it might be slightly different.

- there's a rail line right next to it so it would be easy to add to the tram network.

No it wouldn't. Rail systems are far more than just a case of linking bits of metal. You need to ensure system compatibility and, like the airport itself, you need a business case.

Firstly, branch lines into airports tend to get built when the airport hits somewhere around the 5-20m pax pa mark, clearly well outside the scope of what's been talked about.

Secondly, even if the airport was busy enough, you'd have to take a branch of at Carbrook, thus watering down the service to Meadowhall. Now let's work this one out - serve a thriving (albeit horrid) shopping centre or a tiny airport?

More to the point, rail is the biggest reason why the airport isn't going to work here. The most important destination regional airports want is London, but London is just too close. PLH nose dived when it lost the LGW route. For all their flaws, trains started from 3 hours PLH-Paddington.

Sheffield to London trains aren't the best either - they are no quicker than Manchester or Leeds to London, but you do have an hourly headway on the faster services, and overall two trains per hour.

So the plane can't win on overall journey time or frequency to London, and this isn't a loco facility so you can't take the trains on over cost either.

So I'm with groundloop on this one.

Aero Mad

5th Dec 2012, 07:07

It wasn't stolen. It was bought for £1, with a whole load of clauses attached. So if someone buys a house for £1, spends a huge amount of time and effort doing it up, and then sells it on for a profit a thief too?

If someone buys a housing estate for £1 in an area in need of housing and then spends a huge amount of time and effort doing it up into a leisure centre, that would be pretty close to stealing. I'd say scr:mad:wing the public purse over by getting land for £1 and then turning into something very, very profitable is pretty much stealing because the asset was probably worth significantly more than £1 in the first place. Either way, the money for a link road which had to be spent on condition of an airport being in operation was more-or-less stolen because that airport is not in operation.

Business doesn't work on hopefully and one day. Either there is a business case to do something, in which case someone can give it a go, or there isn't. Even in the case of the former, having a business case and executing it are two different things.

Perhaps you're not in business, but I'm afraid you aren't quite right here. We happen to be in the biggest economic crisis since WWII, which means many investment projects have been put on hold until there will be enough capital available and market demand to make them worthwhile again. Demand isn't fixed when real incomes are decreasing.

Airports don't develop for the sake of a few industrial units. For routes to succeed, they need volume, and they also need that volume to generate the right yields. If a very large bank was moving its whole operations to Sheffield, then it might be slightly different.

The city of Sheffield is not composed 'of a few industrial units' as you might patronisingly suggest. The population is almost 0.6m, having grown significantly since KLM had its great success at SZD in the late 1990s (as you know, their SZD-AMS route was the most successful start-up they had ever experienced) and was then forced to leave due to lack of radar and safety concerns. Demand is there but we see from DSA's chronic lack of business-orientated routes it isn't well placed to take advantage of such demand. Next year, KLM will be operating MSE-AMS and not DSA-AMS! Does that not seem the most ludicrous decision when the population of the whole of East Kent is only slightly larger than that of the city of Sheffield alone?

No it wouldn't. Rail systems are far more than just a case of linking bits of metal. You need to ensure system compatibility and, like the airport itself, you need a business case.

Firstly, branch lines into airports tend to get built when the airport hits somewhere around the 5-20m pax pa mark, clearly well outside the scope of what's been talked about.

Secondly, even if the airport was busy enough, you'd have to take a branch of at Carbrook, thus watering down the service to Meadowhall. Now let's work this one out - serve a thriving (albeit horrid) shopping centre or a tiny airport?

London-Southend's station, opened when it had only a few thousand passengers every month going through, seems to be doing pretty well? Southampton only has small regional jets and similarly has a successful little railway station. Don't get me wrong, I understand it would be difficult in practical terms but in principle there doesn't seem too much wrong.

Sheffield to London trains aren't the best either - they are no quicker than Manchester or Leeds to London, but you do have an hourly headway on the faster services, and overall two trains per hour.

So the plane can't win on overall journey time or frequency to London, and this isn't a loco facility so you can't take the trains on over cost either.

Until HS2 opens in 2033 between Sheffield and London, I'm not sure a true case can be made about time-saving by rail. Smaller airports require less time for check-in/security (like LCY) so I would envisage some benefit by travelling by air. Frankly, though, the world doesn't entirely revolve around London and we should also be looking at flights to other cities like Amsterdam as already mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, in its current shape the airport just won't work. But if they cared to extend the runway a little and put in the necessary investment as Stobart has at Southend then they could see healthy returns.

Cyrano

5th Dec 2012, 09:24

Don't get me wrong, in its current shape the airport just won't work. But if they cared to extend the runway a little and put in the necessary investment as Stobart has at Southend then they could see healthy returns.

If someone develops SZD as an airport again, extending the runway, installing navaids, and so on, they could aspire to attracting some regional services, perhaps AMS and DUB. I'm not sure what other routes are going to be economically feasible for airlines - there are fewer and fewer regional carriers around, certainly fewer than when SZD was operating, and those that survive are becoming increasingly risk-averse (for obvious reasons!). So there wouldn't be a large range of possible airline candidates to serve those routes - the list would be pretty short, and if either the guys in blue or the guys in green said "no", the airport business case would be somewhat impaired.

Forgive me for saying it, but that doesn't seem like a lot of return on what would be at the very least several million pounds of investment.

Given the prospective shortage of runway capacity in the southeast, I'm not sure that the comparison with Southend is entirely valid.

And the question which I still have in my mind: if there is indeed a demand for these services from the local area (which I'm perfectly prepared to accept), then why aren't these destinations served from DSA?

C.

pug

5th Dec 2012, 09:53

I know I said I'd leave it, but...

Well they are the FSB, not the FLB.

Small businesses not important? What a stupid thing to suggest.

Airports as going concerns have huge operational costs, so even if the land does have value, better get rid of the thing for £1 than run a loss making airport for donkeys years

The adjacent business park was supposed to subsidise the airport long term, and it wasn't operating at a large operating loss. Are we to assume that DSA will be sold for a £1.00 soon, given the large operating losses there? I think not. SZD wasn't open as a commercial airport for as long as DSA has been.

It was sold to Peel with the promise of a bigger airport at Doncaster, which has thus far failed to support business flights. SZD was in a central location for Sheffield passengers, the conveniance of time saved going to DSA is little compared to going to MAN for greater choice.

Its worth pointing out that it is a number of Sheffield business leaders who are concerned with the circumstances surrounding the closure of SZD.

there are fewer and fewer regional carriers around, certainly fewer than when SZD was operating

I'm not sure thats correct. With a tweaking of facilities I can think of quite a few airlines well suited to such a facility.

I will leave it there. The airport wont reopen for passenger flights because of the way the business park has been developed, however all options should be considered including reopening the facility for GA and business aviation before the runway is ripped up for good.

jabird

5th Dec 2012, 11:58

Perhaps you're not in business, but I'm afraid you aren't quite right here.

Perhaps I am in business or perhaps I am just applying a cold, hard, accountants' look at the realities?

many investment projects have been put on hold until there will be enough capital available and market demand to make them worthwhile again.

Yet the opportunity was there for this airport to work prior to the economic mess. DSA too opened at a time of economic growth, with promises of 5m pax pa, and this just hasn't happened.

Demand is there but we see from DSA's chronic lack of business-orientated routes it isn't well placed to take advantage of such demand.

If the demand is strong enough, KLM would have opened DSA-AMS. After all, what does the S in DSA stand for? Why haven't they started this route?

Even if SZD could re-open with a 3x or even 5x daily to AMS, is that enough to sustain the kind of costs needed to run the place? What other destinations could realistically work?

ludicrous decision when the population of the whole of East Kent is only slightly larger than that of the city of Sheffield alone?

Population alone is not a dictator of viability. MSE happens to be much closer to AMS, so maybe a direct hop will make sense - or maybe not, let's see.

London-Southend's station, opened when it had only a few thousand passengers every month going through, seems to be doing pretty well?

Opened on:

(a) a line already going right past the terminal
(b) a line that is going TO somewhere (ie Southend Victoria, so no extension needed).

Also, there already were 8 trains per hour, on a stopping line, so they just had to add an additional stop. Generally, this would be complete overkill for a service terminating at an airport that size.

Southampton only has small regional jets and similarly has a successful little railway station.

Yes, but it has lots of them, going to many different destinations at a high frequency. It also effectively acts as a "London Southampton", given ease of rail access + M3 from Waterloo, Surrey etc.

Don't get me wrong, I understand it would be difficult in practical terms but in principle there doesn't seem too much wrong.

Sorry, but in principle there is EVERYTHING wrong with talking about a tram link to the airport. Firstly, the airport has to re-open, then it would have to project levels of passenger numbers well in excess of either LCY or SOU, then you can start to think about it.

Small businesses not important? What a stupid thing to suggest.

I never said that, just said they spoke for small businesses not large ones. Frankly, I think their attitude on this project is extremely naive. If there is any prospect of the airport re-opening it will need small, medium and large businesses to use it, to use it very often, and to pay very high costs to do so.

Sorry that I just don't see it.

fairflyer

5th Dec 2012, 12:01

Never heard so much cobblers - the runway is low code/category
at best, tiny in commercial terms. There's virtually no hope of licensed length extensions were one to comply with minimum Runway End Safety Area (RESA) requirements. It doesn't even have the current requisite minima for clear, flat strip either side - there's a whopping great ditch within just 65m of the edge of the runway.

Only any use for light GA traffic, a few King Airs and PC-XIIs, perhaps, no business jets on a commercial charter/public transport basis.

For airline work you will be limited to Twin Otters and Dornier 228s with 19 seats (maybe Let 410) - not Jetstreams (J31).

Just hopeless, nothing commercially viable can use that runway length. Nobody these days is going to get old Dash-8-100 series aircraft working commerciallly again either (which used to go into Plymouth) - which might just get in with restricted payload in and out. All the Saabs, ATRs, Fokkers, Jetstreams etc, all need more runway. And if it's 'WET', just forget anything.

Stop wasting time on this. Will only make a nice little GA strip but costs of operation very unlikely to be recouped from aviation-related revenues, only peripherl, no-aviation property-related income, if the opportunity is there for the airport operator.

Just mad that anyone seriously thinks it's viable! What were the licenced TORA and LDA whe it was operational?

pug

5th Dec 2012, 12:13

It may surprise you then fairflyer, that the types you claim that cannot operate passenger services from the airport, actually did so successfully for a few years.

Like I say, scheduled flights wont happen now. If someone can make a business case for it (as some obviously believe they can) then all options should be considered before the airfield is gone for good.

Frankly, I think their attitude on this project is extremely naive

What is their attitude? Have you spoken with them, or are you simply going off the statement on the petition website?

fairflyer

5th Dec 2012, 12:56

Sorry Pug, accepted that some of those types went in once before, but rules have changed since then, more constrainining, more limiting. EASA progressively toughening up on minima etc.

All those smaller aircraft types are that much older too, costing more to operate, less spares etc. whilst economic environment is horrible, APD charges ever higher (which hurts the smaller aircraft more), ETS introduced - everything against the small regonal operator with small regional airliners.

Just too tough at that level to make a living, or for that matter simply survive.

jabird

5th Dec 2012, 13:02

What is their attitude? Have you spoken with them, or are you simply going off the statement on the petition website?

Well if you must:

Firstly, I'd start by putting the petition on the council's own website:

https://sheffield.moderngov.co.uk/mgepetitionlistdisplay.aspx?bcr=1

Opens with:

In light of the fast-developing Advanced Manufacturing Park,

In the past Sheffield City Airport facilitated daily shuttle services to European capitals: services which were demonstrably viable in commercial terms.

So the list of European capitals included DUB + BRU & AMS, all within range of the puddle jumpers. Most other European capitals were excluded due to range issues, whereas CDG, which would have been within range, never started.

Since then, commercial aviation in the region has switched to the Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. This has established a growing and successful programme of leisure and tourism flights to holiday destinations

The only time DSA was growing was when it started from a zero baseline.

However, it is not suitably placed to provide the fast-turnaround easy-access short-haul flights

DSA is perfectly capable of turning around aircraft very quickly, and of providing a very short walk from kerb to aircraft. Clearly, there are other reasons why it doesn't have more business routes that can't be explained by it being a bit further away from Sheffield than SZD.

We perceive that two airports within the Sheffield City Region, each with its own commercial and operational focus, can jointly meet the economic and social needs of the travelling public.

They might perceive that, but the market is clearly struggling to support one airport. Therefore I rest my case.

pug

5th Dec 2012, 13:05

That is fair enough fairflyer, however with the extension having been approved things may have been different.

That said, passenger flights aren't everything in this case, and it has been suggested in the past that the airport was close to paying for itself and even turning a small profit in the later years with all the business and GA/business activity on site. However certain clauses with the developer consigned the airport to be a loss maker for obvious reasons. The information is not publicly available, and it should be, given the nature of the situation.

Nobody can honestly argue that all options were considered prior to closure, given the owners conflicting interests up the road!?

The only time DSA was growing was when it started from a zero baseline.

That is incorrect.

Jabird, what is the competitive advantage to using DSA over MAN for a Sheffield business passenger? I see nothing wrong with what they have said on the petition website, and I cant imagine them giving DSA a public slating on there even if they wanted to.

I dont know but..

Perhaps I am in business or perhaps I am just applying a cold, hard, accountants' look at the realities?

I find that statement naive, unless you have seen and assessed the actual airport accounts.

I'm definately going to leave it there. I hope this petition opens discussion again, certainly if there are some solid facts about the airport accounts made public then I am open to changing my opinion on the matter, as would others be I'm sure. Crucially, such a discussion it could possibly even help DSA in its attempts to establish such traffic there. Until then this is just going to go around in circles.

North West

5th Dec 2012, 21:18

This was the view of York Aviation Consultancy back in 2005 when, at the behest of the City Council, they conducted an independant assessment into the future viability of the airport

3. Is the airport financially viable?

There is little likelihood of the airport attaining financial viability in the foreseeable future under any scenario. Annual losses at the airport reached over £1.1m in 2001, reducing to £230,000 in 2003 following cost saving measures implemented by the operator. Even given the most optimistic scenarios, the airport is predicted to continue to make substantial losses for the foreseeable future.

All of the airlines consulted said that the physical limitations (principally runway length) was a fundamental impediment to commercial airline operations, with many of the commonly used regional turboprop aircraft subject to payload and range limitations. None of the airlines were considering operations in the short to medium term and all indicated that they would need powerful financial incentives to do so. All regarded the operations as high risk, particularly given the failure of the earlier scheduled services to achieve long-term viability.

Any proposal to extend the runway would result in breaches to the noise conditions and airfield safety requirements given the built up area around the airport site. There are therefore no realistic development options that could overcome the fundamental operational constraints.

Jamp

5th Dec 2012, 22:15

They had to raise the level of the site before building the runway in the first place so I'm sure they could fill some ditches if required for latest regs. There's also space to extend the runway.

A tram link wouldn't have to terminate at the airport, it could continue to the Advanced Manufacturing Park (currently woefully served by public transport or cycle paths), Catcliffe (further housing developments also under way) and perhaps a decent Park and Ride facility to get M1 drivers out of their cars and into the city centre quickly and easily. The existing tram network is not at capacity so these services could supplement rather than replace those to Meadowhall.

The HS2 station for South Yorkshire may well end up at Tinsley Yard so the opportunity is there for a fantastic 'Sheffield Parkway' setup with business flights, high speed rail, light rail and motorway connection.

johnnychips

5th Dec 2012, 23:05

It sounds ideal, but I think 'fantastic', in its original sense, is the word.

jabird

6th Dec 2012, 21:02

The only time DSA was growing was when it started from a zero baseline.
That is incorrect.

Incorrect because you say so, or because you have a different version of events to the published facts?

Having opened in 2005, there was natural growth with 2006 being a full year, and then a peak in 2007 - ie it went up from a zero baseline. After this, 3 of the following 4 years have been in decline, with a small blip in 2010 due to Easyjet coming, and then very rapidly growing.

Talk was of 5m, so DSA is well short of that.

A tram link wouldn't have to terminate at the airport, it could continue to the Advanced Manufacturing Park (currently woefully served by public transport or cycle paths),

Firstly, there's a lot more to cycling infrastructure than token cycle paths, but that's one for JB! Sheffield is at least home of the "Sheffield" cycle parking stand, but apart from that it really isn't much of a city to cycle in.

As for terminating at airport, yes I agree - always far easier to ask for a stop than to ask for a new route to be created. However, you still need enough combined volume to make the route work.

I suspect there's more interest in extending Supertram east towards Rotherham Central, but even if it did go through the airport, with 10 stops from Carbrook to Cathedral, how many business users would bother? In all honestly, this is would be (big would) an airport for cars and taxis (and I say that as someone who rarely uses either).

a decent Park and Ride facility to get M1 drivers out of their cars

Park and Ride works best when the parking is easy and the ride is both fast and frequent. Would Meadowhall not make more sense for that?

opportunity is there for a fantastic 'Sheffield Parkway' setup with business flights, high speed rail, light rail and motorway connection.

Sorry, but as JC is saying, nice idea, what's the reality? I'm all for integrated "superhubs", but you have to bring transport modes together that people actually want to make changes between.

So I hate to state the obvious, but if HS2 is really about integrated transport, it needs to call at Sheffield City Centre. Otherwise it is just even more of a waste of time than it already is (apologies again for saying something that belongs in JB).

EGCA

9th Dec 2012, 22:07

fairflyer: Well summed-up. No hope of licenced extension of runway length no doubt due to the recent RESA provisions, which could well cut down on what applied before. Runway dimension was 3972ft/1211 meters, but from memory the LDA was less from certainly one end, maybe both. I have a figure of around 3600ft in my memory.
One poster talks about an extension, but at one end miles of factory/warehouse/housing, and at the other a drop down in level towards the Parkway road and the M1 motorway, and if my memory serves, an area of land containing some quite meaty electricity pylons. Must have been "sweaty palms" landing there in a single, at least approaching over the east end of Sheffield.
I dont have an answer to the commercial passenger flights question, but for business/executive flights it would appear to be either Finningley, not too far away down the M1 and M18, or Gamston, a little further away, using the M1, M18 and A1.
My namesake EGCA, Coal Aston airfield, is a non-starter for business flights despite being no more than 15 minutes from the industrial east end of Sheffield. EGCA has an undulating grass runway of 2400ft, but the planning consent stipulates a weekly maximum number of movements, around 20 from memory, and is strictly PPO with the owners/operators needing to move grazing animals at times.
So, if you run a business in Sheffield and want to take a scheduled airline flight to say Europe, you still have a lengthy journey to a major airport with a good selection of flights. I really dont see this situation changing.

pug

10th Dec 2012, 17:22

Not wading back in, but an interesting update from the FSB.

Airport saga takes a new twist

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has been supporting a campaign to defer the development of the former Sheffield City Airport site. The FSB has suggested that an embargo be placed on the development until an independent public enquiry is held to look into the future of commercial aviation in the Region.

A petition has been initiated aimed at the local small business community which has attracted over 1,300 signatories, which was met with a deluge of misleading statements in the media reflecting a notion that the airport was closed due to it being commercially unviable – an argument which the FSB has consistently contested.

A new twist in the airport saga has now occurred with the news that a potential bidder has made himself known to the FSB, who wishes to buy the airport from its existing owners and reopen it as a regional aviation facility. As well as contracting with airlines to operate scheduled flights to other UK and European cities, the bidder plans to offer flight training, air taxi and business charter services, and intends to include a restaurant and other leisure facilities in a redeveloped terminal.

The bid would be subject to the full support of the Sheffield City Council, including provision of all the necessary planning consents, to turn the property back into an airport and a realistic price being agreed between the present owners of the airport site and terminal building, with all existing infrastructure intact.

The bidder is locally-based but has other aviation interests within the UK.

fairflyer

10th Dec 2012, 20:34

I'm fairly sure all you would end up with today at Sheffield is a Code 2B runway which will stretch to licensed lengths of 1199m max (3,934ft) regardless of how much physical tarmac is there now or could be added at either end.

Runway length simply dictates everything when you are down at that level in terms of commercial opportunities.

Sorry, but that isn't enough to do anything serious on the regional airliner front or business aviation front.

Whoever is wishing for all this is completely blind, ignorant, misled or arrogant.

Do the runway performance assesment, please, before taking this any further. Confirm the above, ask the 'experts' what aircrafft can use that length on an AOC/commercially, and how many passsengers and how much fuel you can get out AND IN - it's the landing weight constraints that will kill most dead.

pug

10th Dec 2012, 20:45

Barton is the only airport Peel has owned that is in profit. Its longest runway is grass and is shorter than Sheffield City's.

If someone already involved in aviation is ready to make an offer, its a bit ignorant to suggest they are not well versed in the runway constraints.

Is it not best to wait for more news on this before calling people arrogant, ignorant or mislead?

jabird

10th Dec 2012, 22:30

Is it not best to wait for more news on this before calling people arrogant, ignorant or mislead?

Well I'll have a go based on what we know from this statement. I'll stick with my original naive, there is nothing arrogant about wanting to re-open an airport for business. If they can pull it off it would be against all the odds, and these are a few reasons why:

reflecting a notion that the airport was closed due to it being commercially unviable – an argument which the FSB has consistently contested.

Let's look at destinations previously served: BHD, AMS, BRU, DUB, JER - so those five may or may not return. Realistically, how many more might be added on top? Best case?

More to the point, LCY was served before, these shorter routes are much harder to justify now, gone from LPL & MAN, barely got started at LBA, never happened at MME, was it 3 months at NCL. So why would it work at SZD? London tends to be quite useful to the business case for any regional airport.

Also, an airport being "viable" - as in able to turn a profit, and being able to turn a better profit than other uses of the land are two different things.

and intends to include a restaurant and other leisure facilities in a redeveloped terminal.

Well I would hope that a terminal of any kind has some form of catering. As for leisure facilities, what the hell are they on about? This is a STOLPORT - in quickly, out quickly.

If they want amusement options, plenty in the corridor between city centre and Meadowhall, and there's always Magna Park! Hence I repeat the term "naive".

The bid would be subject to the full support of the Sheffield City Council, including provision of all the necessary planning consents,

Again, grossly naive.

You can't put a bid together like that (in public) and just demand planning consent. Either it already has it, or it has lapsed, in which case fresh application needed, possibly going to a long and costly public inquiry, as there will be green objections. Can anyone confirm current status?

I can tell you from experience at CVT that you certainly don't go around proposing a larger terminal. Either the existing one does the job or forget it. Why would it need to be redeveloped anyway?

and a realistic price being agreed

Realistic on who's terms? Considering this would be competing with DSA, and that other uses are already being line up, I can't see any chance of this "realistic" price being reached. So again, grossly naive. Either the "market" rate is paid, or bean counter says no.

pug

10th Dec 2012, 22:42

Again this is all supposition as no real details have been confirmed, not least who the buyer may be.

Is there anything wrong with waiting for more to be announced before branding the FSB and as yet unknown 'potential buyer' as naive?

jabird

10th Dec 2012, 22:54

Is there anything wrong with waiting for more to be announced before branding the FSB and as yet unknown 'potential buyer' as naive?

Err, yes! This is a rumour network, we don't wait for official announcements :=

As per my above comments, they are made on information that has been placed in the public domain.

If you'd said "ABC Holdings has been having a behind the scenes chat with a top councillor from Sheffield and been given the wink that all would be ok, AND their offer of £z million has been tentatively accepted", then it would be very different.

FSB have made these statements, I have responded. So you can't then call it conjecture! Leave that to PPFN!

pug

10th Dec 2012, 22:56

Once again I shall leave you to it then.

Im not sure what involvement you had at CVT but...

jabird

10th Dec 2012, 23:06

But what?

I lived in and still live in Coventry and had an interest in aviation. Therefore I spoke in favour of the airport at the first planning inquiry. I had no commercial involvement with the airport, if that's what you are asking.

egcntristar

11th Dec 2012, 13:00

Well the council have finally commented and have said the land is nothing to do with them, so any decision rests with the land owners. I thinks its highly unlikely Peel will give up/sell the land.

EGCA

13th Dec 2012, 15:33

Just out of casual interest is the area at the eastern end of the airfield still only available to police and air ambulance helicopters, or does it have a wider permission now for commercial/executive rotary wing flights?

EGCA

bravobravo74

10th Jan 2013, 16:23

Several people on this forum don't seem to understand the reason behind the petition and the envisaged purpose of the airport should the site become one again.

As a Sheffield native and someone who is affected by the local economy let me spell out the attitude that lots of people in the city have which, incidentally, is shared by the Federation of Small Businesses.

Sheffield, the fourth-largest city in the country and the largest city in Europe without its own airport (DSA isn't really Sheffield), is about to lose a piece of tarmac. This piece of tarmac represents the city's only chance to benefit financially from air travel in the future. Sheffield City Airport ultimately wasn't given the opportunity it deserved thanks to executive incompetence (read into that what you will); the site's intact runway represents unfulfilled potential which, without too much difficulty, could be realised.

Nobody thinks that Sheffield City Airport could fulfil a similar function to or be as successful as London City however lots of people find it hard to believe that, quite simply, it couldn't eventually be more beneficial to Sheffield as an airport than another business park would be.

Incase you didn't know there is already a lot of unused office space around here.

WH904

10th Jan 2013, 16:54

As a Sheffielder, I'm afraid I have to say that Finningley isn't 20 minutes away. At best it takes 45 minutes by car, sometimes longer.

Sheffield Airport was (as has been said) deliberately sold so that it could be turned into a business park after a few years. Nobody with any brain cells in Sheffield believes anything other than this. We're all sure that the whole saga was a cynical plan to simply create a business park on the cheap. Sadly, our council are pretty good at creating stupid or expensive schemes.

The main reason the airport closed (so it was claimed) was that the main slots into Schipol were lost (maybe deliberately, who knows?) and this was used as the main excuse. Clearly, the runway was never long enough for serious commercial operations, but there's no reason why it could not be used for business flying and recreational flying, and perhaps a fast link to Finningley.

Truth of the matter is that our backward council doesn't want the airport and never did. They are only interested in investing in sport. If the project had been serious it wouldn't have been built where it is in the first place. An area where a longer runway could be laid would have been chosen.

Finningley has no relationship to Sheffield. Peel's cynical attempt to name the airport as "Sheffield-Doncaster" is just an insult. It's an hour away so it may as well be completely disassociated with us.

Sadly, I fear Sheffield will always be the largest city in Europe without an airport. Out retarded councillors are far more interested in football than flying and sadly the local electorate are sufficiently dim to keep voting for them :(

Fairdealfrank

10th Jan 2013, 18:18

Sheffield airport

Does seem a shame, the location appeared excellent.

To say that "DSA isn't really Sheffield" isn't the point: Heathrow is 20 mi. from London. Finningley is hardly a substitute, not neccessarily because of its location on the other side of Doncaster, but because of the inaccessibility.

Clearly a city the size of Sheffield does need an airport whether at Sheffield or at Finningley, if it's to be the latter, communications between it and Sheffield need to be beefed up.

Meanwhile Sheffield joins Croydon on the list of cities that used to have an airport!

Yes, before you start splitting hairs, BALHR, Croydon's Royal charter states "borough" rather than "city". City in this context means relatively densely populated urban centre. So no rant on this subject please.

Northbound A1

10th Jan 2013, 18:33

WH904, well said. Peel have a knack of getting the local councillors to give the publics land away...don't ask me how! Must be something in it for the councillors?

It started with Sheffield, and the very same thing is now happening at Teesside. The 6 local councils have given the land away, and Teesside even has a very long runway, so the old excuse of a short runway wont wash up here!

Perfect flat building land with a view of the Cleveland hills. Peel have their own website which alleges that there are 700,000 pax through it? They must be living in 2006 as the figures are nothing like that now.

Peel are after more government money to put roads and drains in around Teesside Airport under a second try at obtaining a regional grant. They don't say it will be aviation related though.

You should ask the press why local councillors give away public land to a private company. There has got to be something fishy going on. Teesside with its hundreds of acres was gifted to Peel for £500,000 with a promise of spending £20m... which didn't happen.

Peel had the usual 10 year clause in the contract though. you know the one, where Peel are given most of the shares if the council don't stump up millions to keep the airport open.

They don't need to rob a bank, the publics valuable land (airports) are being handed over on a plate to Peel by certain councillors!!!

I wish Watchdog would do a series on them, but I cant see that happening as Peel also own the land the BBC now rent in Manchester!

Funny handshakes going on left, right, and centre, according to some.

Just ask the DTV management and the local councillors who gifted the place to Peel ;)

bravobravo74

10th Jan 2013, 19:51

Regardless of whether or not transport links are improved Finningley will never benefit Sheffield to an extent greater than the fact that local residents have one more airport to go on holiday from.

It's all about facilitating commerce and taking advantage of the fact that business takes the line of least resistance. If Gamston Airport near Retford can manage to justify its existence financially then surely Sheffield City Airport could.

At certain times of the day I reckon that I could get to Leeds city centre in less time from Sheffield City Airport than I could from Leeds Bradford Airport.

Fairdealfrank

11th Jan 2013, 08:48

Quote: "At certain times of the day I reckon that I could get to Leeds city centre in less time from Sheffield City Airport than I could from Leeds Bradford Airport."

Is that because Sheffield is/was near the motorway network and Yeadon is miles away from it? Or are you referring to public transport?

Phileas Fogg

11th Jan 2013, 09:04

Monchengladbach has an airport a similar size to Sheffield "Heliport", it too is pretty much useless, previous scheduled service operator(s) have gone elsewhere and the people of Monchengladbach need to travel to DUS etc. if they want to fly anywhere.

So expensive petition(s) merely based on matters of principle aren't likely to bring scheduled air services of any worth back to the city and the people of Sheffield are still going to need to travel to other airports to fly anywhere.

It's just boys and their toys ... "They've got an airport so we want one too".

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 09:31

Right then, let's have a bit of perspective from a "mislead" non-Sheffielder, who couldn't possibly understand the problem by virtue of not living in Sheffield. I'll just put all my years of understanding the industry to one side and live entirely on emotion then?

there's no reason why it could not be used for business flying and recreational flying, and perhaps a fast link to Finningley.

Did I read that right? A shuttle flight to an airport that is just round the corner? By what means? Helicopter? Sorry, I don't want to knock Sheffield, but this is not the French Riviera, nor is there a high end demand for such a service backed up by lack of land for a runway, nor is there a major international airport at either end. So please, just forget that one!

In area where a longer runway could be laid would have been chosen.

Like DSA

Or are areas where long runways can be laid down without a substantial body of local objections (based on no prior aviation activity) ten a penny? To suggest as such is to suggest all the land around Sheffield is both worthless and free of populace, when clearly neither is true.

It started with Sheffield, and the very same thing is now happening at Teesside.

No, it started with increasing fuel prices, lower PSCs due to low cost airlines ruling the roost, was bolstered by rising APD and then the economic conditions made it worse still.

It has also happened at PLH (another airport with a great runway), it happened here at CVT 4 years ago (we also lose out because our runway precludes many FR 738 routes), and numerous other airports around the country are struggling too.

So Peel are not the perps here. I can accept they may have had other intentions at SZD (and guess what, similar accusations could be made here), but I don't accept that at LPL or MME.

Teesside even has a very long runway, so the old excuse of a short runway wont wash up here!

Err, a runway is only as good as the apron that feeds it and that in turn is only as good as the terminal pax are fed through, and that in turn depends on the catchment areas and road (/ rail) network around it.

valuable land (airports)

Not always the case. As a going concern, and airport is only worth a multiple of the profits it is able to generate from aviation and related activity. If closed, airport land can be affected by various covenants, not to mention the small fact that in many cases, the airport is classed as greenbelt, by virtue of the large amounts of grass which surround the runways / taxiways.

However, I would accept in Sheffield's case that the land may be worth more than at many other airports due to its location.

That still does not point directly to a conspiracy. A functioning airport can facilitate links to numerous destinations around Europe (and globally for a larger one), and thus it can create more linkage than a station or motorway junction ever can from a very small area. However, this is only relevant if a network of routes can be sustained, and that really doesn't seem to be the case.

So to blame losing slots at AMS, or to create any other kind of conspiracy is really only half the story. Of course, the airport's short shelf life is grounds for suspicion, which is entirely natural, but the nature of the whole aviation industry shows that there is no guarantee for any airport to be a going concern right now, especially one with a very restricted runway.

If Gamston Airport near Retford can manage to justify its existence financially then surely Sheffield City Airport could.

Oh please! If PC World can justify then surely Comet could?
If Max Spielman can then surely Jessops could?

You cannot point to the existence of one airfield in a more rural location with a different purpose and then suggest that an enitrely different business should be able to work any more than you can point out why two neighbours in the same street might have two entirely different jobs, if they work at all.

As for the "Sheffield is the largest city without" - I remember using a similar argument for CVT, except it went along the lines of "we're the largest UK city with an airport with a runway capable of handling the B737 that doesn't currently do so".

So what? It was merely a pointer to the ideal that a city of our size would benefit from having a network of loco flights. Of course we would, of course SZD would benefit the city of Sheffield.

So might HS2, but you get that in Meadowhall Ryanair East Parkway, and we'll have to go to a "Brum" station.

You can't win every battle you fight, but I really do think this one is pointless. There simply isn't a business case right now for a STOL operation at SZD, nor is there likely to be one soon.

DSA might primarily be a loco facility, but it still serves Sheffield and the rest of S Yorks, and is still closer to Sheffield than a number of other airports serving other European cities - and by that I mean single airport / cities - eg SZZ, SPU etc.

pug

11th Jan 2013, 09:47

As this is fast becoming a pissing contest, perhaps some should read the below link-

Mystery bidder wants to reopen Sheffield airport - Local Business - Sheffield Telegraph (http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/business/local-business/mystery-bidder-wants-to-reopen-sheffield-airport-1-5213488)

.. and accept that there might be more to this than is public knowledge. The FSB might even know more of whats going on than you. :D ;)

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 10:18

The FSB might even know more of whats going on than you.

Nothing new here as this was aired before Christmas.

So recycling an article that's already in public domain doesn't change the fact that SZD is an extremely difficult site on which to make a viable airport.

pug

11th Jan 2013, 10:22

As you are clearly still taking a 'cold, hard accountants' look at the situation, any luck with actually accessing the accounts? :ok:

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 10:37

any luck with actually accessing the accounts?

The track record of the airport when it was open is there for all to see.

Limted routes, limited frequencies delivered using size limited aircraft on a limited runway.

As I said above, the market conditions since the last commercial flights have got significantly worse, not better. Unless Sheffield as drifted off to the Firth of Forth lately, the lack of a case for a London route also remains a big obstacle.

Of course, a new owner / backer could come in and buy the airport, with a reasonable upbeat business plan. Delivering on that plan is going to prove extremely difficult.

pug

11th Jan 2013, 10:40

Good 'accountants' overview of the situation Jabird. I also like your fixation with routes, routes, routes. makes you wonder how Coventry is still open doesn't it. :ok:

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 11:01

I also like your fixation with routes, routes, routes. makes you wonder how Coventry is still open doesn't it

Well oddly enough, that's what makes an airport the most money! Commercial flights generate PSCs, fill car parks and keep shops busy, and they also mean significantly higher fuel farm usage.

Of course, there are plenty of smaller facilities which can survive off GA and a few bizjets, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Being open, operating passenger flights, and making money are three very different things. I suggest CVT is the former and not the latter, but whatever is happening here, I am merely an external commentator, I have nothing (and never have had anything) to do with the running of the airport, if that is what you are implying.

pug

11th Jan 2013, 11:13

Of course, there are plenty of smaller facilities which can survive off GA and a few bizjets, but that's not what we're talking about here.

It may not be what you are talking about, but what future does this unknown bidder see for the place?

Barton, owned by Peel, operates no scheduled flights. None of its runways are as long as SZD's and none of them are even asphalt! Why isn't that being built over? You only have to look at the council there..

Which is why I rest my case. You can go back and forth saying you are right, or you can wait and see what happens. You cannot say 'but this is a rumour network' as you haven't posted any rumours, just your own speculation. You haven't even given us an insight into the accounts which you had claimed to have used to make your judgement.

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 11:36

Barton, owned by Peel, operates no scheduled flights. None of its runways are as long as SZD's and none of them are even asphalt! Why isn't that being built over?

You are merely re-stating a point I covered above. Not all airports in the UK handle scheduled flights, just as not all railway stations handle express trains.

The point is SZD was built for commercial flights, it handled them for a while, and it no longer does. If SZD was viable through non-commercial flights, what would have stopped it continuing as a going concern?

For GA, bizjets etc, airport can set the rates, then wait for the business to come in - if the location, facilities and access are suitable, build it and people will come.

For a commercial operation, it is more complex - airport and airline need to negotiate the right deal, and in many cases, viability of the whole operation can depend on one deal, which may fall through for reasons beyond the airport's immediate control. Look how baby decided MME didn't suit their business model, and off they went. Or even here at CVT, it was all down to TOM - HLX and Wizz came and went very quickly, and neither could have sustained the airport on their own.

You haven't even given us an insight into the accounts which you had claimed to have used to make your judgement.

Again, you are twisting what I am saying. I said:

perhaps I am just applying a cold, hard, accountants' look at the realities?

I never said anything about reading financial reports. My interest, as I have already stated, is in commercial flight routes. These either thrive or fail based on financial realities.

So any talk of what the airport "could" or "should" do based on the size of the city or the development of a new business park nearby or the fact people from Sheffield want to travel to certain cities (as do business people in every city) is all based on hope.

My assessments were based on the small number of routes that came and went, and the realities of the current state of the market. If you have any form of hard evidence that I have mis-judged the situation, or that some new metal has been discovered and that Sheffield is the only city in the world capable of processing it, then by all means let's hear it.

pug

11th Jan 2013, 11:45

If SZD was viable through non-commercial flights, what would have stopped it continuing as a going concern?

The idea behind an enquiry of some sort. Clearly if you sell an airport to an organisation with conflicting local interests you cannot expect them to compete with themselves.

Again, you are twisting what I am saying. I said:

Quote:
perhaps I am just applying a cold, hard, accountants' look at the realities?

Im not twisting anything, that quote is open to interpretation. I'm not an accountant, but I would presume that an accountant would need to see at least a reasonable number of financial reports to make a judgement.

The rest doesn't warrant the effort of a reply. Someone who has the money, and by all accounts commercial awareness, is interested in taking over the site. I think I will wait to see what happens with that than take anything you are saying seriously. So I shall wait and see :ok:

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 12:10

Someone who has the money, and by all accounts commercial awareness, is interested in taking over the site.

Someone who has the money, and by all accounts commercial awareness has already taken over CVT. By the time he did this, very few of us were expecting anything on that front. That still hasn't happened. He clearly had a far bigger interest in the land surrounding it, and that went to planning meetings before Christmas.

You are right in that my comments are indeed speculation, I do not have any rumours to serve up. However, they are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

All we have as rumour right now is one potential interested party, no deal on the table, no business plan with which to turn that deal into a thriving, viable airport.

Im not twisting anything, that quote is open to interpretation. I'm not an accountant, but I would presume that an accountant would need to see at least a reasonable number of financial reports to make a judgement

Fair enough. My point was that I was applying cold financial logic, as opposed to vain hope. For the sake of clarity, no I am not an accountant either, my interest is in flight routes, which as I said above need to make commercial sense, otherwise they don't happen (unless there are other factors to distort the market - e.g. PSOs, which are not relevant here).

Without commercial routes, there is no case for this airport beyond that which already could have been exploited in the 6 years after commercial flights stopped.

The rest doesn't warrant the effort of a reply.

Well you can ignore or reply to whatever you choose. However the point remains (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that whatever Peel's motives may or may not have been, the case for an commercially viable airport on this site remains weak.

I can understand the local anger and suspicion about the terms of the original deal. However, even if dubious intentions were proven - in a public inquiry, a court of law or elsewhere, none of this would go any further towards making the airport viable. Public Inquiries are very good at taking up time, but they don't create viable business plans.

In the meantime, bear in mind that Peel still had to build the airport and run it at a loss for 10 years, so they didn't just "get" the land for £1.

Phileas Fogg

11th Jan 2013, 12:22

I'm not from Sheffield and I'm not from Coventry and neither Coventry Airport nor Sheffield Heliport, come an Airport, are likely to turn a penny in profit for the foreseeable years ahead.

Sheffield Airport closed, Coventry Airport closed, someone with a bucket load of money re-opened Coventry but it may as well have stayed closed, so someone with a bucket load of money re-opens Sheffield ... With that length of runway it's likely to fare even worse than Coventry.

Boys and their toys!

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 12:49

Well said PF

someone with a bucket load of money re-opened Coventry

Because if he gets planning permission for his Gateway he will have two bucket loads.

Coventry City Council, as owners of freehold of Coventry Airport, gave the bit that is on their patch permission straight away, 9-0 in favour. Warwick District Council are still thinking about it.

Point being - SZD was so small, there was no other land around it. There is still meat on the CVT to be chewed on.

Anyway, that's for the CVT thread...

bravobravo74

11th Jan 2013, 18:24

It's just boys and their toys ... "They've got an airport so we want one too".

Who do you think you are? It's not your place to tell us why you think it is that we want a public inquiry into an issue that affects us. This kind of arrogance and disrespect gives PPRUNE a bad name.

So expensive petition(s) merely based on matters of principle

Actually it's a matter of economics. If you can't see that a runway next to a major urban centre might be more beneficial at some point in the future than yet another business park then that's your concern, not mine.

Monchengladbach has an airport a similar size to Sheffield "Heliport", it too is pretty much useless

Please never apply your business sense (the only thing which is useless around here) to anything that would seriously affect my life.

pwalhx

11th Jan 2013, 18:51

Who do you think you are? It's not your place to tell us why you think it is that we want a public inquiry into an issue that affects us. This kind of arrogance and disrespect gives PPRuNe a bad name.

This is a public forum which is open to debate, I am afraid you have to accept people may hold differing opinions to yourself. Denying people the right to voice that opinion is also disrespectful as well.

You obviously feel very deeply on the subject and that is to your credit, do not deny people the right to disagree.

bravobravo74

11th Jan 2013, 19:08

This is a public forum which is open to debate, I am afraid you have to accept people may hold differing opinions to yourself. Denying people the right to voice that opinion is also disrespectful as well.

You obviously feel very deeply on the subject and that is to your credit, do not deny people the right to disagree.

Point taken pwalhx and I apologise for any offense caused.

I personally interpret the 'boys with toys' comment to be an ill-founded and patronising attempt to discredit the opinions of myself and hundreds of thousands of other people rather than a difference of opinion. The latter makes the world go round; the former is unfair and is something that I would always challenge whether that be on an internet forum or face to face.

jabird

11th Jan 2013, 22:03

I personally interpret the 'boys with toys' comment to be an ill-founded and patronising attempt to discredit the opinions of myself and hundreds of thousands of other people rather than a difference of opinion.

I took it as an attempt to discredit the business plans of airports, not a slight on the people of Sheffield (or Coventry for that matter).

There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with wanting to see your local airport (or football club or city centre or anything else) doing well, or indeed existing in the first place.

I say that as someone who spent a great deal of time supporting CVT at the public inquiry, even though they were a commercial organisation, then part of TUI. I simply believed that local people had a right to use our airport, and that the narrow minded attitudes (and in some cases outright lies) of local people needed to be taken head on.

Like a good university (or two), an airport is a good thing for a major city to have, and it all adds up in the urban top trumps game.

However, none of this alters my view that the business case to bring back SZD is there. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I really don't see it happening, for all the reasons already mentioned.

As for land value, airports with only a handful of scheduled flights are not particularly good utilisers of land. Whereas a railway needs to be continually extended to serve more cities, SZD, whilst compact, has never even handled more than 100k pax in a year, and thus a business park may well be the best use for the site, however mundane that might be.

In the longer run, even though Meadowhall is a bit of a Ryanstation compared to the city centre, if that is where the HS2 station is going, then that makes the SZD land more useful as a business park (and not as some form of fantasy integrated hub, which would need an airport 100x bigger than SZD in its busiest year). Note - HS2 is likely to pass very near to, but not through EMA.

Phileas Fogg

11th Jan 2013, 22:47

So what is Sheffield does re-open as an airport, what are they going to do with it and has the population of Sheffield been approached to see if they'd be willing to subsidise it until it may, if ever, reach break-even point?

Reading of the previous operators to the airport, KLM might have made it initially pay, with their significant route network, utilising 50 seaters but KLM don't operate anything smaller than 80 seats these days and those don't have the performance to operate to/from such a STOLPort.

Sabena ... well they won't be coming back and SN/Brussels Airlines haven't got a route network of any significance to offer connections on.

British Airways? ... Yeah, right. :)

And Aer Arran have got problems of their own.

So who does that leave to operate to/from a re-opened Sheffield City Airport and on what routes?

Meanwhile ... just up country planning permission has been granted to build a Doncaster/Sheffield Airport rail station, why don't the "Sheffielders" petition for a PDQ train service from/to Finningley and the centre of Sheffield and then work on enticing the likes of KLM with their 80 seaters back to a Sheffield Airport (if in name only) that has a runway rather than half a runway and at least try to make one airport work rather than two that fail?

Or, might I ask, aren't trains as exciting as aeroplanes?

johnnychips

12th Jan 2013, 01:51

PF said:

Meanwhile ... just up country planning permission has been granted to build a Doncaster/Sheffield Airport rail station, why don't the "Sheffielders" petition for a PDQ train service from/to Finningley and the centre of Sheffield and then work on enticing the likes of KLM with their 80 seaters back to a Sheffield Airport (if in name only) that has a runway rather than half a runway and at least try to make one airport work rather than two that fail?

Or, might I ask, aren't trains as exciting as aeroplanes?

Permission may well have been granted to build a station at Finningley on the Doncaster-Lincoln line, but I don't think this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Several things militate against this proposal:

- the poor existing service on the line

- the low numbers of flights and passengers using the airport, especially in winter

- the inconvenient flight arrival and departure times, concentrated in the early morning/evening

- it had been proposed to divert the Lincoln-Sheffield- Doncaster-Adwick stopping trains to a P+R station at Finningley. Apart from depriving Adwick and Bentley of their service, it would have to traverse the very busy East Coast Main Line, causing pathing problems

- The distance between any potential station and the terminal is not negligible, and would require a shuttle bus; the bus from Doncaster Station/Interchange only takes about 35 minutes anyway except in heavy peak hours

- the nature of the clientele. DSA is not a tourist destination per se, so I would think the majority of passengers are dropped off by families, friends, or taxis/minibuses whether they are going on holiday or returning to Poland/Lithuania. The parking charge is reasonable if you book in advance.

The new road link to the M18, which has been approved, will facilitate this further, and provide faster times to Sheffield anyway. So I agree with you in some respects, just a different transport method.

Piltdown Man

12th Jan 2013, 10:52

...KLM might have made it initially pay, with their significant route network, utilising 50 seaters but KLM don't operate anything smaller than 80 seats these days and those don't have the performance to operate to/from such a STOLPort.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The only reason KLM pulled put was that there was precious little in the way of radar cover and get they a bit twitchy with things like that. Both the E190 and F70 could lift economic (but not full) loads out of SZD but they need the traffic to do so. Also KLM are unlikely to have a problem allowing FlyBe to feed into AMS, if they chose to operate into SZD. But I think the fat lady has already sung.

PM

Fairdealfrank

12th Jan 2013, 11:16

Quote: "As for the "Sheffield is the largest city without" - I remember using a similar argument for CVT, except it went along the lines of "we're the largest UK city with an airport with a runway capable of handling the B737 that doesn't currently do so.

So what? It was merely a pointer to the ideal that a city of our size would benefit from having a network of loco flights. Of course we would, of course SZD would benefit the city of Sheffield."

The difference between Coventry and Sheffield is that Coventry has one of the UK's largest airports (Elmdon) on it's door step (and used to have a rail/bus link to Heathrow via Watford).

"So might HS2, but you get that in Meadowhall Ryanair East Parkway, and we'll have to go to a "Brum" station."

Under the present lunatic proposals, all high speed rail journeys will have to go via a "Brum" station!

Complete waste of time! There is no point in having "high speed" rail if its stops are in the middle of nowhere!

Why? Because all the time-savings advantages accrued are lost by the need to faff around getting to the city or a proper transport hub (e.g. in this case, Sheffield Midland station) for the onward journey.

In addition to being dumped miles from the centre, travelling between
London and Sheffield on a high speed train will involve a dog leg via Birmingham. In reality there won't really be a time saving on the "high speed" route compared to the traditional direct route on the electrified (by then) East Midlands line.

It certainly wouldn't be worth paying the premium for: better off upgrading to first class on the direct route!

Quote: "So who does that leave to operate to/from a re-opened Sheffield City Airport and on what routes?"

Being a primarily business airport, a link to London (and other cities) would be necessary, but it appears not to have been viable. Maybe this is because LHR wasn't expanded when it should have been, so any potential commuter flights couldn't have taken advantage of carrying interlining connecting pax as well. There would not have been this extra traffic on SZD-LCY for example.

Quote: "Meanwhile ... just up country planning permission has been granted to build a Doncaster/Sheffield Airport rail station, why don't the "Sheffielders" petition for a PDQ train service from/to Finningley and the centre of Sheffield and then work on enticing the likes of KLM with their 80 seaters back to a Sheffield Airport (if in name only) that has a runway rather than half a runway and at least try to make one airport work rather than two that fail?

A Finningley station is a good idea - provided it's walking distance from the terminal! If a bus journey is involved, it might as well link DSA to Doncaster and Sheffield stations direct. traffic volumes at DSA may not warrant any of this.

Quote: "Or, might I ask, aren't trains as exciting as aeroplanes?"

They can be if they go centre to centre. If you have to go to an out-of- town location to catch the train, you may as well fly (it's quicker and probably cheaper).

Phileas Fogg

12th Jan 2013, 13:03

FDF,

Looking at GE I'd guesstimate that from the railway line to DSA terminal is approx 1km ... and I'd guesstimate that is a similar distance to the main concourse and gate 22 (if it's still there after all these years) of LGW.

And why would such an airline as KLM want to operate in/out of a "skin of the teeth" airport such as Sheffield City, and with restricted loads, when there is a full size "Sheffield" airport just up the road and around the corner?

When Sheffield City was open previously there was no nearby alternative but thereafter the MoD released the former RAF Finningley and, these days, there is a nearby and full sized airport alternative.

johnnychips

13th Jan 2013, 00:29

And why would such an airline as KLM want to operate in/out of a "skin of the teeth" airport such as Sheffield City, and with restricted loads, when there is a full size "Sheffield" airport just up the road and around the corner?

KLM does not want to operate to DSA, as it is quite satisfied with its service to Humberside and does not want to dilute that. Apparently there have been a lot of discussions over the past few years with DSA management trying to attract them. The lack of a service to a hub airport is one of the reasons DSA has not performed as predicted.

When Easyjet had a 'half-base' at DSA, this necessitated a daily service to AMS, and the load averaged about 80 on a 319.

TimmyW

13th Jan 2013, 09:34

The timings for Easyjet to AMS from DSA were not suited to the business traveler.

South Yorkshire can't sustain an airport - that is clear. DSA is almost the second failure.

eltonioni

16th Jan 2013, 07:11

It's just boys and their toys ... "They've got an airport so we want one too".

Do you realise who incredibly crass and dumb that sounds?

Sheffield airport is more use to the Sheffield economy than a bunch of airlines delivering bucket and spaders around the costas. You might not appreciate that from afar, but you can take it from people who do that are close to the issue.

Do somebody else a favour and get that petition signed ;) Redevelopment of Sheffield City Airport - PetitionBuzz (http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/sheffieldcityairport)

Phileas Fogg

16th Jan 2013, 07:26

Elton,

Sheffield hasn't got an airport, only a heliport!

eltonioni

16th Jan 2013, 07:50

Do your bit and sign that petition then! ;)

Come on, support aviation. This is the last chance to save this facility in Sheffield and no matter what you personally think of the prognosis, you can do your bit to help prevent its loss - at absolutely no cost to yourself.

Redevelopment of Sheffield City Airport - PetitionBuzz (http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/sheffieldcityairport)

Phileas Fogg

16th Jan 2013, 08:47

Support a City Airport?

Hell no, far too high tech for me, I'll stick with my local airport :)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2505/4005042452_eed443ec43.jpg

Fairdealfrank

16th Jan 2013, 17:50

Looks like Heathrow in 1946.....just after the tents went.

BKS Air Transport

16th Jan 2013, 21:30

@ eltonioni

I'm afraid you've neatly summed up the whole thing there yourself. You are encouraging somebody to sign a petition about an airport with which they have no concern, and which they are never likely to need. This shows how cheap putting your name to something has become, just a few taps on a keyboard, a click of a mouse and hey presto you're done. As you say, sign something "at no cost to yourself." All this does is trivialise such things, and means nobody who has real power will take a blind bit of notice.

If this idea of saving the airport is to get anywhere, you need meaningful activity, like the support of MPs and local politicians, some on the ground action like protests outside City Hall, and most of all, somebody with real financial backing who is prepared to stand up and say "I think I can take this on....." and be named, not just rumoured about. Take a lesson from the many people who do their best to stop airports developing.

jabird

16th Jan 2013, 23:21

Excellent points BKS, to which I would add:

Come on, support aviation. This is the last chance to save this facility in Sheffield and no matter what you personally think of the prognosis.

So you are asking people like PF, and myself, who both think bringing this airport back is a long shot, to put our paws on a petition that we both quite clearly disagree with. What an utterly ridiculous suggestion!

At least go out and find some supporters who back your cause. Or why not go stand outside Glasgow Central Railway station, or somewhere else that is completely irrelevant to your cause, and find more people to sign your petition "no matter what they think".

I will give this industry my support where I feel I have something useful to add, and I have backed my airport in the past when I think we had a very important case to put across and set the nimbys right. I don't think SZD ever had much of a nimby problem, and that can only be because it never had enough flights making enough noise to bother anyone in the first place.

Support aviation that is able to sustain itself. Let DSA bring in any more routes airlines are prepared to invest in. Give the SZD resurrection a wide berth.

pug

16th Jan 2013, 23:29

For a subject many claim to not care much for, it seems some are happy to waste alot of their time subjecting this thread to their diatribe.

jabird

16th Jan 2013, 23:44

For a subject many claim to not care much for

There is a difference between caring about an airport, or about the industry, which I do, and agreeing with a petition, which I don't.

If I'm wasting my time typing a response every few days, how much of your time are you wasting on something that is very unlikely to succeed?

pug

16th Jan 2013, 23:49

We know you dont, so why not just give it a rest for the time being?

It is up to those with vested interests to decide as to whether what they are doing is worthwhile or not. By all accounts you dont have a vested interest, with the exception of you wanting to be right.

jabird

17th Jan 2013, 00:06

We know you dont, so why not just give it a rest for the time being?

With troll bait like that? :D:D

Either you are confident in your cause, in which case let's debate the facts, or you can't face the reality of someone taking a critical view to what you are doing, in which case go and support your local fire station.

pug

17th Jan 2013, 00:11

Like I say, Im leaving it for now to see what happens. I have taken your weak points to task as can be proven in this thread, to the point where I refuse to waste bandwidth covering old ground.

For those that do bother keeping up with the news, it appears more local politicians and business leaders are getting behind the airport. Things are happening behind the scenes.

jabird

17th Jan 2013, 00:20

Like I say, Im leaving it for now to see what happens.

You've been doing that yo-yo for weeks now. Just an excuse for not being able to reply with real facts or coherent argument. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat.... :=

For those that do bother keeping up with the news, it appears more local politicians and business leaders are getting behind the airport. Things are happening behind the scenes.

Appears where? Of course politicians will back an urban status symbol for their city, and of course business leaders would rather have an airport than not.

That goes without saying, and none of us are questioning that.

Our simple point is that we don't think there is a viable case to re-open an airport that was never very busy in the first place. If you have serious hard evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

In the meantime, you are now just trolling your own thread with your repetition and refusal to debate fact with fact, quite an achievement in forum etiquette! :D

Phileas Fogg

17th Jan 2013, 00:23

I get you Pug ...

I think resurrecting Sheffield is a wonderful idea and I give it my 100% support.

Are you happy now Pug?

pug

17th Jan 2013, 00:31

:zzz: like I say, I dont see the point in dealing in supposition on this subject. People with money and a bit of influence are working hard at (at least) halting development of the business park over the runway. You, on the otherhand, are an internet warrior going around in circles about how 'right' you are.

Call me a troll if you like, Im merely suggesting that I put more faith in a group of people who are going out and trying to make something happen, than an armchair analyst who keeps labouring the same points (which I have tackled, as have others).. For instance, others have pointed out the huge inaccuracies in your argument, such as your suggestion that Peel built the airport. Such inaccuracies render your opinion null and void. :D

PF, not 'til you sign that petition ;) :}

jabird

17th Jan 2013, 00:52

Wow, 20 minutes - I missed you!

People with money and a bit of influence are working hard

People with money and influence have been working in the aviation industry since it started. That does not make their proposals either (a) very likely to happen or (b) likely to be profitable if they do happen.

Remember - someone with money AND influence has already BOUGHT Coventry Airport (or to be technical, the lease). Why? To run flights? Maybe, but unlikely. He has just applied for permission to develop the land AROUND the airport.

Now in the case of SZD, you have a different situation - a choice between property speculation and airport, in which case the property is going to look more attractive.

such as your suggestion that Peel built the airport. Such inaccuracies render your opinion null and void.

It was a reference to the "10 years to prove itself" deal. So I stand corrected in that Peel were not the original owners. So what? The deal still stood, the 10 years are up, the airport is closed.

If there's a case for a new SZD (as I understand the case needs commercial ops), then let's hear the destinations. You are the one who is keen to promote this, where do people in Sheffield want to fly to, and how could SZD facilitate that? If the demand really is there, then what aircraft would be used, and which airlines would be likely to operate the flights?

That is why I think you have such an uphill struggle. There is nothing technically stopping KLM from starting up at DSA, but they have CHOSEN not to.

Of course SZD would be closer to the main Sheffield business districts, just as Sheffield Midland would be closer than Meadowhall as an HS2 stop. Yet government seems to be about to back the cheaper option. By far the cheapest option for airlines wanting to serve South Yorks is to open up routes into DSA.

The presence of holiday passengers at said location does not preclude business flights from operating, as happens at most airport across the country.

For me to question your case is not mere "supposition". The onus for any business proposal is on the proposer to make the case, not the other way round.

pug

17th Jan 2013, 01:15

You are still missing the point.

Now in the case of SZD, you have a different situation - a choice between property speculation and airport, in which case the property is going to look more attractive.

Of course it is, to a property developer with a competing interest in Doncaster. They didn't get a bad deal for £1. You cannot compare SZD with CVT, if only because of how close CVT is to BHX..

So what? The deal still stood, the 10 years are up, the airport is closed

They were allowed to purchase a prime development site for £1 provided they proved that the airport was not viable. They were in the process of developing an airport in Doncaster. Doesn't that ring alarm bells? Public money was ploughed into the development of road infrastructure amongst other things, in order to develop the airport. This will prove very profitable to somebody who wants to turn the place into a faceless business park.

If there's a case for a new SZD (as I understand the case needs commercial ops), then let's hear the destinations. You are the one who is keen to promote this, where do people in Sheffield want to fly to, and how could SZD facilitate that? If the demand really is there, then what aircraft would be used, and which airlines would be likely to operate the flights?

Why does it? Why is 'Manchester City Airport' still going strong without even an asphalt runway?

If I was to try to answer that question about routes then I would be speculating. It's therefore pointless. Someone clearly has faith in something on that front, but as we dont know who it is (other than them having other aviation interests) then how can we possibly answer that?

There is nothing technically stopping KLM from starting up at DSA, but they have CHOSEN not to.

No, there is nothing technically stopping KLM from operating from DSA. Commercially on the other hand, there arguably (and clearly) is. Humberside not being too far away for instance, along with the fact that DSA is too far away from Sheffield to provide a competitive advantage to Sheffield passengers over MAN or EMA. Loads on business services from DSA have been very low when they have been offered for instance. They were more popular from SZD.

The onus for any business proposal is on the proposer to make the case, not the other way round.

And that is just the point I'm trying to make. The onus is on the proposer to make proposals to the people that matter at this stage. They may even have a workable and profitable proposal to turn the airport into solely a GA airfield for all we know.

I dont think viability is the problem here at all. The problem is that Peel are highly unlikely to sell for any reasonable amount, and the council clearly have no interest in supporting any proposal to turn the place back into an airport.

Phileas Fogg

17th Jan 2013, 05:00

pug

17th Jan 2013, 08:57

"Manchester City Airport"?

I can call my house a castle but it doesn't mean that William & Kate will be popping in for tea and biscuits anytime soon ... Manchester/Barton is a grass aerodrome ... "Airport" my ass!!!

But ... be respectful enough to answer jabird's question(s), what routes from Sheffield City, what aircraft types and what operators? ... And without changing the topic of conversation to a grass field somewhere close to Manchester!

I would hope you could be respectful enough to read my posts properly. If you did you would see that I've answered the questions posted by jabird and others throughout this thread. You may have even got my hint of sarcasm with my calling it 'Manchester City Airport'.

I'm saying (I think quite clearly) that a reopened airport doesn't necessarily require any scheduled services whatsoever. Peel own Barton Aerodrome, it is in profit, it has no scheduled services whatsoever. In fact, I dont think a reopened airport will include passenger facilities in order to handle passenger flights. That is however just my opinion because in reality nobody on here knows..

Phileas Fogg

17th Jan 2013, 09:04

Pug,

Barton is adjacent to, effectively, England's 2nd city and with the other Manchester Aerodrome being significantly busy with the big stuff and significantly expensive to operate in and out of.

So how do you figure that Barton is comparable to Sheffield?

pug

17th Jan 2013, 09:13

Barton being adjacent to Manchester still doesn't make it one of the busier GA fields in the UK. In fact, you would find many of those are in areas of smaller populations than Sheffield. So what is your point, since you've realised that there is no point comparing scheduled operations?

Are we to assume that all of those airfields throughout the country are loss leaders because they aren't close to Manchester? I pop into Gamston and Sherburn (amongst others) now and then on XC, as do many others, they aren't tumbleweed setups..

jabird

17th Jan 2013, 10:15

From the original article.

The man has told the FSB he wants to buy the 80 acre site from its owners, Peel Holdings and a consortium of private investors, and reopen it to flights.

He claims he could operate scheduled services to UK and European cities, and proposes to offer flight training, air taxi, and business charter services.

I'm happy to keep speculating as I have yet to see any convincing facts which persuade me the airport could re-open and remain viable. Any "scandal" arguments would only be relevant if this could be proved AND the airport was viable.

To suggest there would be "no problem" with a business plan, without providing such evidence is just ridiculous.

It really should be me now that gets my coat! :ugh:

Phileas Fogg

17th Jan 2013, 11:12

Try popping in to Plymouth City and/or Filton and/or Ipswich and/or Portsmouth airports/aerodromes on a XC sometime!

EGCA

18th Jan 2013, 18:46

We have lost some airfields along the way, but hopefully others prosper, through a mix of business and private flying, maintenance etc. Examples being Gloucestershire, Nottingham, Leicester, Halfpenny Green, and with what looks like local authority support, the prospect of a hard runway going in at Rochester in return for part of the airfield developed for other commercial purposes.
Sadly the City of Sheffield has a long history of missed opportunities and lack of interest in fixed wing aviation, at least as far as the City Council is concerned. There was an airfield at Norton on the City's southern boundary. Developed during WW1, but long since lost to schools and housing. My father recalls seeing Sir Alan Cobham flying there in the 1930's.

Back in the 1960's the erstwhile "Yorkshire Airport Development Association" concluded that Sheffield would not provide enough traffic for a local airport. (however an International airport at Ferrybridge alongside the A1 was proposed...) The Sheffield Chamber of Commerce reacted by pressing for the urgent provision of an "airstrip" for business flights to and from Sheffield. Various locations came and went, Todwick, Anston, Hady near Chesterfield, and even plans to develop the existing grass airfield at Coal Aston ("EGCA"), however with the latter, development plans suggested by S/Ldr Wallace of Netherthorpe airfield were turned down by Chesterfield RDC, the planning authority.
Industrial concerns in Sheffield such as United Steel and Davy Ashmore were quietly getting on with flying from Coal Aston in the piston twins of that era, Piaggio P166 and Beech Queenair.
Writing in one of the Sheffield papers in 1964 the Assistant Managing Director of United Steel quotes his aircraft as making 108 landings in Sheffield in 1963, and the business aircraft of other industrial concerns making a further 120 landings, I assume mainly at EGCA. Some 50 years on, business aviation has changed, with the emphasis on turbine and jet aircraft needing longer hard runways, undertaking longer distance flights, eg to Europe and beyond.
Unfortunately EGCA would not be suitable for modern business/executive craft, it is a "challenging" grass airfield with a strict movements limit in its ongoing planning consent.

During this 1960's soul searching about air facilities for Sheffield, the City Council came down in favour of a heliport, eventually opening one at Parkwood Springs.

So what is the situation today? Holiday pax need to make the trek to East Midlands or Birmingham...or Doncaster; long distance scheduled passengers make the journey to Manchester, or London? Private "leisure" flying still takes place at the Sheffield Aero Club site at Netherthorpe, with its short runways. Business aviation to the area is presumably catered for at Retford/Gamston, which is a fair distance away, or possibly at Finningley?. The topography is against airfield development in the immediate Sheffield area, you tend to have to go south-eastish to find flat land.

Would Sheffield City be suitable as a GA airfield? In my humble opinion, "No", not a place I would want to do single-engine training, in a very built up area, and modern runway safety constraints have been discussed earlier in this thread, limiting larger aircraft. Also, again as discussed, the land will have a value for commercial/industrial development, given its location. The original genesis of Sheffield City airport from the Budge Mining contract to reclaim the coal and other deposits from the then derelict industrial area are too hazy to recall now, and in any event of historical interest only.

Regrettably therefore I do not see any great prospect for a viable fixed wing facility in the immediate environs of Sheffield.

Regards, and apologies for the long post,

EGCA

jabird

26th Jan 2013, 00:10

EGCA,

No apology needed, an excellent analysis of the local reality!

The other point with comparisons with Barton is the question of relative land value and planning. The SZD site is surrounded on all but one side by build up area. It therefore makes for a logical case to grant planning permission for an office park, however "bland" that might be! Sadly, some of the other posters here forget that a dead airport is bland too!

Barton on the other hand is on the edge of an urban area, but on three sides you have green fields. I suspect the runway itself is classed as greenbelt too. Therefore the chances of developing offices there are quite a lot lower, so the land is likely to be worth a lot less, thus it remains viable as a GA airfield.

It has been quite clear all along that the plan for SZD is to bring back commercial flights. If that was not the intention, then this thread has been in the wrong place from the start, as it is about airlines and airports, not fields! :ugh:

aboveusonlysky

29th Jan 2013, 15:40

I think a couple of relevant points to this thread have been lost in time. Taken from evidence put in the public domain during the Finningley Public Inquiry -
1. Peel were approached to purchase SZD only after other parties had declined it, including MAG.
2. When any business is losing money it can be sold for a small amount as the purchaser is buying the obligation to fund losses. SZD was a loss making business prior to Peel's involvement
3. The deal was signed in August 2011, one month later 9.11 happened and 2 of the 3 operators left, BA and Aer Arann, simply because it was already poor performing and the 9.11 impact decimated their loads
4. Evidence at the Inquiry, not disputed at the time, showed that Sabena left because of poor performance and said they would not return. KLM left when they upgraded their fleet and the runway became too short for them.
5. Despite being last to be invited to take it on, Peel committed to try to win in new business, which given that the likes of Ryanair, easyJet, TUI etc all have no aircraft small enough, meant that Flybe were one of the few left who :-
a) could land their (with their aircraft being small enough) and
b) hadn't loved and lost like Sabena and Aer Arann.
Flybe and any other left, were approached with a no airport charges deal plus marketing incentives but firmly said no.
6. No business person came in from the region to say they were going to start a commercial airline

And for those who criticise Peel as a property developer, remember it was they who delivered something like 800% growth at Liverpool at a time when no others would buy it. So SZD could have happened, but most probably needed a much longer runway.

Looking ahead Sheffield leaders ought to go the 20-25 mins to DSA and stick a flag in the ground; rename it Sheffield Doncaster Airport if you like (it's as close to Sheffield as many leading European airports are to their cities); capitalise on the fact that the Sheffield City Region already includes this 3000m runway and lobby for fast road connections;

Had the region pulled itself together, perhaps the HS2 would be having Sheffield Doncaster Airport as a stop and with fast road links that would probably helped the job market there.

mikerawsonderby

29th Jan 2013, 19:32

Just one thing missing from EGCA's history lesson - back in the early 70's Sheffield City Council approached the five local authorities that ran EMA to join them. I believe they offered a fair amount of money for a share, but their approach was rejected.

...and didn't those Queen Airs make a great sound!

Mike

onyxcrowle

30th Jan 2013, 09:40

Given that the new HS2 is going to be stopping not far from Sheffield City, Then perhaps they ought to keep it.
Question is , Can this guy who us fronting the money stretch to a runway extension.
As who currently fan operate there?.
Almost certaintly no Jet operators?

Phileas Fogg

30th Jan 2013, 12:24

Just out of curiosity what upgrade in fleet caused KLM to withdraw, would it have been when they withdrew from service the ex Netherlines SF340's and the NLM/KLM F50's simply couldn't perform in/out of Sheffield?

Aero Mad

30th Jan 2013, 15:14

FYI Fokker 50s never had a performance problem out of Sheffield.

pug

30th Jan 2013, 15:35

aboveusonlysky, your post has a few discrepencies. A response from someone who doesnt post on here..

para2...An understanding ( not an agreement) was signed on 31July2001. This understanding it abundantly clear that SCA will be closed for redevelopment...when "better services are available at Finningley. The "better services" to any destination other than a hiliday flight or eastern Europe simply isn't there.
BA and Aer Arran, according to the Airport's minutes ,were performing well with good loadings. Aer Arran had their own financial problems but asked to restart services...BA Regional had good loadings ( except the service to LCY) but had a re-organisation. Later neither could return since the ILS and safety equipment had been withdrawn.

para 4... There never was an enquiry...That's what Sheffielders have been asking for since 2005! Sabena left after financial problems caused by 9/11. KLM left after Schiphol reduced slots and a policy of "last in first out" was adopted. KLM claimed it was the best start-up service ever and a waiting list was applied for seats on certain flights....According to the Minutes KLM were proposing restarting services in the future.

para8... Within months of Peel buying in, Rescue and Fire services were withdrawn allowing just the minimum cover and not sufficient for commercial aviation. The ILS was also withdrawn.

para 9...Quite to the contrary, the Airport Minutes show that subsidy was never offered to any service...although in a 2000 report the matter was broached.

North West

30th Jan 2013, 20:01

You and your mystery poster should read this.

meetings - Sheffield City Airport (http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2005/agenda-13th-july-2005/sheffield-city-airport)

pug

30th Jan 2013, 20:14

Read it a few times. What is your point?

North West

30th Jan 2013, 20:29

So which bits of the report do you disagree with ?

jabird

30th Jan 2013, 21:31

BA and Aer Arran, according to the Airport's minutes ,were performing well with good loadings.

The old loads instead of yields argument. The former make an airport look busy, the latter make it profitable.

BA Regional had good loadings ( except the service to LCY)

London tends to be quite an important market for a regional airport, especially one that itself is using the "City" branding. With LCY gone, whole business case already massively weakened. You can't just "except" such a core market!

para 4... There never was an enquiry...That's what Sheffielders have been asking for since 2005!

See above. Let's see the evidence this airport was a real going concern.

KLM claimed it was the best start-up service ever and a waiting list was applied for seats on certain flights....According to the Minutes KLM were proposing restarting services in the future.

A route needs long term viability, not just a good start up. Lots of routes have "waiting lists" (aka overbooking / bumping - we're not talking membership of an elite club here) some of the time. Statistically, it is just part of the normal distribution and does not, of itself, a profitable route make.

Minutes can say anything. Proposing? Thinking about it? Signed contract totally different.

ILS32

30th Jan 2013, 22:03

This has been a nice little thread but unfortunately it is going nowhere.As much as some of you posters want Sheffield to have its own airport it is not going to happen.All the arguments for it to be reopened.and all the reasons why it should be reopened will not make it a viable option. Look up the road to Doncaster and remember all the hype how it would be Yorkshires number one airport.How they would attract significant numbers of passengers from the LBA.EMA and MAN but it didn't happen.So what chance is there that Sheffield will reopen?The answer is no chance.So maybe it is time to put this thread to bed and just dream about Sheffield with a 3000mtr runway.

pug

30th Jan 2013, 22:37

So which bits of the report do you disagree with ?

It's not that I agree/disagree with parts so much as that it is heavily biased, when it should have been subject to a completely independent analysis.

London tends to be quite an important market for a regional airport, especially one that itself is using the "City" branding. With LCY gone, whole business case (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7666161#) already massively weakened. You can't just "except" such a core market!

B:mad:cks.. How many UK regional airports still have a connection to London, then how many of those are linked with LCY..?

See above. Let's see the evidence this airport was a real going concern.

I agree, the whole things should be debated publicly. Hence the reason for the petition at the top of this thread.

The old loads instead of yields argument

Care to elaborate on that one :ok:

Look up the road to Doncaster and remember all the hype how it would be Yorkshires number one airport.How they would attract significant numbers of passengers from the LBA.EMA and MAN but it didn't happen

Some believed that the best course for air travel in South Yorkshire was to concentrate upon SZD instead of developing a former military base near Doncaster. Whether DSA has been or will be a success is open to debate, but it certainly isn't offering the services promised when plans were made to reduce Sheffield City's capability to handle commercial passenger traffic.

Knowing full well that I'm going around in circles I will say again. People with money and commercial accumen are currently in talks with the landowners with a view to purchasing the site and reopening the airport. That they believe there is a string case for this cannot be denied and I think some should let their ego's allow them to conceed that.

Will Peel sell? I'm 99.9% sure that they wont, but I still feel strongly that the whole subject should be debated in the open and the focus of an independent enquiry of sorts. At best this whole situation has been handled badly.

Suzeman

30th Jan 2013, 22:53

Given that the new HS2 is going to be stopping not far from Sheffield City, Then perhaps they ought to keep it.

The proposed line of HS2 actually cuts across the end of southern end of the runway and the terminal site -see here. Lots of compo for Peel there then.:E

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69017/hs2-arp-lr0-dr-rt-55142_3-0.pdf

aboveusonlysky

31st Jan 2013, 06:45

Pug

1 - your point re understanding or agreement...It was stronger than this, there was a contract between the old owners and Peel, signed weeks before 9.11. Sabena left before 9.11 and before Peel's involvement.

2 - i recognise the point re yields vs loads. A lot of airports look at loads and load factors and think all is well, but from an airline's perspective, they could be dumping prices in order to fill the planes. Peel went to both Aer Arann and BA and pressed for the reintroductions. KLM said they could not operate the F50 at full payload and with payload restrictions they wouldn't do it. Yes costs had to be cut, it was losing a fortune.

3. The enquiry i refer to was the Finningley Public Inquiry, where MAG teamed up with LBA and SZD to object. The Inspector determined in his conclusion that their objections took up 65% of the Inquiry time. The irony was LBA and EMA listened to Peel's commercial case and promptly left to forge deals at their airports with carriers who were supportive of Finningley, but which was still going to take some years getting the approval and building it, so Finningley was possibly the best thing to happen to the other two to get them more active.

So a large part of these objections at the Inquiry were about the other airports including SZD.

4. Re commercial deals, there were commercial deals proposed to airlines which were at least as competitive as any deals I saw at the time and which totally subsidised landing fees with added marketing support, but the context was there were only a limited number of operators who could operate given the runway length.

So as i said, 'looking ahead Sheffield leaders ought to go the 20-25 mins to DSA and stick a flag in the ground; rename it Sheffield Doncaster Airport if you like (it's as close to Sheffield as many leading European airports are to their cities); capitalise on the fact that the Sheffield City Region already includes this 3000m runway and lobby for fast road connections'

pug

31st Jan 2013, 07:48

Can only take your word for most of your post.

i recognise the point re yields vs loads. A lot of airports look at loads and load factors and think all is well, but from an airline's perspective, they could be dumping prices in order to fill the planes.

Having some experience within aviation revenue I understand this, but I find the airlines operating highly unlikely to have done this, not least KLM. If they said they were happy with loads and the flights were 'performing well' then yields will not have been so much a problem. The flights operated for longer than the typical 6 month trial seasons.

capitalise on the fact that the Sheffield City Region already includes this 3000m runway and lobby for fast road connections'

That there is a 3000m runway there is irrelevant, what is your point? Are you trying to suggest that the airport could attract long-haul operators? The airport has failed thus far to provide business destinations that are supported sufficiently. It has to be understandable why business groups are becoming impatient, particularly when they had an airport that in their view was perfectly capable of providing what they wanted in a far better location.. Hence, there are people prepared to put £millions into reopening the place.

Phileas Fogg

31st Jan 2013, 11:41

Pug

In it's heyday Sheffield City had a grand total of four "Puddle Jumper" operators, KLM pulled out, apparently, over aircraft performance, Sabena pulled out due to poor loads, BA dropped the LCY route due to poor loads also and, these days, Aer Arran have enough problems of their own without concerning themselves of any Sheffield petition.

As you've kind of admitted yourself any protest/petition to reopen the STOLPort is a case of "banging head" and "brick wall", the stats speak for themselves, of the previous four puddle jumper operators at least 50% lost money on the operation whilst the remaining 50% remain questionable regarding the same.

So where is any new airport operator likely to find the likes of an ATR42 and/or geriatric DHC8 operator to come and offer scheduled services ... Ah yes, there was Air SouthWest, ah yes, there was Air Wales, Air Wales in particular tried some niche routes and it caused them to close down, perhaps they could have added Sheffield to their route network and closed down even sooner!

OK, there's, perhaps, Eastern with their Jetstreams but having seen the "regional" fares they like to charge I can't really see anything taking off and anytime soon.

Time to switch off any life support system for Sheffield City Airport perhaps!

pug

31st Jan 2013, 11:54

PF, as has already been posted. KLM did not pull out due to aircraft performance issues. It was in fact as a result of a slot issue at Schipol meaning a 'last in first out' policy was implemented. A number of regional airports were subject to frequency cuts at the same time.

Had an independent enquiry concluded that the airport was a lame duck then there would be no argument. However, a number of discrepencies exist, not least that the aviation consultant that contributed to the 2005 report, also contributed to a report a few years earlier with a completely different outcome.

I'm not putting words in anybodys mouth. I think this is my main point and one that has been ignored for some reason, that is there are people with money and commercial accumen in talks with the landowners with a view to investing £millions into reopening the facility.

I just find it a bit strange that people posting on a forum could somehow try to undermine their position without even knowing who these people are. Or that these people would make the time and effort without even having some sort of plan in place.

Phileas Fogg

31st Jan 2013, 12:38

Pug,

I find it somewhat questionable to believe that "Royal Dutch Airlines" that owns and/or has shares in two Schiphol Handling Agents and/or owns or has shares in such airlines, past and present, as Netherlines, NLM, Martinair and Transavia, to name but four, should need to chop routes to/from it's home base 10 or 12 runway airport, that may use 4 runways, 2 each for take-offs and landings, consecutively, due to any restriction of airport capacity ... I just find it questionable to believe!

Aviation Consultant? ... Now you make me laugh ... In a previous life I went self-employed as an aviation consultant and, at one point, I found myself on contract to BAe Systems working alongside a BAe employeee who had, himself, applied and been accepted for a position within BAe as an aviation consultant and he questioned of me what an aviation consultant actually does? ... "It can mean anything you want it to mean and should not be taken too seriously" I explained to him. :)

Please try to get over it ... They tried a Sheffield City Airport and it was a money loser, it simply wasn't viable.

pug

31st Jan 2013, 12:56

Aviation Consultant? ... Now you make me laugh ... In a previous life I went self-employed as an aviation consultant and, at one point, I found myself on contract to BAe Systems working alongside a BAe employeee who had, himself, applied and been accepted for a position within BAe as an aviation consultant and he questioned of me what an aviation consultant actually does? ... "It can mean anything you want it to mean and should not be taken too seriously" I explained to him.

Exactly..

They tried a Sheffield City Airport and it was a money loser, it simply wasn't viable.

So are most airports as stand alone operations. Lets close them all.

I find it somewhat questionable to believe that "Royal Dutch Airlines" that owns and/or has shares in two Schiphol Handling Agents and/or owns or has shares in such airlines, past and present, as Netherlines, NLM, Martinair and Transavia, to name but four, should need to chop routes to/from it's home base 10 or 12 runway airport, that may use 4 runways, 2 each for take-offs and landings, consecutively, due to any restriction of airport capacity ... I just find it questionable to believe!

That was the exact reason given by KLM Uk at the time of their reshuffle. This also included the cuts in frequencies on a number of their UK routes by upto 50%.

I take it you wont be visiting this thread any longer, having put Sheffield City Airport to bed and all... :ok:

Phileas Fogg

31st Jan 2013, 13:05

Aha,

So it wasn't KLM mainline or Cityhopper, it was KLM UK which was another old employer of mine from previous lives, Air UK, indeed Air Anglia and British Island Airways, under a different branding hence why they may, or may not, have lost slots in/out of AMS.

Not visit this thread any longer? ...It's 2 o'clock in the afternoon to you, 10 o'clock in the evening to me, what else would I do after a long day's work and whilst supping my evening beer(s) before bedtime? :)

onyxcrowle

31st Jan 2013, 15:48

What Routes did they operate ?. (BA/Aerarran)

North West

31st Jan 2013, 20:57

Sheffield City Airport opened in 1997 following development by the Sheffield Development Corporation. With the winding up of the Development Corporation in 1997, the freehold to the airport land was transferred to the City Council, which entered into a lease with the developer on the same terms as the original Development Agreement. The lease required the developers to use reasonable endeavours to operate the airport as set out in the planning approval. If, at the end of a 10 year ‘reverter period’ it could be demonstrated that the operation of the airport was not financially viable, the freehold of the site could be transferred from the Council to the developer for the sum of £1. The development of the airport by the private sector could only be financed if this reversion clause was in place. Without the ability to use the land as security, the development of the airport would not have been fundable because of the high risks involved. This process was overseen and expressly approved at the time by the District Valuer and Department for the Environment.

Sheffield City Council has managed subsequent processes within the inherited context outlined in this paper – namely a contracted operator, insufficient runway length and limited period of protection. A Joint Liaison Committee, made up of representatives from the Council, the airport operator and Chamber of Commerce nominees, received audited accounts and heard proposals to develop the airport operation. This committee was originally set up by the Development Corporation in an advisory capacity and continued to operate in this role once the freehold had transferred to the Council. Operational and regulatory decisions have been conducted directly between the Council and operator.

By February 1998 Sheffield City Airport had attracted its first scheduled service, a KLM link to Amsterdam. The airport went on to attract services to 6 destinations in total, operated over time by 6 different airlines. The services experienced mixed success, with the Amsterdam route carrying the most traffic. In the light of a restructuring of the KLM UK operations the route no longer fitted within the airline’s strategic development plan and ceased in 1999. Brymon and British Regional Airlines were merged into British Airways CitiExpress. British Airways found that the limited runway length meant that not all aircraft were able to operate at full payload. On routes to Belfast and Dublin, this became a major issue because of the volumes of baggage being carried. British Airways route to London City struggled to attract north-bound traffic and was not viable.

Of the other airlines involved, Sabena is no longer operational and Aer Arann indicated that yields on the Dublin service were not strong. The service to London City Airport, which continued with a local operator after British Airways pulled out, proved unsustainable due to competition from GNER East Coast and Midland Mainline as local business travellers did not continue to support the service once quality rail services were reinstated. By the time the current operators acquired a share in Sheffield City Airport, only the British Airways Belfast and Aer Arann Dublin services remained.

It is against this backdrop that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Sheffield City Council and the airport operators in 2001 supporting the creation of a partnership between Tinsley Park Ltd and Peel Holdings to take forward the development of the airport. The agreement records that, although reasonable effort should continue to be made to attract new scheduled airlines to Sheffield City Airport, “the long term future for aviation services in South Yorkshire will be underpinned by the development of Finningley as a commercial airport.”

Whether or not millions have been offered to Peel (I would like to know the exact amount) it is their choice whether to accept the offer or not. Whether they do or don't should not, and will not, be the subject of any kind of enquiry. It is a commercial decision.

The two paragraphs in bold (from the "biased" independant report of 2005) show clearly why Peel ended up owning the site for £1. The £1 clause was in the development agreement from the outset, long before Peel's involvement. When Peel did get involved, they made it clear that their focus would be on DSA.

I suppose you could try and argue in court that Peel did not make reasonable efforts and so they breached their side of the MoU. Unless there was a line of airline CEOs prepared to come forward to say they would have operated from Sheffield between 2001 and 2007, this would be very easy for Peel to win the argument. The dismal record when it was open and the paucity of business services from HUY & DSA would only strengthen the Peel case.

So, where do you then with this enquiry? Beat up on a long defunct development agency for putting the £1 reverion clause in back in 1995. What will that achieve? Beat up on the council for selling to Peel ? Maybe. It would make the Peel / DSA haters feel better for a day or two, but it won't take the site out of Peel's ownership. Too late.

Phileas Fogg

31st Jan 2013, 23:20

I was reading this nonsense from the Cardiff thread only the other day:

Dubai money men could create 600 jobs at Pembrey Airport | This is South Wales (http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Dubai-money-men-create-600-jobs-Pembrey-Airport/story-16386721-detail/story.html)

Pembrey Airfield has a 797m runway, a small terminal and sheep and the owner, who claims to have invested millions himself, claims that Ryanair and 14 other airlines have approached him to provide services as soon as he may have extended the runway ... He didn't approach them, they've approached him! :)

So here we have another thread, another airfield, with a wannabee owner with dosh who wants to change the world. North West's post seems to sum up that Sheffield City Airport failed, it only ever attracted 6 airlines, and not neccessarily at the same time, and each, it seems, left due to unprofitable loads and/or Sheffield's restricted runway.

What was Sheffield's airport operator supposed to do, continue throwing good money after bad or to wind the operation up?

aboveusonlysky

1st Feb 2013, 09:07

Pug - you ask what is my point?

There are plenty of airports 30 minutes or so from their cities. I don't even think that Sheffield have a road sign to Sheffield from DSA. In my view Sheffield should be prioritising a motorway link and a rail link and renaming it with Sheffield's name first. Of course any traffic growth is difficult at this time but its a good airport and needs the market (Sheffield) to get behind it.

FlightLieutenantJSG

1st Feb 2013, 10:32

Morning all, I thought I'd join the debate.

So a "serious bidder" is about to bid for the site in order to re-open it as an airport, despite no airlines making money from SZD the first time round?

All this in preference to using DSA, a vastly larger and better equipped airport facility, which lies only 30 miles away?

Sorry, that logic of that defeats me. Why would airlines/customers who are currently avoiding DSA suddenly start flocking to SZD?

This is Fantasy Island stuff.

Fairdealfrank

1st Feb 2013, 12:29

Quote: "There are plenty of airports 30 minutes or so from their cities. I don't even think that Sheffield have a road sign to Sheffield from DSA. In my view Sheffield should be prioritising a motorway link and a rail link and renaming it with Sheffield's name first. Of course any traffic growth is difficult at this time but its a good airport and needs the market (Sheffield) to get behind it."

At present, Finningley is remarkably inaccessible. There probably needs to be a junction on the M18 at the A638 ("3A"?) near New Rossington to provide reasonable access to Sheffield. Either that, or a railway link to Doncaster (East Coast Main Line) and Sheffield-Midland, which have links to other towns in the area.

The questions are: (1) can that sort of expenditure be justified for the amount of traffic at DSA; (2) would that expenditure bring an adequate increase in traffic at DSA?

Suspect that the answer is "no" in both cases, but would love to be proven wrong.

As for renaming, how does "Sheffield-Finningley" sound?

johnnychips

1st Feb 2013, 17:01

The AA routefinder gives the time as 41 minutes Sheffield - DSA via Doncaster's inner ring road. This is optimistic owing to traffic congestion there; most people would stay on the M18/180 to Thorne and double back, even though this is two sides of a triangle.

The link road you mentioned to avoid this is to be built.

Carillion lands £18m link road - Highways Magazine (http://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/carillion-lands-18m-link-road-20121015)

A rail link is extremely unlikely for reasons given earlier in the thread.

Fairdealfrank

1st Feb 2013, 18:06

Quote: "The link road you mentioned to avoid this is to be built."

Excellent news! Good to be proven wrong (on this occasion).

aboveusonlysky

1st Feb 2013, 19:50

Fairdealfrank - it's a bit chicken and egg re the traffic demand question. But an airport with direct road links 15-20 mins from a city vs one that is 30-35 mins away....i think there are airlines who would think they could sell that proposition to passengers.

Re the name, there seems to be sensitivitiies around re Sheffield and Doncaster but the airlines will have to look at it for what best sells seats. No doubt Sheffield is the biggest and best known regional town/city, so Sheffield needs to take prime billing to sell seats. Sheffield Doncaster seems right. Of course locals will always know it as Finningley, just like they tend to refer to Ringway and Speke in those places.

BKS Air Transport

3rd Feb 2013, 19:31

I am not a legal expert, certainly not in this area of civil and contractual law, but I would like to raise a few points and ask for comments, particularly of anyone who has more knowledge of such things than I have.

The petition is asking for an independent public enquiry. My understanding is that a statutory enquiry can only be ordered by a Minister. This seems very unlikely. A local authority can hold an enquiry, presumably at its own expense, though as it would not be statutory, I guess it could not force anyone to attend. It seems that this would make it an expensive talking shop of dubious purpose.

Is not the right way forward one of judicial review, if the FSB believe that questionable decisions have been made in the past involving a public body? They, the FSB, or the rumoured millionaire, would have to dig into their pockets though...

Fairdealfrank

4th Feb 2013, 21:11

Quote: "Fairdealfrank - it's a bit chicken and egg re the traffic demand question. But an airport with direct road links 15-20 mins from a city vs one that is 30-35 mins away....i think there are airlines who would think they could sell that proposition to passengers.

Re the name, there seems to be sensitivitiies around re Sheffield and Doncaster but the airlines will have to look at it for what best sells seats. No doubt Sheffield is the biggest and best known regional town/city, so Sheffield needs to take prime billing to sell seats. Sheffield Doncaster seems right. Of course locals will always know it as Finningley, just like they tend to refer to Ringway and Speke in those places."

Hmmmm, so less of the "Robin Hood" and more of the "Sheffield"?

Mickey Kaye

5th Feb 2013, 07:56

"Quote: "The link road you mentioned to avoid this is to be built."

Excellent news! Good to be proven wrong (on this occasion)."

And are Peel paying for this?

But will reap the benefit when Donny is found to be non profitable and is converted to industrial units.

wb9999

5th Feb 2013, 22:41

And are Peel paying for this?

But will reap the benefit when Donny is found to be non profitable and is converted to industrial units.

I think it is the council who are paying, as the link road is not solely for the airport. It is being built to open up Rossington also.

I very much doubt Peel will turn DSA into industrial units, after investing £80 million to open up the airport plus millions each year in losses. They will never recoup the money from converting the airport into industrial units. There is plenty of surplus land and ex-RAF buildings around the airport without converting airport infrastructure.

Norman Normal

6th Feb 2013, 22:15

Robin Hood supporters seem to be putting a lot of faith in the so-called 'Airport Link Road'... but when you check the associated online info, you find that in fact the link road barely gets within 2 miles of the airport.

It's all here:

http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/sections/transportstreetsandparking/schemesandprojects/Finningley_and_Rossington_Regeneration_Route_Scheme__FARRRS_ .aspx

It'll be easier to get to Robin Hood than previously, but there will still be 2 miles of A-road and country lane to negotiate.

The question is, will any of this impress the airlines enough to persuade them to start offering the number of services required to allow DSA to break even? And even if the airlines do offer the services, are there enough people in the catchment area to fill all those seats?

Mickey Kaye

7th Feb 2013, 09:26

"after investing £80 million to open up the airport plus millions each year in losses"

I don't believe for a second Peel have invested 80 million quid in DSA.

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 09:40

Mickey Kaye, that's the publicly released figure. Do you know how much it is to have years of planning inquiries, buy the airfield from the MOD, build a terminal, car parks, access roads, resurface a runway and taxiways, install CAT III lighting, ILS, NDB, DME, Radar, ATC equipment, fire equipment, soundproof nearby homes and obtain the requried CAA licences?
I bet you wouldn't get much change from £80 million for all that. And it's losing millions each year.

The guy who wants to buy Sheffield and turn it into a decent GA and business airfield better have deep pockets. It won't cost anywhere near £80 million, but he'll certainly need a large bank balance and be willing to lose it all.

Norman Normal, when the new link road is built, Finningley will be 5 minutes from the M18. DSA will be only 20 minutes from SZD. I'm not sure that "2 miles of A-road and country lane to negotiate" is really a challenge, considering that East Midlands is 2 miles along an A-road, and Leeds Bradford may as well be Cumbria for the pain that it is to travel there.

Mickey Kaye

7th Feb 2013, 10:40

Yes but out of that 80 million How much did peel actually put in? How much was europen grants etc?

When Peel took over Teeside they promised to invest 15 million (can't remember the actual figure but it was a significant amount) and as far as I am aware they have invested absolutely nothing.

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 10:48

From the limited information publicly available on the internet, it looks like Peel received £15 million in EU grants, and £2.9 million from DMBC. But that barely covers the losses at DSA of the last 2 years alone.

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 10:51

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Sheffield Heliport and NOT the former RAF Finningley?

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 10:52

You would be foolish to think that the two are not linked.

Why would Peel sell SZD if it jeopardises their investment in DSA?

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 11:42

SZD, literally, can't accept anything larger than an Airfix kit ... It's kind of like suggesting that Shoreham-By-Sea jeopardises any investment in Gatwick and/or Cumbernauld jeopardises any investment in both Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Try to get over any conspiracy theories!

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 11:43

And you think that DSA doesn't accept anything smaller than a 737?

There are PA28s and Cessna 150s at DSA, so a re-opened SZD would compete with DSA on the GA front.

BTW, it's no conspiracy theory from me. I think there's zero chance of SZD re-opening, and people should give up on the idea now before somebody loses a lot of money on it. I'm suggesting that there's no way Peel will sell SZD because it, rightly, wants to protect their investment at DSA and a re-opened SZD would compete with them on GA and business aviation. If Peel don't want to sell then there's nothing anybody can do about it.
But, I have signed the petition because there's a lack of GA-accessible airfields in the UK. One can dream.

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 12:04

An "AIRPORT" of any viability shouldn't need to give two hoots to "Airfix Kits" such as PA28's and Cessna 150's that pay how much per landing fee?

This area is for Airlines, Airports & Routes, not flying clubs and Airfix kits!

I guess we should now realise that Sheffield City shall be seriously viable once it may re-open because it hopes for Piper and Cessna movements and "We'll show DSA what for" :ugh:

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 12:18

Phileas Fogg, I think you're totally missing the point.

ANY aircraft that may fly into SZD would be business that potentially is taken from DSA. SZD and DSA are both owned by the same company. That company only wants to keep one of the airfields open. If it was to sell SZD, this would then compete with it's own airfield. Why would any business sell an asset that would then compete directly with itself for the same customer?
Business jets regularly use DSA, and they will be paying hundreds/thousands per landing.

Decent business aviation airports have radar or on-site radio navigation equipment (NDB or VOR) - neither of which SZD had when it was open (and which cost of lot of money to install and maintain). Cambridge, Oxford and Gloucester have radar, Gamston has a VOR and others have an NDB. Without these, SZD will not attract anything bigger than a Cessna 172.

peachair732

7th Feb 2013, 12:19

Robin Hood DSA is not convenient really for Shefiield. DSA seems to be just charters and lots of Polish flights for all the polish community in the area. The airport/region in crying out for some schedules to Amsterdam or London, LGW or LCY, for connecting flights. DSA at the moment is doing little it seems to attract or cater for the business community. Its just holiday flights and migrant worker flights.

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 12:32

This area is for Airlines, Airports & Routes, not flying clubs and Airfix kits!

Phileas Fogg, just a reminder that it was you who started the discussion about airfix kits.

I am baffled as to what your point of view is, and whether you support SZD. Earlier in the thread you were against the idea, now you are arguing with me, who is supporting your argument earlier. Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 12:40

wb999,

No, I'm not missing the point, I'm offering unbiased opinion based on the fact that I have never been to SZD, I am not from the area and my only experience of DSA was when I flew past in one of a formation of four C-130's with a VC10 chasing our ass during a particular flypast of 1977.

I think you're missing the point, you say that the company only wants to keep one of the airfields open ... Well only one of the airfields is open and it's losing, by all accounts, a significant amount of money.

Would you be prepared to personally financially support the re-opening of SZD?

I very much doubt it!

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 14:22

wb999,

I'm in favour of anything that is needed and will make money.

Such as this island on which I live, it has developed to the stage whereas it needs a supermarket on the island, we need paved surfaced roads on the island which is something they are working upon but do we need a 2nd airport upon the island ..... Hell no, we only have four ATR-72 movements per week, why on earth would we need two airports to service so few aeroplane movements?

And ... P.S. I'm not arguing, I've got better things to do fighting fires here with the locals daily ... I'm just discussing.

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 16:53

Phileas, you are definitely missing the point -which is that it is immaterial who/what could fly to a re-opened SZD as Peel will never sell on the basis it will harm DSA. This is why DSA is a material factor in SZD's future. If DSA did not exist or Peel did not own both then any SZD may be available for sale.

I can't spell it out any simpler. Hopefully you will understand this time.

I personally would not put any money into SZD, because it will be money wasted. The airport was not viable and will not be viable in the future.

You appear to agree with what I say, but then disagree about the exact same point, which is why I don't understand what your view is.

Fairdealfrank

7th Feb 2013, 17:19

Quote: "Why would any business sell an asset that would then compete directly with itself for the same customer?"

It would do so only when required to by law (monopolies commission), e.g. LHR-LGW-STN and GLA-EDI, obviously not applicable in this case.

Quote: "Robin Hood DSA is not convenient really for Shefiield. DSA seems to be just charters and lots of Polish flights for all the polish community in the area. The airport/region in crying out for some schedules to Amsterdam or London, LGW or LCY, for connecting flights. DSA at the moment is doing little it seems to attract or cater for the business community. Its just holiday flights and migrant worker flights."

Maybe that's where SZD went wrong: no connections to London.

LHR rather than LGW for onward connections, but unachievable because LHR is full.

LCY for point to point city centre-city centre business flights would probably been the way forward. However both LHR and LCY are expensive airports and there may have been inadequate traffic for this to be viable.

Maybe it's the same situation at DSA?

eltonioni

7th Feb 2013, 18:07

wb9999, Sheffield City had an NDB, SWF from memory. It's still there to best of my knowledge.

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 18:12

eltonioni, yes you are correct in that they had one. Apologies. Although it's not currently in use (if it is still there), as it's not on the CAA charts, so it might need a lot of money spending on it to recommission it.

eltonioni

7th Feb 2013, 18:23

I understand that NDB's are especially cheap, within the reach of the "puddle jumper" airfields with Cessna's and Pipers that the erstwhile "if I can't use it you can't have it" Victorian balloonist thinks are beneath him. :D

TCAS FAN

7th Feb 2013, 18:30

eltonioni

NDBs may be cheap to buy, but to operate one in the UK you have to be a CAA Certified Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) which will significantly increase the price, and you will keep paying every year for the privilege of maintaining the Certification.

Norman Normal

7th Feb 2013, 19:10

wb9999 -

I guess we're all agreed that discussing DSA and SZD simultaneously is inevitable. So a quick question about viability:

SZD is often labelled 'unviable' (evidence never seems to be offered) but was only available to airline traffic for 5 years (RFFS downgraded to Category 1 in 2002). But Robin Hood made a nett loss of £11.6m last year (its seventh year of operations). Passenger numbers continue to fall. The airlines seem to have little faith in it. So... surely Robin Hood is currently unviable?

How long will a company like Peel continue to accept this situation?

EGCA

7th Feb 2013, 19:44

First:-If Finningley is not busy with IT traffic, maybe, just maybe, there isn't any great demand from (Sheffield) local tour companies to fly more of their customers from Finningley, presumably they are happy to bus them to--I assume--East Midlands, which at present probably is about the same journey time from Sheffield via the M1, and may allow for a pick-up of pax in Chesterfield along the way. Is there a current campaign in Sheffield for more IT destinations from Finningley?
Second:-Further, is there any current campaign in Sheffield for scheduled destinations from Finningley? Business people in South Yorkshire presumably do fly to Europe on business, how do they cope at present? Are they shouting from the rooftops for scheduled flights from Finningley?
Third:- Finally, and reverting to Sheffield City, does anyone local to the Steel City detect any great outcry at the lack of a GA facility more local than say Sandtoft, Netherthorpe, Retford/Gamston?

I respectfully suspect that the answer to all three points is : "NO".

EGCA

wb9999

7th Feb 2013, 20:01

Norman Normal, for viability you have to look at future potential as well as current/past performance.

DSA and SZD are very different airports, with very different potential (assuming SZD did re-open).

SZD would be aiming for a small market and competing with other small regional airports across the country with better facilities (longer runways and radar). The STOL market is very small and limited, with high fares - and operators that want radar. SZD tried business and general aviation, and that wasn't a success.

DSA is in a very different situation. The airport has the potential to handle any aircraft to any destination, in pretty much any weather, with the facilities that were sadly lacking at SZD. DSA has been unlucky in it's timing in starting operations. The economy started deteriorating in 2007 - just as passenger numbers were approaching decent levels for them. But the future potential is there, when the economy improves.

Liverpool (also owned by Peel) has never made a profit since it opened, but is a popular airport with many routes. And, if you go back 15-20 years ago, the future of all regional airports did not look good - and most had been operating for 30+ years. And had it not been for the rise in popularity of low-cost airlines, many would be struggling now.

SZD was reportedly losing £400k a year BEFORE Peel took over and BEFORE the airlines vacated, and the original developer/operator was struggling financially.

johnnychips

7th Feb 2013, 22:36

FDF wrote:

Maybe that's where SZD went wrong: no connections to London.

LHR rather than LGW for onward connections, but unachievable because LHR is full.

LCY for point to point city centre-city centre business flights would probably been the way forward. However both LHR and LCY are expensive airports and there may have been inadequate traffic for this to be viable.

Maybe it's the same situation at DSA?

Air routes from DSA to any airport in London were never considered, as the train takes only 1h 40 and operates at least twice an hour. The rail service from Sheffield to London takes just over two hours. Presumably MAN-LHR survives as there is a greater catchment and more interlining. Even then VLM's service to LCY died.

The resurrection of LBA's BA service to LHR has received a great deal of scepticism that it is there as a slot-holder - see that thread.

EGCA wrote:

Second:-Further, is there any current campaign in Sheffield for scheduled destinations from Finningley? Business people in South Yorkshire presumably do fly to Europe on business, how do they cope at present? Are they shouting from the rooftops for scheduled flights from Finningley?

It doesn't really work like that though. I would be delighted if there were flights I could use on business to Brussels about six times a year either from Sheffield or Doncaster. But I doubt there are sufficient potential business flyers from South Yorkshire to justify this - or any other destinations, surrounded as we are by MAN, LBA and EMA denying us a wider catchment. This is not helped by Eurostar moving to St Pancras, so we can be on a train to Brussels or Paris within an hour of arriving in London, with a choice of many departures each day.

There is also no specific linked industry in South Yorkshire like oil or chemicals which keeps the KLM services from MME and HUY going.

Phileas Fogg

7th Feb 2013, 22:48

wb9999,

You keep referring to an "SZD" sale yet it seems you accept that any re-opened SZD would be a loss making disaster and wouldn't stay in business for very long at all.

So what is the point, why sell and/or re-open something that lost a bucket load of money causing it to close the first time around for it lose even more money and close a second time around?

Norman Normal

8th Feb 2013, 08:28

wb9999 -

Where to start?

The whole point about airports such as SZD is that they are there to link with other regional airports (as well as hubs), not compete with them (BRS - LBA, ABZ - HUY etc.)

Second, what does it matter how long the runway is if there aren't enough people in the local catchment population to fill aeroplanes?

I assume you're aware of the Ciudad Real fiasco? 4,000m runway, and yet, surprise, surprise, no passengers. Result - opened October 2008, closed April 2012.

Obviously, DSA is not doing as badly as Ciudad Real, but it's clearly not making money either.

The sad fact is that DSA and SZD will both be catering to niche markets. Unfortunately for DSA, its niche markets do not come with big margins, and its costs are outweighing revenue in a big way. SZD on the other hand is much better-placed to attract high-margin traffic, and to make money by combining that traffic with other on-airport while keeping costs low thanks to smaller infrastructure.

wb9999

8th Feb 2013, 12:11

Norman Normal, regional airports compete with each other (why would Leeds Bradford and Humberside object to DSA opening?), to attract airlines and create bases, and a re-opened SZD would definitely be competing with DSA, so why would Peel sell unless they were forced to?

The number of inter-UK flights between regional airports on small turboprops is a small percentage of total flights. The majority of flights from regional airports are to Europe, on jets or large turboprops. DSA is well suited for this, when the economy picks up. SZD is not and never will be. The two UK routes you mention are Eastern Airways flights, who are unlikely to use a re-opened SZD as they own Humberside (a competitor!) and they already operate from Leeds and East Midlands. High prices (which are typical on STOL aircraft) does not equal high margin. It's more likely due to high costs.

It's unlikely any airline would use SZD, as it is too short and doesn't have radar. There are currently no commercial flights from any similar sized runway in the UK, and, other than a few rare exceptions in the Scottish Highlands, none into a non-radar airport. Since SZD originally opened, airlines want bigger runways for bigger planes and radar. BA got rid of all of their turboprops, and KLMuk's smallest aircraft is larger than the one that flew into SZD.

I don't think DSA is catering for a niche market. Currently, yes (because of the economy). But potentially, no. It's in a similar position to places like Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, East Midlands were 15 years ago. Back then the only time you would visit one of those airports was for a charter flight on a package deal to the sun - just like DSA now.

The Ciudad Real airport fiasco is very different to DSA. It cost £1 billion pounds to open (15 times the cost at DSA), was alleged to have been planned to fail from the beginning and there was corruption - investors, banks and the regional Government were conned into putting money in and it all, allegedly, went to the developer and his construction company.

There is some misinformation and propaganda coming from the FSB (I support their campaign, but I wish they would stick to facts).

The FSB write in their myths document:
“Sheffield has a 1211 metre runway. There are many regional airliners operating out of cities all over the world that are designed specifically to land and take off on 1200 metre runways. London City Airport handles about 3m passengers per year, all of them flying in and out on regional airliners“.
LCY’s runway is 1508 metres – 25% longer than SZD. That is a massive difference, as most of the aircraft that flies in to LCY would not fit into SZD.

The list of airlines that the FSB say could use SZD is incorrect. BACityFlyer, Air France Régional and Lufthansa regional do not have aircraft capable of using SZD at maximum weight. KLMuk have 3 aircraft that could just about fit into SZD - the ATR 72 (requires 1200 metres, no room for error!). But if they are already allocated to other routes then KLM is out of the question for SZD. An airport that relies on one or two airlines (even with 100% loads) is not going to be profitable - ask Humberside!

Toronto City Airport does have a 1200m runway with 1.5 million passengers. But they have a large operator (Porter Airlines) based there with a fleet of 26 aircraft designed for short runway operations. If SZD was to re-open there will never be a scenario where a major airline uses SZD as their main hub. Before Porter moved into Toronto City in 2006 the airport was losing $1 million a year.

Toronto City’s runway length is 180 metres shorter than the Porter's fleet manufacturer’s specifications, so the airline have to leave 8 seats empty on every flight. Hardly an ideal situation in the UK, where fuel costs, passenger taxes and airport fees are much higher than in North America.

Metro Toronto has a population of 5.5 million, and it's the financial capital in Canada. To get anywhere in Canada you have to fly, unlike the UK. So the figure of 1.5 million doesn't look quite as impressive. Sheffield's population is just over a tenth of metro Toronto, which would equate to about 150,000 passengers annually (before we start narrowing that down and thinking about niches that SZD would be targeting) - which is not enough to make an airport viable.

It is extreme for the FSB to compare the potential of Sheffield City airport with London City and Toronto City. It's like comparing Humberside with Heathrow.

Like I said before, I would love SZD to open. I've flown from it when it was open. But my head says it will never happen, unless some rich guy wants to lose millions on a hobby.

ILS32

8th Feb 2013, 13:40

unless some rich guy wants to lose millions on a hobby.

For all those with a wish list for Sheffield Airport to reopen as a commercial venture the above quote says it all. Which airline in the present economic climate even if it had the aircraft available would want to fly from Sheffield?When the economy picks up and eventually it will, all the factors in regard to it's original closure as a commercial airport will still be there.In time even the keenest proponent for reopening Sheffield Airport will come to realise it will never happen.Good luck to them for still trying.

Phileas Fogg

8th Feb 2013, 23:01

wb999,

You are quite incorrect regarding your summarisation of, supposedly, how the likes NCL, LPL and LBA were 15 years ago, you might have only visited such airports for a package deal to the sun but others visited them for other purposes.

Not just 15 years ago, I can cast my mind back 25 or more years, in those days such airlines as BA, BMA, BCal, AirUK, Dan Air, Loganair aswell as all the smaller airlines that came and went, had quite a domestic route network.

One example, if I can recall AirUK's routes, from NCL AirUK offered routes to EDI, ABZ, STN and/or NWI aswell as, internationally, AMS and CPH, besides these NCL also had services to both LGW & LHR, no doubt Dan Air were offering services to Ireland pn the "Budgie" network and so on.

LBA, AirUK offered routes to STN, EDI, ABZ, BFS, AMS & CPH, BMA offered a LHR service whilst other operators offered other routes.

15 or more years ago LPL would have been the last airport I would have thought of for a package holiday, in those days LPL was only good for such routes as Ireland and IOM unless one wants to go even further back to BMA's LHR route and the days of Cambrian Airways!

Perhaps one of the lesser (slower) airports to develop was HUY, perhaps, because it's not anywhere in particular, even the name itself suggests it is beside a river rather than in or near a city and without a significant catchment area.

And, not so far down the road, there is Finningley, again without a significant catchment area, take a look how long it has taken HUY to get to where it is today, something like 40 years, well expect it to take Finningley a further 30+ years to get to a level that HUY is at today!

wb9999

8th Feb 2013, 23:38

Phileas, yes there were a small number of scheduled domestic and European routes at each airport but many more charter, 15 years ago (the AirUK name disappeared that year, closely followed by many of their routes). I was comparing their position back then to Finningley now. Finningley is not solely charter - they have about 7 scheduled destinations. So my point about DSA's position being comparable to others 15 years ago is still correct.

15 years ago LPL had 600k passengers.
15 years ago LBA had 1.2 million passengers.
Both had been open decades before reaching these numbers.
In 2011 DSA had 800k, and had reached 1.1 million annually within 2 years of opening, and then the economy went pear shaped. If DSA had been luckier with the economy not being so attrocious so soon after opening they would probably have been exceeding 2 million passengers annually by now, based on the growth in the first couple of years.

Finningley bypassed HUY after year 1, and had three times the number of passengers in 2011.

So I wouldn't be concerned about DSA just yet. Give it another 10 years, when hopefully the economy will have picked up.

According to a recent LPL press release, Liverpool did host charter flights pre-loco days.No idea when, but I guess in the 90s.

Phileas Fogg

9th Feb 2013, 00:36

wb9999,

LPL open for decades before 15 years ago?

Which "LPL" are you talking about, the old or the current? Of the current LPL the runway was laid circa 1966 and the current airport opened circa 1986?

And LBA, well LBA has an appalling weather record, in days gone by it had restricted and regimental opening hours and, these alone, put airlines off and, until 1984, it had a restrictive runway length combined with high terrain off one end of the runway and even with the runway extension in place the high terrain caused this to happen:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2764/4428328869_7abca08f28_z.jpg

So LBA had and has it's own problems developing and the old LPL had short runways and an undersized and geriatric terminal which, these days, is a Crowne Plaza Hotel.

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 00:53

Phileas, as a reminder the discussion is about the viability of DSA (because SZD was deemed unviable, so people don't think we have hijacked a thread!).

LPL's runway opened in 1966, so 32 years before 1998 = 3 decades.
LBA started commercial services in 1935, and was operating holiday charters in the 70s = 2 to 6 decades.
Either way the facilities in operation by 1998 had been in place longer than DSA has been open.
Any deficiencies at either airport in the past, in a comparison to DSA now, are offset by your own point about lack of catchment area at DSA. So I guess that makes them all equal for comparison purposes.

Anyway, I think it best to return the discussion to SZD.

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 00:55

One last thing... That pic you posted would be a regular view at SZD if the FSB truly believe that all aircraft that fly into LCY would get into Sheffield.

Phileas Fogg

9th Feb 2013, 01:08

"It's unlikely any airline would use SZD, as it is too short and doesn't have radar. There are currently no commercial flights from any similar sized runway in the UK, and, other than a few rare exceptions in the Scottish Highlands, none into a non-radar airport"

Are Lands End and the Isles of Scilly in Scottish Highlands now, when did they move?

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 01:19

After I posted that I did mean to put a disclaimer about flights to/from isolated communities where air transport is a necessity and the flights can be done at low level. Which would hardly cover Sheffield. I doubt a SZD to AMS flight would be at 4,000 feet.

Before you mention it, I know a small operator is planning a Shoreham to Paris service, but they they've been short-lived in the past.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention North Denes, even though that's helicopters.

Phileas Fogg

9th Feb 2013, 01:35

wb9999,

Nope, the Shoreham service ain't going to Paris ... It's going to POX :)

And, hailing from the South-East and having lived and worked in Sussex twice during my career I'm reasonably familiar with the chequered history of hit and miss air services in/out of Shoreham.

But you are coming up with incorrect comparisons with other airports and/or air services, you suggested that there are no STOL non-radar services in England & Wales, I suggested Land's end, not only short and non-radar but grass, it is not a neccessity to use it because St. Mawgan is up the road from Lands End, you know that and you predicted that I would point it out so you entered a loophole of "low level services" in vain attempt to win your point ... Didn't you? :)

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 01:51

I would be shocked if SZD would attract, or rely on, island destinations (Highlands, Channel or Scilly) so I don't think it affects the discussion about SZD, even though the Scillies had slipped my mind. (easily done)

There are a very limited number of Twin Otters and Islanders. Don't start raising the hopes of people in Sheffield, otherwise the Scillies will be overrun.

And you didn't pick up on Dundee!

Phileas Fogg

9th Feb 2013, 02:04

Twin Otters, Islanders, Do228's are all in current production so who can say how many there are?

Dundee is in Scotland is it not ... You'd already covered that in one of your previous loopholes. :)

I was going to, previously, mention Alderney aswell but then you another loophole of "UK" and, technically speaking, Alderney isn't in UK.

johnnychips

9th Feb 2013, 02:07

Just to break this discussion - interesting though it is - can I just sum up my thoughts:

- there is not enough business and/or citybreak traffic at the moment to sustain either Sheffield or DSA.
- DSA is surviving at the moment on holiday coast destinations, and Polish and Lithuanian migrants' traffic with perhaps about 10% outgoing tourist traffic thereto. Hopefully both will pick up with an economic upturn.
- Improvements in Eurostar diminish the case for short flights from either airport.
- There is no domestic market.
- Because of the proximity of MAN, LBA, EMA and HUY (to Amsterdam) the catchment area is restricted by them.
- There are severe issues with runway length at a potentially reopened Sheffield airport

This leads to the conclusion there is little hope of Sheffield airport reopening

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 02:14

Alderney is covered by radar. You can't get to it without going through the Channel Islands Control Zone (Class A, managed by Jersey).
Dundee is probably typical of what SZD would be like. 2 flights a day to LCY, lots of other routes coming and going and the airport losing millions each year. That sounds like a cheap dig, buy it isn't meant that way. They have a 1400 metre runway and struggle to find long term operators. It's more comparable then LCY and Toronto City.

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 02:15

johnnychips, I would say that's a fair summary.

Phileas Fogg

9th Feb 2013, 02:20

wb9999,

I was referring to the runway at ACI and not the radar, if ACI isn't "STOL" then I don't know what is!

I'd suggest that Peel are doing any potential buyer/operator of SZD a favour by declining to sell ... they're saving him/her from losing a bucket load of money.

johnnychips

9th Feb 2013, 02:20

Dundee is probably typical of what SZD would be like. 2 flights a day to LCY

Dundee is a long way from London. As has previously been said, Sheffield is about two-and-a-quarter hours away by an hourly train.

And, as has been previously said, if MAN can't sustain flights to LCY, how could Sheffield?

wb9999

9th Feb 2013, 02:26

johnnychips, true. I did mean it more in the sense of 2 flights a day (any destination). It would probably be outside of Britain.

Phileas, I will agree on your last point.

Norman Normal

11th Feb 2013, 11:32

I know the following won't interest all of you, but Sheffield FSB's Neville Martin has sent this out today;

You recently signed the Federation of Small Businesses’ petition calling on Sheffield City Council to “....urgently ensure that any redevelopment of the site of the former Sheffield City Airport (including further destruction of its infrastructure) is proscribed until an independent public enquiry is held to look into the potential for its future use as a facility for commercial aviation.”

You will be delighted to know that the petition has surpassed its target of 5,000 signatories, and this allows us to force the Council to debate the issue in open forum.

We shall be formally presenting the petition to the Council at 10.15am on Thursday 14 February at Sheffield Town Hall. If any signatories would like to attend the handover, we shall be meeting with Timothy Kirkhope MEP, who has been a staunch supporter of our campaign, at the front of the Town Hall at 10.00am. It is hoped the Leader of the Council or a senior deputy will emerge to formally receive the petition and there will be a press photo opportunity.

Please feel free to attend.

Neville Martin
Development Manager
Federation of Small Businesses
Small Business Support (http://www.fsb.org.uk)
Tel: 0114 261 7132
Mobile: 07917 628922

The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for the use of the addressee only. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately by return email. Neither the sender nor the FSB accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and advises that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.

National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (Federation of Small Businesses) Sir Frank Whittle Way, Blackpool Business Park, Blackpool FY4 2FE. Registered in England No: 1263540 VAT No: 997342763

The FSB Conference 2013 website contains a wealth of useful information about the forthcoming Conference in Leicester in March 2013. Visit Federation of Small Businesses Conference 2013 (http://www.fsb.org.uk/conference2013)

Winniebago

11th Feb 2013, 12:11

I'm staggered this thread is still going.

Could someone please list the commercial airliner types with more than 19 seats that could happily utilise this 1199m runway with no significant constraints on passenger or fuel load? Whilst you are at it, list the 19-seaters too - J31 for instance can't use this length.

Of those you think can happily perform commercial routes from such a 1199m runway, how many of those types are readily available, well supported with spares availability, MROs, easy to find/train type-rated crew, have relatively low operating costs per seat etc. etc.?

There's no scope to practically extend this runway at all - you're stuck with what there is with the requisite RESAs at either end and the clear and graded widths either side of the runway.

Complete and utter non-starter for commercial ops. It's also no good for any practical form of business aviation bar a few turboprops.

Sorry.

Norman Normal

11th Feb 2013, 14:09

Winniebago -

Can an A318 get out of LCY at MTOW?

Can an A319 get out of JER at MTOW?

The answer is 'No' in both cases. And yet these airports are used by these aircraft. Why?

The answer is that at low weights, aircraft are capable of using runways which they wouldn't be able to use at MTOW or MLW. It depends whether the airline can reliably get in and out while carrying a viable load and enough fuel to take the passengers where they want to go.

Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD at MTOW? No.

Dash 8-Q400 out of SZD with max passenger load and enough fuel for AMS or CDG? No problem.

Norman Normal

11th Feb 2013, 14:22

Winniebago -

One more thing. I don't know where you got these ideas about business jets at SZD...

I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.

ILS32

11th Feb 2013, 15:37

I have a photo showing a Citation II, Lear 55 and a Hawker 800XP all happily sharing SZD apron space together, and another with a rather smart Falcon 50 awaiting its passengers.

From the photo you know that Biz jets could land and take off at SZD.In regard to reopening SZD as a commercial airport it is totally irrelevant Are you suggesting using Biz Jets to run a commercial operation from the airport? It might be alright for some business travellers to use them and in some cases companies would use their own aircraft.but the cost to the general public would be prohibitive.It does not make sense to reopen the airport,it is just not a viable proposition.

Norman Normal

11th Feb 2013, 17:14

ILS32 -

Is this a serious comment?

I don't think anybody suggested using bizjets on airline services until you did.

But it was suggested earlier that only "a few turboprops" would be able to use the SZD - this is demonstrably incorrect.

I'm guessing from your username that you live somewhere just south-east of LBA. If that's the case, then you'll already be aware how many business aircraft are present at airports nowadays.

And if you are involved in commercial aviation on a professional basis (as I am) then you'll know that business aviation is an important sector of the industry nowadays - you'll also be aware of the capabilities of modern business aircraft from short runways.

Winniebago

11th Feb 2013, 18:55

Norman

It aint so much take-off that's the problem, although I'd contest you being able to get a fully loaded Q-400 out of there with fuel and sufficient reserves for AMS as an example, it's the landing distance.

Factor for a wet runway and you've just had it - and it does rain quite a lot up here. Even on a dry runway, you are not going to land with sensible 'minimum' reserves and a full passenger load.

I'd still like to see a list of those airliner types people think could both take-off and land there with a good 80% load factor say, and enough fuel when outbound for perhaps 300-400 miles or so.

On the topic of business jet access the straight-wing Citations and the Falcon 50 have the very best landing performance of all jets and would indeed get in (only just - a great number of pilots would dismiss it out of hand), but strictly on a private basis, never public transport/commercial/charter/air-taxi etc.

The amount of GA and Biz Av traffic one could see going through there would never, ever sustain the costs of running the place and, again, commercial ops are simply not viable with that runway length. Far too constraining.

ILS32

11th Feb 2013, 19:11

Norman Normal
Not a serious suggestion but I thought that you were advocating the use of Biz Jets, not realising you were replying to a previous posters comments.I agree with you that there are aircraft which could operate from a limited runway but would the operators be prepared to do so.They would be taking a financial risk.What about the existing infrastructure, would it need a major upgrade for commercial operations to restart?
Finally are the majority of the Sheffield public demanding that passenger operations start again or have they got used to travelling to other airports.It was never a bucket and spade airport for people to fly off for their annual holiday.In regard to business aviation I have Multiflight on my doorstep and you only have to look at them and see how their business has expanded in the last 20 years.

Norman Normal

11th Feb 2013, 20:36

Winniebago -

Bombardier quoted me RTOW 27,541kg, ISA, zero wind. They assume 5% contingency on trip fuel, 100nm alternate and 30min at 1500' at the alternate. ISA en-route, 85% annual winds. With DOW 18,000 and 78 pax, they say the aircraft will do 226nm. BUT, they assume 97kg per pax. In my experience, this is unusual - especially on shorter, business-type sectors. My experience suggests average pax weight will be 90kg max, and more likely less. So immediately the aircraft is going to be at least 500kg below RTOW.

Landing weight? Well, I can't say what the planning/in-flight rules are on the Q400, but I'd be surprised if they differ from the rules on the type with which I am familiar. Maybe you know different?

Not sure which 300-400nm destinations you have in mind? Once you get beyond AMS/BRU/CDG/BHD/DUB/JER and the other close ones, I feel the commercial case may become more 'marginal'. Are you thinking FRA etc?

Regarding the bizjets, you didn't comment on the Hawker or the Lear. And are you saying the newer Falcons and Gulfstreams have inferior performance??

None of these will support SZD on their own. But regional airlines, plus bizjets, plus GA, plus training, plus maintenance... that's different.

ILS32 -

SZD was never about bucket-and-spade. DSA can continue doing that - nobody's calling for DSA to close. But unfortunately for Sheffield's businesses, it's clear that the airlines don't see DSA as a business airport.

wb9999

11th Feb 2013, 20:55

All this talk about who could, or could not, operate from SZD is immaterial unless the airport is sold by the current owner.
Why would Peel sell? The FSB, or anyone else, has not given any suggestion that Peel are willing to sell. A petition and discussion in council meetings is all well and good for PR for their campaign, but Peel are unlikely to give in to a bit of negative PR for them.

Phileas Fogg

12th Feb 2013, 00:14

Correct me if I am mistaken but, reading through this thread, the FSB are making hot air that perhaps Sheffield City Airport should be re-opened and apparently there is an individual waiting in the wings with money to buy the site.

I haven't actually read that the current owner has been approached and made a realistic offer for the site and that current owner has flatly refused to sell.

Has the current owner been approached and has the current owner refused to sell?

I'd hate to think that people are talking about me on a forum someplace that I've refused to sell my business when nobody's actually made me an offer to buy it!

wb9999

12th Feb 2013, 08:56

I haven't seen anything from the FSB that indicates that Peel have been approached or have intimated that they are willing to sell. Without this, the FSB are wasting a lot of effort and it really should have been the first step before launching the campaign. If Peel's response is a resounding 'No' then the campaign will never succeed.

Norman Normal

12th Feb 2013, 12:12

Peel (or Sheffield Business Park, the owners of the site) HAVE been approached according to local media.

Media also report TWO parties expressing interest.

There could be a LOT of negative PR for Peel if they're not careful. They got the airport site for nothing (the £1.00 was never paid as transaction costs would have outweighed the £1.00) and there's a slow dawning of public realisation that the airport might not have been as 'unviable' as was claimed. Peel seem to have 'bet the farm' on Finningley, and we can see how that has worked for them.

There's a risk that they could do real damage to Sheffield's economy by continuing with this current 'strategy'.

wb9999

12th Feb 2013, 12:40

I very much doubt Peel will be concerned about some negative PR.

Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.

Any contract of sale will have a minimum price of £1 (or asset valued at £1 or more) as there has to be a consideration from the purchaser, even though that £1 never actually changes hands. I have sold a business in the past for £1, and never received the £1. It's perfectly normal.

The passenger numbers for SZD are interesting:
1998: 46,000
1999: 75,000
2000: 60,000
2001: 33,000
2002: 13,000

What would be different now to what happened pre-2002 (before the fire cover was reduced)? 75,000 passengers is not a viable figure.

TSR2

12th Feb 2013, 15:24

2002: 13,000

To put that figure in context, less than 18 departing passengers per day.

eltonioni

14th Feb 2013, 07:20

Peel bought the airport because it was losing over £400k a year, with a £2 million overdraft and with no more money to fund operations. No-one else came in with a better offer, so £1 is not necessarily an unreasonable price for a business losing money, unsustainable debts and with just one offer on the table.
You've got a big chunk of history and data missing. I'll dredge some up from memory, so you will have to excuse me if I get any details wrong.

Way back in the late 80's there was a huge opencast mine. It was being mined by RJ Budge Mining. Restitution involved backfilling, landscaping and building an airport in accordance with the wishes of the landholder.

AF Budge Construction (Owned by RJ Budge's brother and the owner/operator of the very successful Gamston) was employed to develop the airport and the associated business park that would pay for it. The property was one whole. The airport was a part of the grand plan, not an adjunct to offices and warehouses. Without the airport there was no business park.

AF Budge Construction went bust in the recession.

The Sheffield Development Corporation sorted things out and a new developer was found.

The airport was built, the business park went ahead and annual profits of £2-4m (from memory) were enjoyed from the project.

Anyway, as things rumbled on the airport property was put into an SPV owned by the developer. Then an operating company was set up that was part owned by the developer. The OpCo paid rent to the SPV which sent rent profits up to the Developer.

Can you see where this is going?

OpCo shows a loss, but can't make money like the rest of the site by developing the land because that is owned by the SPV, which is owned by the Developer, who has a foot in all camps.

From memory, the last years accounts showed a loss in the OpCo of about £400k, but the ultimate landlord turned a multi million profit.

The multi-million pound profit wouldn't be there without the airport, but through smart division of financial responsibility the clause for getting the rest of the land for a quid kicked in.

There's no blame on the developer, landlord, or even the OpCo team. They did what they do in a commercial marketplace - I'd do the same.

The issues lie with the people who allowed it to happen in the first place. That is why an enquiry is being called for so that the public can understand and that any wrongs found are righted.

Anyone who thinks that CAT pax loads are the point of this saga is missing the point by a country mile.

Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield. We want that back.

Groundloop

14th Feb 2013, 07:39

was employed to develop the airport and the associated business park that would pay for it.

The multi-million pound profit wouldn't be there without the airport,

Seems to me from what you have said - the airport would not have been there if it was not for the business park!

Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield.

Where is your evidence for this "lots of business"?

North West

14th Feb 2013, 07:39

An enquiry would explain what happened and why it happened. Why it would reach any different conclusions to the 2005 enquiry, I'm not clear. It would not invalidate the legally binding contracts that were agreed between the various parties so please explain how you go from 'enquiry' to Peel being mandated to hand the site back or reopen it as an airport. That would need action through the courts, to which the questions are
- who would fund the legal costs
- who exactly is being taken to court?

wb9999

14th Feb 2013, 09:14

eltonioni, thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of that, and no-one else wasn't forthcoming with it (even the FSB).

You make a comment that "Without the airport there was no business park", but it also sounds like without the business park there was no airport, as you do say that the business park will pay for the airport.

So the FSB's campaign is based around potential shortcomings in a contract drawn up 20 years ago by the SDC. That's not unusual or illegal (public organisations have never been good at getting involved in commercial contracts).

An inquiry wouldn't have the power to right any wrongs, as that would involve changing/revoking perfectly legal contracts that have been signed since then. Only a court would have the power to do that, and a court would only do that if there was criminal activity - which no-one has suggested.

An inquiry would cost hundreds of thousands/maybe millions for everyone involved (including Sheffield City Council, who can hardly afford it at the moment) just to tell people what they knew all along, but with no power to change it. The only winners will be lawyers.

eltonioni

14th Feb 2013, 20:38

Those publicly funded contracts are what might be called into question. We'll see if there are people and organisations that should be called to account if we get the enquiry.

The airport was the reason for the business park, not the other way around. I happened to be on the development team all those years back so I have more memory of events than most. Since then I've been a tenant at the airport as well as a pilot using the facility, so again, I've had more than a passing interest.

Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.

On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA. There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.

wb9999

14th Feb 2013, 21:12

So if an inquiry does hold people to account, then what? It still doesn't get the airport re-opened.

BTW I have stated before that I support the airport re-opening. I have flown from there in the past, and it can only benefit GA by having more facilities available, but there appears to be lots of information that isn't yet in the public domain.

johnnychips

14th Feb 2013, 22:57

Eltonioni wrote:
On a more general note, I'm beggared that so many PPRuNe'rs are so enthusiastic to see another runway be torn up and lost forever to GA.

I think that most people here want any airports to succeed, though there is a minority who will always do the 'my local airport's better than yours' thing. A point about this discussion is that many posters have made valid points that a reopened Sheffield airport would have great difficulty in making it a commercial success, whatever has happened in the past.

There are some really incredibly stupid people on this website.

I find this insulting. This particular thread has been very reasoned. Unreasonable threads get shut down by by the moderators.

Groundloop, please, have a think before hitting submit and sounding daft. Better to ask a question than jump to a conclusion.

Sheffield had a fully functioning airport / airfield that served GA very well indeed, and brought lots of business to Sheffield.

Groundloop wrote:
Where is your evidence for this "lots of business"?

That is a question and it needs answering.

eltonioni

15th Feb 2013, 11:47

I'm sorry if it's insulting to some people, but I think that they should listen and think harder before writing if they don't want to feel offended when they are responded to vociferously. The locals and supporters on this thread seem generally sick of trying to explain to people who clearly don't want to understand.

Anyway.

I'm sure that you will agree that it is all but impossible to quantify "lots of business" in £'s, unless you are a local inward investment agency quango wonk ;), which is why I didn't. But there is sufficient historical, anecdotal and geographic evidence available to consider such as;

1. The campaign is being led by the Federation of Small Business.
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing have engineering / research centres at the end of the runway.
3. The Airport is in an Enterprise Zone.
4. It's located within the city boundary, adjacent to the main manufacturing and commerce zone, and 6/7 minutes drive to the city centre down a fast dual carriageway.
5. HS2 will have a station a mile up the road.
6. Finningley is in Doncaster and an hour's drive away with all the aggravation of a large facility. Netherthorpe is 550m of grass. Sandtoft and Gamston are in other counties.

There was plenty of GA activity up until it closed, King Airs, twins, Lears, the odd Gulfstream, helicopters, and lots and lots of SEP's. Add in the training and club activities and it makes for a well used runway. CAT is great, and desirable, but it's not the be all and end all. PPRuNe has no shortage of rather superior salaried pilots who can't see beyond CAT. There's more to aviation than them, especially when it comes to how a runway impacts on a city.

I appreciate that the above just gives more ammunition for the disinterested and pointlessly argumentative to pick holes in somebody else's plans, but when you're in the Sheffield business community these things make a bit more sense.

Considering that there are at least two parties who want to use their own cash to reopen the facility, there's no real downside to anyone. I just think that they should be supported and given the best possible opportunity, while those who are responsible for any past wrongdoings are brought to book.

BKS Air Transport

15th Feb 2013, 21:16

I still want to know who is expected to set up the enquiry, and who is supposed to fund it.

johnnychips

16th Feb 2013, 00:51

Eltonioni wrote

Considering that there are at least two parties who want to use their own cash to reopen the facility, there's no real downside to anyone. I just think that they should be supported and given the best possible opportunity, while those who are responsible for any past wrongdoings are brought to book.

I am trying not to be imbecilic here, but if there are parties who wish to reopen the facility, who think it is profitable, can they not make a bid to the current owners to do so?

Or is their idea contingent on some compensation or reversion of land use for possibly irregular happenings in the past, which would help to fund it? I've read all the thread and it is difficult to make sense of.

I appreciate that the above just gives more ammunition for the disinterested and pointlessly argumentative to pick holes in somebody else's plans, but when you're in the Sheffield business community these things make a bit more sense.

Obviously, as I said, most posters on this site would be very pleased if a closed airport reopened, but will justifiably point out their views on the probability of success of the venture - usually calmly and without rancour, and I must say, with reasoned arguments. This is not the same as 'picking holes'.

Let me say again, I would be delighted if Sheffield airport reopened, and I do recognize your experience and insight of aviation and of the economy of South Yorkshire. But based on my own opinions and knowledge, and that of others on the thread, we come to different conclusions.

Phileas Fogg

16th Feb 2013, 08:02

wb9999

16th Feb 2013, 08:29

Johnnychips, one of the interested parties has publicly stated that the airport wiould not be profitable for the first few years and he is looking for the city council to be part of his consortium, so he's looking for council taxpayers to help cover the losses, so it's not quite as eltonioni makes out. With the city council making huge cuts and Don Valley Stadium and Stocksbridge Leisure Centre at risk of closure due to the budget cuts, I think it is perfectly legitimate (and democratic) to ask questions of the plans when taxpayers are asked to contribute.

I'm still unsure how the FSB are hoping to get the airport reopened. If the owner does not want to sell, then what? How are the FSB going to force them? Big questions that no one has answered truthfully. Norman Normal suggested (or rather threatened) Peel will get negative PR, but that's not a viable solution.

TimmyW

16th Feb 2013, 13:50

Ahhhh, the myth that DSA is an hours drive from Sheffield surfaces again!

eltonioni

18th Feb 2013, 14:11

Google Maps says 1h 2m from where I'm sat right now on the west of Sheffield, and that's cutting through Lakeside. At busy times at Parkway + Lakeside can add another 45m.

It's a real-world hour to all intents and purposes, not an old myth.

Manchester Airport with it's plethora of flights (unlike Doncaster) is 1h 10 minutes.

I'm a bit bemused that people are suddenly worried about other people's profits. Any more straws to grab?

Phileas Fogg

18th Feb 2013, 14:25

Elton,

Here's a straw to grab ... Just how may a re-opened Sheffield City Airport break even or, indeed, make a profit?

eltonioni

18th Feb 2013, 14:36

I can think of lots of ways, can't you? A good start would be to avoid running it like the previous operators.

wb9999

18th Feb 2013, 15:32

Eltonioni, it's great that you have some ideas how it could make money. So why is Andrew Cook (one of the two interested buyers) not as optimistic as you, if he is looking for council tax payers to contribute to the running costs to make it viable?

I'm a bit bemused that people are suddenly worried about other people's profits. Any more straws to grab?

Because, under one of the potential buyer's plans, council tax payers will be paying for an airport to re-open when it clearly was not viable the first time round. Why should tax payers contribute when Sheffield City Council is considering closing public facilities that are better used than an airport would be? Even an inquiry would cost tax payers money, which frankly would involve the council cutting back on even more much needed services.

We don't know what the other potential buyer's plans are, because he's not disclosing them. So secret that I expect he wants some public money to pay for his plans also.

If the campaign was at zero-cost to the public purse then I would say go ahead, let somebody risk their own money. But that's not the way it is at the moment.

eltonioni

18th Feb 2013, 16:19

It's not any way at the moment. Patience.

wb9999

18th Feb 2013, 17:22

It's not any way at the moment. Patience.

That's not what the FSB and Andrew Cook are saying publicly.

EGCA

1st Dec 2013, 13:29

An news regarding the future--if any--for Sheffield City please? It's gone very quiet.

Is the runway still extant or has building work started on the extension to the business park?

Edit: Posting before Googling has its limitations. The following website link at least takes the story to July 2013:

RESCA (http://www.sheffieldcityairport.co.uk)

First time I have heard the phrase "RESCA", ie Rescue Sheffield City Airport.

Question remains though, is the runway still intact, and has any building work taken place that would impinge on its future use again?

EGCA

ShyTorque

1st Dec 2013, 14:50

Turn the place into a heliport. It's ideally placed (about halfway up) to provide refuels for aircraft routing up and down the length of the country and would still provide associated benefits to the city.

It's already set up to do so, the infrastructure is still there.

Facelookbovvered

2nd Dec 2013, 06:08

I spent a few days in Sheffield last week (if Dore count's) and i was shocked how the city has changed since i was last there and it wasn't all good, i can't see there is any way Sheffield City council could justify writing blank cheques for an Airport that few ever used, filling in the car eating pot holes would be a start, although if you could direct flights inbound from Somalia i think they'd but full from reading the local press, there is nothing wrong with local pride or indeed a wish to see your home city do well, but you have to be realistic and ask who will pay for it and other than the council i don't see any private investor going near it with their own money, its not like its a football club? there are no bragging rights in owning an airport unless its a premiership one....:rolleyes:

EGCA

2nd Dec 2013, 09:51

I think rather than the City Council "writing blank cheques" it was more down to interested Sheffield businessmen as to whether there could be a revival. I recall there was interest from Mr Cook of steelmaking fame for instance.

Talking of commuter and scheduled services has to be a red herring, when the future might be with business and executive fixed and rotary wing operation.
Even with circa 3950 ft of runway most of Europe would be within range of modern piston/turbine twins of the 6-8 seat size surely.

My original question still stands though: Have the developers as yet taken any steps that would render reactivation of the airfield impossible?

As an aside, the poster above I suspect didn't really get a flavour of the modern Sheffield, not from the leafy suberb of Dore anyway. I havn't worked there since the 1980's, but friends tell me that you take your car into central Sheffield at your peril, "you will be lost for days" they say....

EGCA

Phileas Fogg

2nd Dec 2013, 11:12

It's ideally placed (about halfway up) to provide refuels for aircraft routing up and down the length of the country

Aircraft, much the same as commercial road vehicles, stop for fuel where the price is right without diversifying to far off their optimum route.

I don't know the price of fuel at a Sheffield City Air/Heliport but I would suggest that it would be more expensive that at some competitor airfields where those aircraft could stop for their refuels.

EGCA

2nd Dec 2013, 17:44

As things stand the "heliport", hard standing/hangar/fuel, is solely for the use of the local Police helicopter. Not sure if even the air ambulances use it.
I dont think there has ever been any intention that it is opened to general helicopter use, and does not have the infrastructure in place for general commercial use.

EGCA

4th Dec 2013, 16:57

Interesting that today the "RESCA" link I posted above no longer works, and cannot now find it via Google.
Maybe my posting just reminded someone to take down the website.

My question still stands, have the developers done anything on site to make reopening impossible? Sheffield and Rotherham, are you out there? Hello...is there anybody there....?

egca

ATNotts

4th Dec 2013, 17:32

1. The campaign is being led by the Federation of Small Business.
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing have engineering / research centres at the end of the runway.
3. The Airport is in an Enterprise Zone.
4. It's located within the city boundary, adjacent to the main manufacturing and commerce zone, and 6/7 minutes drive to the city centre down a fast dual carriageway.
5. HS2 will have a station a mile up the road.
6. Finningley is in Doncaster and an hour's drive away with all the aggravation of a large facility. Netherthorpe is 550m of grass. Sandtoft and Gamston are in other counties.

Lets have a look at some of these poinsT;

1. The FSB largely represent just that - small businesses. Are big employers like Outokumpu just down the road gagging to use SZD?

2. As above - are Boeing and RR gagging for the airport to be reopened?

3. An enterprise zone - a political device used by councillors and national politicians to make it look as though they're "doing something" in a deprived area - a bit like the Freeports of the 1980s.

4. Like heck it is - especially when Meadowhell is in full swing!

5. When exactly is HS2 likely to reach Sheffield?

Just what the UK doesn't need right now, another airport - there's plenty already. A fact proven by the failure of SZD as a commercial airport years ago.

SWBKCB

4th Dec 2013, 18:56

Finningley is in Doncaster and an hour's drive away with all the aggravation of a large facility - loved this one - bless!

Sheffield has 4 international airports with links to hub airports within a seventy mile radius (plus DSA) - would you invest money in another airport?

ShyTorque

4th Dec 2013, 19:23

Aircraft, much the same as commercial road vehicles, stop for fuel where the price is right without diversifying to far off their optimum route.

I don't know the price of fuel at a Sheffield City Air/Heliport but I would suggest that it would be more expensive that at some competitor airfields where those aircraft could stop for their refuels.

PF, Yes, I was slightly aware - I've been doing this for a living for thirty six years.

No-one knows the price of fuel because you can't actually go there to buy any right now...

As things stand the "heliport", hard standing/hangar/fuel, is solely for the use of the local Police helicopter. Not sure if even the air ambulances use it.

I dont think there has ever been any intention that it is opened to general helicopter use, and does not have the infrastructure in place for general commercial use.

EGCA,

Precisely. That's why I wrote "turn it into a heliport".

What infrastructure do you think a heliport (rather than an airport) actually requires to be in place? Ever been to London Heliport? It's got a place to land (only just big enough for public transport), five parking spots (not all of which can be used at the same time), a waiting room / lounge, a reception and a door to the street.

I thought folks were interested in re-opening the place for aviation. Is that not the case?

Phileas Fogg

5th Dec 2013, 00:17

ShyT,

The point I was making is that one of the contributing factors to how much an airport buys their fuel in for is by volume, the more one buys then the more negotiating power one has.

Now, regardless that airports such as EMA, DSA and LBA will, no doubt, be able to offer any fuel stoppers a better price on fuel there are so many other, fixed and rotary wing, airfields around what would be Sheffield's catchment area already, Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Huddersfield to name but a few, why the hell does that part of the country need a heliport for any passing helicopters to stop for fuel at?

eltonioni

5th Dec 2013, 08:00

ISTR that fuel was very reasonably priced at Sheffield City.

eltonioni

5th Dec 2013, 08:14

- loved this one - bless!

Sheffield has 4 international airports with links to hub airports within a seventy mile radius (plus DSA) - would you invest money in another airport?
That's addressed at me. I happened to fly out of Sheffield City and had my property business' office in the airport terminal. But what would I know as a pilot and property wonk based there?

If you had taken the time to understand the rest of my post you might have seen past your bucket and spade brigade angle. Most business and leisure people using EGSY didn't give a flying hoot about CAT, customs or handling. they just landed, parked, walked the 30m through the terminal and into a waiting car.

For your convenience:
I'm sorry if it's insulting to some people, but I think that they should listen and think harder before writing if they don't want to feel offended when they are responded to vociferously. The locals and supporters on this thread seem generally sick of trying to explain to people who clearly don't want to understand.

Anyway.

I'm sure that you will agree that it is all but impossible to quantify "lots of business" in £'s, unless you are a local inward investment agency quango wonk , which is why I didn't. But there is sufficient historical, anecdotal and geographic evidence available to consider such as;

1. The campaign is being led by the Federation of Small Business.
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing have engineering / research centres at the end of the runway.
3. The Airport is in an Enterprise Zone.
4. It's located within the city boundary, adjacent to the main manufacturing and commerce zone, and 6/7 minutes drive to the city centre down a fast dual carriageway.
5. HS2 will have a station a mile up the road.
6. Finningley is in Doncaster and an hour's drive away with all the aggravation of a large facility. Netherthorpe is 550m of grass. Sandtoft and Gamston are in other counties.

There was plenty of GA activity up until it closed, King Airs, twins, Lears, the odd Gulfstream, helicopters, and lots and lots of SEP's. Add in the training and club activities and it makes for a well used runway. CAT is great, and desirable, but it's not the be all and end all. PPRuNe has no shortage of rather superior salaried pilots who can't see beyond CAT. There's more to aviation than them, especially when it comes to how a runway impacts on a city.

I appreciate that the above just gives more ammunition for the disinterested and pointlessly argumentative to pick holes in somebody else's plans, but when you're in the Sheffield business community these things make a bit more sense.

Considering that there are at least two parties who want to use their own cash to reopen the facility, there's no real downside to anyone. I just think that they should be supported and given the best possible opportunity, while those who are responsible for any past wrongdoings are brought to book.

EGCA

6th Dec 2013, 14:29

ShyTorque: Apologies, I might be commenting from an out of date position, having found a document via Google ( but dated 2012) that appears to show that the old airport terminal area is in fact in use as a helicopter landing area, and run by Sheffield Business Park.
Is this still the case?
I had assumed that the restriction allowing use of the site only by the police helicopter was still in force, but perhaps not now?

The perils of assuming you know what current status quo is, when you dont have the means to check.

EGCA

EGCA

29th May 2014, 09:59

Just wondered if anyone has any uptodate news about the current situation at the former Sheffield City, and whether the majority of the fixed wing runway has now been either torn up or incorporated into a new business park or whatever.
Google search didn't throw up anything of interest, and I have not had the chance over the past months to go and have a look myself.

Thanks

EGCA

ShyTorque

29th May 2014, 11:19

EGCA, The runway appears to be intact.

PF, In response to your earlier post about the availability of other helicopter refuelling places, are you aware that it can take up to half an hour to get in and out of EGCN by helicopter? Also, it costs a couple of hundred quid for mandatory handling, btw. There is no Jet A1 at EGNF or Derby. Handling agent is mandatory at EMA.

Sheffield heliport would work, especially if they could do RRRFs. It's conveniently placed, OCAS and in the right place for helicopters needing to top up to maintain an IFR fuel reserve at either end of the country. It is also very conveniently placed to serve a major city, i.e. Sheffield itself.

Phileas Fogg

29th May 2014, 12:11

PF, In response to your earlier post about the availability of other helicopter refueling places, are you aware that it can take up to half an hour to get in and out of EGCN by helicopter? Also, it costs a couple of hundred quid for mandatory handling, btw. There is no Jet A1 at EGNF or Derby. Handling agent is mandatory at EMA.

Sheffield heliport would work, especially if they could do RRRFs. It's conveniently placed, OCAS and in the right place for helicopters needing to top up to maintain an IFR fuel reserve at either end of the country. It is also very conveniently placed to serve a major city, i.e. Sheffield itself.

Dream on,

Perhaps the reason it costs a couple of hundred quid at DSA is because business is so p1ss poor they need every penny from any passing sucker ... Of course business at a re-opened Sheffield will be so good they'll be able to pay all the bills just from the margin they make from the fuel, they won't be charging any additional "quids"

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is no Jet A1 at EGNF or Derby because there is no market for it, that there are no passing helicopters asking "Have you got any Jet A1 please?"

Dream on ...