Coventry, am I missing something?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
From: UK
Coventry, am I missing something?
I might need to fly into Coventry soon, and was just looking at their "Fees and Charges"
1) Handling not required for aircraft less than 3.5 tonnes MTOWA
2) Landing fee £10.00/tonne or part thereof
3) Parking - 1st 2 hours free, £10.00/tonne/hour subsequent.
When compared with airports such as Norwich, this seems quite reasonable?
Am I missing something?
1) Handling not required for aircraft less than 3.5 tonnes MTOWA
2) Landing fee £10.00/tonne or part thereof
3) Parking - 1st 2 hours free, £10.00/tonne/hour subsequent.
When compared with airports such as Norwich, this seems quite reasonable?
Am I missing something?
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: North
Yes , you have to buy biscuits/doughnuts for the ATC staff, who will gladly clean your A/C ( 737's excluded) whilst our females give you a manicure/pedicure. Fuel you will have to pay for and transport to and from said airport ,since none of us are allowed out now 
Having said that Norwich is a fine airport to go along with its' fine City
Having said that Norwich is a fine airport to go along with its' fine City
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
Although I have not flown out of there lately, it is my nearest airport; and it has always had quite a strong GA side to it I am led to believe. There is certainly a number of fixed wing schools / clubs based there and at least 1 rotary school (maybe 2?).
With Thomson now in what seems like terminal decline at the airport (pax figures last month down nearly 50%) their original roots of Freight & GA sit nicely together again - Freight at night, GA in the day!
Just my two penneth worth; I am sure someone who knows the place better will prove me wrong!
With Thomson now in what seems like terminal decline at the airport (pax figures last month down nearly 50%) their original roots of Freight & GA sit nicely together again - Freight at night, GA in the day!
Just my two penneth worth; I am sure someone who knows the place better will prove me wrong!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
llanfairpg - A number of factors I believe...
... Thomson have cut scheduled routes since their merger.
... Thomsons latest a/c are to be 737-800's; which are too big for CVT (and Jersey!).
... The terminal (thank you Warwick District Council).
Wizz are offering flights to eastern Europe out of CVT and are apparently doing well at it too!
... Thomson have cut scheduled routes since their merger.
... Thomsons latest a/c are to be 737-800's; which are too big for CVT (and Jersey!).
... The terminal (thank you Warwick District Council).
Wizz are offering flights to eastern Europe out of CVT and are apparently doing well at it too!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: Reading
My boss flies into Coventry quite often (and I might from next spring). He joined the local flying club & gets all that you mentioned for free or a reduced price.
It cost him a few quid to join of course but if you're going to do regularly, it might be worth looking in to.
It cost him a few quid to join of course but if you're going to do regularly, it might be worth looking in to.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
Not too sure on the latest with the terminal - as to what the current owners are going to do with it.
There is certainly mounting speculation that 2008 will see even less of TFly; although they will have trouble operating the -800 into Jersey too so that may be enough to keep their older a/c CVT based as apparently loads on this route are good!
We will see... lets hope it doesn't happen though.
There is certainly mounting speculation that 2008 will see even less of TFly; although they will have trouble operating the -800 into Jersey too so that may be enough to keep their older a/c CVT based as apparently loads on this route are good!
We will see... lets hope it doesn't happen though.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
From: UK
CVT is a 'scheduled' base for TFly. As we are cutting back on that side of the business, there will be less flights from CVT. General feeling in the company is that it will close as a base some time in the future.
It might then make it a bit easier to get some circuits done then. No orbiting downwind waiting for a 737 to get a release from Birmingham!
...until EZY turn up with 4 a/c based there!!
It might then make it a bit easier to get some circuits done then. No orbiting downwind waiting for a 737 to get a release from Birmingham!
...until EZY turn up with 4 a/c based there!!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 3
From: Hunched over a keyboard
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
moggiee:
That was my understanding too - in that if an operator wanted to use them out of fields like Coventry and Jersey they would have to be careful with loads.
CVT Person:
No ill intent was meant towards CVT with my comments; its my nearest airport. I think that what WDC have done to the airport is nothing short of scandalous and I haven't met one WDC tax payer who actually agrees with it (apart from the very vocal minority).
Who was operating the 738 into CVT out of interest?
That was my understanding too - in that if an operator wanted to use them out of fields like Coventry and Jersey they would have to be careful with loads.
CVT Person:
No ill intent was meant towards CVT with my comments; its my nearest airport. I think that what WDC have done to the airport is nothing short of scandalous and I haven't met one WDC tax payer who actually agrees with it (apart from the very vocal minority).
Who was operating the 738 into CVT out of interest?
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
From: Middle Earth
When Atlantique owned the Airfield they offered Aircraft over a certain age a free (or discounted) landing but I believe the present owners have stopped that.
It's worth flying into Coventry just to look around the Midland Air Museum & look at some of the Gem's Atlantique have in & around their hangars (Twin Pin, Dc3, Prentice, Dove, Canberra etc..)
FC
It's worth flying into Coventry just to look around the Midland Air Museum & look at some of the Gem's Atlantique have in & around their hangars (Twin Pin, Dc3, Prentice, Dove, Canberra etc..)
FC
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Morton-in-Marsh
I could be wrong, but I think you have got the parking charges wrong. Surely it is not £10 an hour after 2 hours, but £10 for 24 hours?
As regards the 737-800, the problem is when the runway is wet. CVT ATC are too prone to state that the runway is wet-wet-wet when there is no standing water, but when they state this, the -800 has performance problems at CVT.
As regards the 737-800, the problem is when the runway is wet. CVT ATC are too prone to state that the runway is wet-wet-wet when there is no standing water, but when they state this, the -800 has performance problems at CVT.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: UK
Riverboat
A runway doesn't need to have standing water to be classified as wet/wet/wet
Reporting Term Surface conditions
DRY The surface is not affected by water, slush, snow, or ice.
NOTE: Reports that the runway is dry are not normally to be
passed to pilots. If no runway surface report is passed, pilots will
assume the surface to be dry.
DAMP The surface shows a change of colour due to moisture.
NOTE: If there is sufficient moisture to produce a surface film or
the surface appears reflective, the runway will be reported as WET.
WET The surface is soaked but no significant patches of standing water
are visible.
NOTE: Standing water is considered to exist when water on the
runway surface is deeper than 3mm. Patches of standing water
covering more than 25% of the assessed area will be reported as
WATER PATCHES.
WATER PATCHES Significant patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Water patches will be reported when more than 25% of the
assessed area is covered by water more than 3mm deep.
FLOODED Extensive patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Flooded will be reported when more than 50% of the
assessed area is covered by water more than 3mm deep.
A runway doesn't need to have standing water to be classified as wet/wet/wet
Reporting Term Surface conditions
DRY The surface is not affected by water, slush, snow, or ice.
NOTE: Reports that the runway is dry are not normally to be
passed to pilots. If no runway surface report is passed, pilots will
assume the surface to be dry.
DAMP The surface shows a change of colour due to moisture.
NOTE: If there is sufficient moisture to produce a surface film or
the surface appears reflective, the runway will be reported as WET.
WET The surface is soaked but no significant patches of standing water
are visible.
NOTE: Standing water is considered to exist when water on the
runway surface is deeper than 3mm. Patches of standing water
covering more than 25% of the assessed area will be reported as
WATER PATCHES.
WATER PATCHES Significant patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Water patches will be reported when more than 25% of the
assessed area is covered by water more than 3mm deep.
FLOODED Extensive patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Flooded will be reported when more than 50% of the
assessed area is covered by water more than 3mm deep.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
I had also noticed that, when listening to CVT ATIS, the runway is often reported as WET WET WET when BHX is not; and the A45 is also not.
That said, I have not seen the actual runway at these times so can't comment on the accuracy (and not being qualified to do so, nor would I). Perhaps they have some drainage problems with it?
That said, I have not seen the actual runway at these times so can't comment on the accuracy (and not being qualified to do so, nor would I). Perhaps they have some drainage problems with it?