Council to Mothball EGAB!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: EGAB (re-opening in the near future)
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Council to Mothball EGAB!!!
On the verge of completing my PPL, and looking forward to gaining a night rating thereafter and then I hear about this!!! Those of you who know St.Angelo will be as sorry as me to see it go. God willing somehow it will stay operational, but as with everything else I fear the current climate in the aviation industry will be used as a poor excuse to close this predominately GA airfied.. .From local paper:
St. Angelo costing £400,000 a year:
Aircraft operators have expressed their disappointment over Fermanagh District Council’s decision to “mothball” St. Angelo Airport.. .The Council said the annual running cost of the airport, in excess of £400,000 a year and the uncertain future following the events of September 11, had forced them to make the difficult decision.
The decision was made following a meeting of the Council’s policy and resources committee when it is believed all councillors present accepted the difficult economic position of the airport and the unlikely resurgence of interest by the aviation industry.
The operators of the direct flights from Zurich and local flying interests are disappointed at the decision. The tour operator running the Crossair flights from Zurich to Enniskillen had planned to repeat the service this summer with plenty of interest from Swiss tourists wanting to fly into the heart of the lakelands.
Ron Patton, who has spent the last 13 years involved in air traffic control on behalf of the Council as well as running a flying school for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters at the airport, felt the Council had shown a lack of interest in looking after local flying enthusiasts.
“We’ve had no official word, nothing more than a phone call last week,” explained Mr. Patton.
He is unsure what is happening next either for him or for the owners of the nine aircraft in the hangar at the airport. The Council is now negotiating with the official bodies and with users to put a date on the airport’s closure. However the Council says while it will not be available for use by aircraft, it will keep the position under regular review and it has no plans to dispose of the property.
With more than 1800 aircraft movements in the past year, few of these were commercial traffic. However Mr. Patton said an aircraft arrived on Sunday from Edinburgh and another from Glasgow with several more expected to arrive this week. He said several of these would have been linked to local business interests and that they were not all pleasure flights.
He was concerned at the talk of turning the airport into a race track or a public park.
Over the years, Mr. Patton said the airport had helped several young pilots to make their career in aviation. A number of them who trained at St. Angelo are now flying passenger jets for Ryannair and Virgin Atlantic.
The Airport only had two major customers, Crossair flights which brought tourists in direct from Zurich on a weekly basis between May and August, organised by a Swiss tour operator and Brymon flights flying holidaymakers to Jersey. It is the subsidisation of these weekly flights which caused most concern to the Council with little likelihood of attracting further business.
It is understood that in the 14 weeks of operation each summer, the Crossair flights brought in more than 500 passengers between May and August. But rather than get an income from this, the Council had to subsidise their costs. There was a similar situation with Jersey flights, subsidising a tour operator to fly people out of Fermanagh.
“We could not sustain it, “ explained Mr. Rodney Connor, Council chief executive, who said the annual running costs were an unacceptable drain on its limited resources. The events of September 11 exacerbated the situation with a contracting of the aviation sector.
Another frightening cost this year was the hike in insurance as a result of the September 11 events. The Council was facing an insurance premium of more than £42,000, double what it was last year.
While it was prepared to subsidise tour operators to use St.Angelo in the initial stages as a way of attracting more airlines, the Council felt it was difficult to sustain this, especially at a time when there has been considerable upheaval in the aviation industry.
The Council says it will review the situation if there is an upturn in the aviation industry and if there is local demand which they say is necessary to make the airport viable.
It is also known that the Council was disappointed at the outcome of its application for a Public Service Obligation service from the Government. The council had examined the possibility of establishing a PSO feeder service between St. Angelo and one of the Belfast Airports but it was clear from consultants’ findings that such a proposal was unlikely to succeed and the existing commercial traffic was seasonal and insufficient to warrant its continued operation.
“We will obviously keep the position under regular review and, certainly, we have no plans to dispose of the property. Rather, we intend to use the property for tourism related events and ensure that not only is the facility maintained in good condition, but that it continues to support tourism development,” said Council Chairman, Mr. Robin Martin in a statement.
St. Angelo costing £400,000 a year:
Aircraft operators have expressed their disappointment over Fermanagh District Council’s decision to “mothball” St. Angelo Airport.. .The Council said the annual running cost of the airport, in excess of £400,000 a year and the uncertain future following the events of September 11, had forced them to make the difficult decision.
The decision was made following a meeting of the Council’s policy and resources committee when it is believed all councillors present accepted the difficult economic position of the airport and the unlikely resurgence of interest by the aviation industry.
The operators of the direct flights from Zurich and local flying interests are disappointed at the decision. The tour operator running the Crossair flights from Zurich to Enniskillen had planned to repeat the service this summer with plenty of interest from Swiss tourists wanting to fly into the heart of the lakelands.
Ron Patton, who has spent the last 13 years involved in air traffic control on behalf of the Council as well as running a flying school for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters at the airport, felt the Council had shown a lack of interest in looking after local flying enthusiasts.
“We’ve had no official word, nothing more than a phone call last week,” explained Mr. Patton.
He is unsure what is happening next either for him or for the owners of the nine aircraft in the hangar at the airport. The Council is now negotiating with the official bodies and with users to put a date on the airport’s closure. However the Council says while it will not be available for use by aircraft, it will keep the position under regular review and it has no plans to dispose of the property.
With more than 1800 aircraft movements in the past year, few of these were commercial traffic. However Mr. Patton said an aircraft arrived on Sunday from Edinburgh and another from Glasgow with several more expected to arrive this week. He said several of these would have been linked to local business interests and that they were not all pleasure flights.
He was concerned at the talk of turning the airport into a race track or a public park.
Over the years, Mr. Patton said the airport had helped several young pilots to make their career in aviation. A number of them who trained at St. Angelo are now flying passenger jets for Ryannair and Virgin Atlantic.
The Airport only had two major customers, Crossair flights which brought tourists in direct from Zurich on a weekly basis between May and August, organised by a Swiss tour operator and Brymon flights flying holidaymakers to Jersey. It is the subsidisation of these weekly flights which caused most concern to the Council with little likelihood of attracting further business.
It is understood that in the 14 weeks of operation each summer, the Crossair flights brought in more than 500 passengers between May and August. But rather than get an income from this, the Council had to subsidise their costs. There was a similar situation with Jersey flights, subsidising a tour operator to fly people out of Fermanagh.
“We could not sustain it, “ explained Mr. Rodney Connor, Council chief executive, who said the annual running costs were an unacceptable drain on its limited resources. The events of September 11 exacerbated the situation with a contracting of the aviation sector.
Another frightening cost this year was the hike in insurance as a result of the September 11 events. The Council was facing an insurance premium of more than £42,000, double what it was last year.
While it was prepared to subsidise tour operators to use St.Angelo in the initial stages as a way of attracting more airlines, the Council felt it was difficult to sustain this, especially at a time when there has been considerable upheaval in the aviation industry.
The Council says it will review the situation if there is an upturn in the aviation industry and if there is local demand which they say is necessary to make the airport viable.
It is also known that the Council was disappointed at the outcome of its application for a Public Service Obligation service from the Government. The council had examined the possibility of establishing a PSO feeder service between St. Angelo and one of the Belfast Airports but it was clear from consultants’ findings that such a proposal was unlikely to succeed and the existing commercial traffic was seasonal and insufficient to warrant its continued operation.
“We will obviously keep the position under regular review and, certainly, we have no plans to dispose of the property. Rather, we intend to use the property for tourism related events and ensure that not only is the facility maintained in good condition, but that it continues to support tourism development,” said Council Chairman, Mr. Robin Martin in a statement.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C152,
I don't think your god will have any influence over the council. You need to get organised and put a proposal to the council that keeps the airfield open.
It sounds as though the council wish to keep the facility without running it as an airport, but retaining the infrastructure for the day when they can continue to fund £400,000 to attract 2 flights per week in the summer but obviously they want and need more commercial movements than this.
I would have thought that the best way to do this is to continue with private flying on an unlicenced basis, however, this would preclude flying instruction. You don't need the full runway length for your average spam can. You don't need that impresive looking terminal.You don't need the apron and that expanse of land on the other side of the 33 threshold. Suggest to the council that they use the bits you don't actually need for their proposed recreational use and you, the flyers and aircraft owners, do them a favour by keeping the runway and aviation alive in Enniskillen until things change for the better.
It would be a great pitty to lose one of the few remaining airfields in NI. But if it comes to the crunch, EGAE has an under-used flying school with competitive rates where you can complete your PPL and do a night rating.
I don't think your god will have any influence over the council. You need to get organised and put a proposal to the council that keeps the airfield open.
It sounds as though the council wish to keep the facility without running it as an airport, but retaining the infrastructure for the day when they can continue to fund £400,000 to attract 2 flights per week in the summer but obviously they want and need more commercial movements than this.
I would have thought that the best way to do this is to continue with private flying on an unlicenced basis, however, this would preclude flying instruction. You don't need the full runway length for your average spam can. You don't need that impresive looking terminal.You don't need the apron and that expanse of land on the other side of the 33 threshold. Suggest to the council that they use the bits you don't actually need for their proposed recreational use and you, the flyers and aircraft owners, do them a favour by keeping the runway and aviation alive in Enniskillen until things change for the better.
It would be a great pitty to lose one of the few remaining airfields in NI. But if it comes to the crunch, EGAE has an under-used flying school with competitive rates where you can complete your PPL and do a night rating.
