BAe Woodford - What Are They Up To ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Belfast, N. Ireland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe Woodford - What Are They Up To ?
It seems that the chappies at BAe at Woodford are planning to build a new hangar southside of the field to replace some existing accommodation there.
Nothing sinister in that I hear you say !
However, the chappies seems to be proposing a building capable of housing B767/777 size aircraft (a new RJ maybe - I think not !) and they are being jolly fiendish in not telling all of their neighbours about the scheme !
Does any of the Poynton/Macclesfield Ppruners know more. I know my house backs on the Woodford and we have not been told by Stockport BC (i know they are not obliged to advise everyone but no one seems to have heard about it except for a chosen few !)
Thoughts anyone ?
Nothing sinister in that I hear you say !
However, the chappies seems to be proposing a building capable of housing B767/777 size aircraft (a new RJ maybe - I think not !) and they are being jolly fiendish in not telling all of their neighbours about the scheme !
Does any of the Poynton/Macclesfield Ppruners know more. I know my house backs on the Woodford and we have not been told by Stockport BC (i know they are not obliged to advise everyone but no one seems to have heard about it except for a chosen few !)
Thoughts anyone ?
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phone up the local council planning department, there should be an application available for you to see and comment on.
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: sky9 ]
[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: sky9 ]
Heard recently from someone that works there,that Boeing will be making a visit shortly,to Woodford.
To discuss a joint venture on conversion of aircraft to tanker config,with the aircraft being either ex airline or new.
Possibly for the RAF,vc10/Tristar,replacement??.
So of course a rather large hangar will be required.
To discuss a joint venture on conversion of aircraft to tanker config,with the aircraft being either ex airline or new.
Possibly for the RAF,vc10/Tristar,replacement??.
So of course a rather large hangar will be required.
TTSC are indeed proposing to convert old BA 767-300ERs for the RAF Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme. In contrast to 73 tonnes of fuel in secondhand 767s, the competing consortium, AirTanker is offering brand new 100 tonne carrying A330 aircraft with AAR pods on the outboard hardpoints (where the A340 has its engines).
Do we want 't Bungling Baron WasteofSpaces' re-built Boeings, or new Airbooooos?? Who knows which way the decision will go....
Do we want 't Bungling Baron WasteofSpaces' re-built Boeings, or new Airbooooos?? Who knows which way the decision will go....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading in the papers that Greater Manchester Police are shortly due to take delivery of a plane to be used in addition to their helicopters, and that this is to be stationed at Woodford.
Is it possible that the building could be for the storage of this???
BT
...trust me, there supposed to be that colour...
Is it possible that the building could be for the storage of this???
BT
...trust me, there supposed to be that colour...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill,given the knackered state of some of the hangerage southside, could it be an enticement for the G/A / Exec/ con scheduled crowd that Bae are trying to steal away from Manchester?
(Or could it be that they're going to offer you a new storage facility?).
Providing it remains within the confines of the airfield and means continuing work for the factory/airfield operators, who cares.
(Or could it be that they're going to offer you a new storage facility?
).Providing it remains within the confines of the airfield and means continuing work for the factory/airfield operators, who cares.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Belfast, N. Ireland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brown trousers, Methinks this is a bit big for a Defender and I used to have to listen to them at Barton playing with their chopper in the early morning so I hope not !
Beagle & chiglet, this sounds very plausible indeed since the plans are clearly for that size of a/c - there was a rumour as well that there may be a big order for RJ's but no one seems to know more.
Spoonbill - ye gods can i do nothing around this place and keep it quiet. So who saw me last week roaming around the second hand plane lot at Mojave looking for stuff for Fetish Air ?
I think that BAe are possibly mis-handling the PR side of things. I am all in favour of more work for Woodford since it stops them closing down and selling the site to Bellway Homes and it will keep guys in jobs. However, pushing through a planning application on the quiet often suggests to the 'conspiracy theorists' that perhaps they have something to hide.
Beagle & chiglet, this sounds very plausible indeed since the plans are clearly for that size of a/c - there was a rumour as well that there may be a big order for RJ's but no one seems to know more.
Spoonbill - ye gods can i do nothing around this place and keep it quiet. So who saw me last week roaming around the second hand plane lot at Mojave looking for stuff for Fetish Air ?
I think that BAe are possibly mis-handling the PR side of things. I am all in favour of more work for Woodford since it stops them closing down and selling the site to Bellway Homes and it will keep guys in jobs. However, pushing through a planning application on the quiet often suggests to the 'conspiracy theorists' that perhaps they have something to hide.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't imagine that it is for the tanker requirement as the contract will not even be awarded for many months to come (and there is an A330 alternative). Building a hangar before the contract is awarded might be a bit over-optimistic.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesnt the 767 have the same (if a fair bit newer) engines as the 1011's? That would make its introduction to the RAF engineers a bit easier than a brand new FBW Airbus (says 52049er hoping that Big Airways will then buy some nice new 330's for him to play with).
BA would also be able to recreate the flexibility of its old 75/767 fleet - and aren't the numbers of 76's required about the same as BA owns?
BA would also be able to recreate the flexibility of its old 75/767 fleet - and aren't the numbers of 76's required about the same as BA owns?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Back in Blighty
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B the C;
As an ex-employee and knowing the size of the real estate, I can't see how the erection of even the largest of hangars on the southside would impinge on the local community. If they don't need to advertise the fact, then I'm sure that "commercial in confidence" is the order of the day until they have something solid to crow about.
As an ex-employee and knowing the size of the real estate, I can't see how the erection of even the largest of hangars on the southside would impinge on the local community. If they don't need to advertise the fact, then I'm sure that "commercial in confidence" is the order of the day until they have something solid to crow about.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK here is the information:
The application has been submitted to both Stockport Borough Council and Macclesfield Borough Council as the work crosses the boundary of the 2 boroughs.
Application No DC 004817 (Stockport) & Application No 01/1640/P (Macclesfield)
Consists of an application to build a new hangar on the south side which is for the 767 conversion, however what is more worrying is that as a side effect, the training school is going to be moved to the old hangers and training currently carried out at other airfields is being moved to Woodford.
Plans and an Environmental Impact Statement are available at Hygarth House Stockport and Bramhall Library. A copy is also at Macclesfield Borough Council Town hall Macclesfield and at Poynton Service Centre.
Hope this is of assistance.
The application has been submitted to both Stockport Borough Council and Macclesfield Borough Council as the work crosses the boundary of the 2 boroughs.
Application No DC 004817 (Stockport) & Application No 01/1640/P (Macclesfield)
Consists of an application to build a new hangar on the south side which is for the 767 conversion, however what is more worrying is that as a side effect, the training school is going to be moved to the old hangers and training currently carried out at other airfields is being moved to Woodford.
Plans and an Environmental Impact Statement are available at Hygarth House Stockport and Bramhall Library. A copy is also at Macclesfield Borough Council Town hall Macclesfield and at Poynton Service Centre.
Hope this is of assistance.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'new hangar' story has been around for a number of years. My guess
is that it will probably happen regardless of a tanker contract. The
existing Flight Sheds are somewhat restrictive not to say antiquated.
With the Nimrod refurbishing programme gathering momentum over the next
year or two, more space will be required, and moreso if the Nimrod
production line is actually started up again, which is a consideration
given the high level of overseas interest.
No doubt BAE can persuade the local planning authorities that they are
only replacing existing structures, as it was only two years(?) ago that
the same Borough Council (Macc) refused Airtours planning permission to
construct their Flight Simulator building at Woodford. The reason being
that the council would not allow any developments south of the runway
line and they foresaw the AIH building as setting a precedent.
The newly approved GM Police Islander/Defender is likely to be based at
Woodford, though a final decision has yet to be taken. It cannot operate
at night from the existing Police base at Barton.
BAe got their hands severely burned when they allowed now defunct
Aviation Manchester Limited onto the airfield three years ago. That
organisation was put in to liquidation owing BAe hundreds of thousands
of pounds, not forgetting the PPL students who paid large sums up front
for training they never received. GA has not been allowed back in WFD
unless on official BAE business or is based at the Avro flying club.
is that it will probably happen regardless of a tanker contract. The
existing Flight Sheds are somewhat restrictive not to say antiquated.
With the Nimrod refurbishing programme gathering momentum over the next
year or two, more space will be required, and moreso if the Nimrod
production line is actually started up again, which is a consideration
given the high level of overseas interest.
No doubt BAE can persuade the local planning authorities that they are
only replacing existing structures, as it was only two years(?) ago that
the same Borough Council (Macc) refused Airtours planning permission to
construct their Flight Simulator building at Woodford. The reason being
that the council would not allow any developments south of the runway
line and they foresaw the AIH building as setting a precedent.
The newly approved GM Police Islander/Defender is likely to be based at
Woodford, though a final decision has yet to be taken. It cannot operate
at night from the existing Police base at Barton.
BAe got their hands severely burned when they allowed now defunct
Aviation Manchester Limited onto the airfield three years ago. That
organisation was put in to liquidation owing BAe hundreds of thousands
of pounds, not forgetting the PPL students who paid large sums up front
for training they never received. GA has not been allowed back in WFD
unless on official BAE business or is based at the Avro flying club.
