|
|
Post by mainline on Oct 24, 2012 18:53:07 GMT
Forwarded for info from Sheffield Telegraph: www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/business/local-business/last-ditch-bid-to-save-sheffield-city-airport-1-5041423Small businesses in the region are making a last-ditch attempt to save Sheffield City Airport. Even though the airport at Tinsley Park closed four years ago, and its runway is due to be ripped up to make way for an extension to Sheffield Business Park, they say a local airport is needed more than ever because of the growing business community between the city and Rotherham.
Once the runway is lost and the site redeveloped, “all hope of a facility in Sheffield for reaching the major European centres, giving access to the strategically important customers, suppliers and partners of western Europe, will be lost”, said Gordon Millward, regional chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses.
Business Secretary Vince Cable is being urged by the Federation to put on hold any redevelopment until an independent public enquiry is held to examine the public interest and to explore the potential use for commercial aviation. The rest of the local business community is being asked to write to MPs and councillors.
Sheffield City Airport opened in 1997 but the last scheduled flights were in 2002. It was finally closed in 2008, with owners Peel saying they could not attract enough commercial flights.
An independent review commissioned by Sheffield City Council in 2005 found the airport was not financially viable due to its short runway precluding most types of passenger planes.
The runway is now designated part of a Government-backed Enterprise Zone, which will attract business rate relief. It already has planning permission for redevelopment, and the site is being pitched as ideal for firms supplying factories on the nearby Advanced Manufacturing Park. Up to 3,000 jobs are envisaged.
However, it is developments such as the Advanced Manufacturing Park and other high-tech businesses “that are springing up along the Sheffield / Rotherham border” that is spurring the business organisation to call for a rethink over the future of the runway before it is too late.
The Advanced Manufacturing Park is less than ten minutes walk from the dormant airport, which was built to emulate the highly successful London City Airport, said Mr Millward.
Sheffield City Airport is only four miles from the centre of Sheffield and three miles from Rotherham, with a combined population of nearly one million. Within a 60-minute drive, the total is over 9m.
“When it first opened, an independent report into the operation of Sheffield City Airport concluded that the airport would assist in achieving the vision of a step change in the performance of the sub-region economy, help attract and nurture companies in a number of high technology, high skills and high value-added target growth areas and assist the area in attracting inward investment.
“We fail to see that anything has changed. In fact, the need for a City Airport is even greater now than in those far off, pre-Sheffield City Airport days. Its supposed replacement, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, has focused its operating strategy solely on international leisure tourism and delivers none of the benefits so vital to the growing high-tech business community. Even a cursory glance at its destination lists confirms that none of the major European centres of commerce and technology are served.” |
 |
|
ateam
Inspector
"I love it when a plan comes together"
Posts: 876
|
Post by ateam on Oct 24, 2012 22:29:25 GMT
Nice plan, and the right idea regarding business destinations, but it needs the runway lengthening to a length where it can accept mid to large sized passenger aircraft - around the 3000m mark, giving capability to handle 737/A320 sized aircraft and larger. Otherwise it's a non-starter.
Not saying that you'd have an endless stream of wide-body planes coming in and out of there from the four corners of the world just by constructing a long runway, but it's about having the capability there to grow the operation if needed. With the current runway length it is severely restricted in it's capability.
|
|
|
ateam
Inspector
"I love it when a plan comes together"
Posts: 876
|
Post by ateam on Oct 24, 2012 22:41:16 GMT
The other advanatge of going for a large runway is the potential to attract cargo carriers into the airport - turn the airport into a specialist cargo hub, with some short-haul business travel accommodated for. The fact that the airport site is on top of the M1 practially, 5 mins from the M18, and 30ish mins from the M62 and A42 make the airport a very, very good location for handling cargo. As major passenger carriers aren't competing for landing and takeoff slots, you can offer them at a lower rate to attract carriers. This has a knock-on benefit of providing further slots to surrounding airports for passenger use.
Leave the holiday passengers to Leeds, Manchester, East Mids and DSA, all of which are within an hour of Sheffield. That's a fight Sheffield Airport isn't going to win.
Edit: Heck, the site backs onto the former Tinsley Marshalling Yards. Multi-modal goods transportation anyone? This idea sounds better as it goes on..
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderfeet on Oct 25, 2012 7:41:03 GMT
Personally I dont want the Airport reopening, I really disliked all the non-commercial little planes that use to fly about, I really find planes a noise nuisance. I went for a really pleasant walk round Sheriff wood and the Airport on Saturday, which I could never of enjoyed so much with loads of planes buzzing about.
Otherwise I agree this could be a really good development for the local economy, but will probably end up like the unused warehouses on the old marshalling yard, why did they build all that without a client to take it on..
The length of runway is going to be a barrier with lack of space to extend runway, I assume there has to be a certain amount of run off for accidents. Near carcraft there are rows of banks and ditches which I assume are to slow down any planes that overshoot the runway.
|
|
|
CS
Driver
Posts: 35
|
Post by CS on Oct 25, 2012 8:32:08 GMT
No need for an extended runway as there are plenty of commuter aircraft types being operated by airlines that could easily operate out of Sheffield City.
The problem Sheffield City has had since 2002 is that it has been owned by a group who had competing intentions with Doncaster up the road, hence removing sufficient lighting, nav aids and fire cover which prevented any commercial airline service from being able to operate.
Quite why they have been allowed to do this should be open to public debate, as they effectively bought a large space of prime development land for £1!
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Oct 29, 2012 19:07:17 GMT
The 'noisy little planes' were only permitted to use SCA after all commercial flights were terminated. The airport was never intended to accept big jets needing long runways nor was it intended to serve the leisure market. It was intended for business use, a need which had been identified as far back as the 1960s by BOAC. With modern aeronautical developments...such as high lift devices and carbon brakes the runway could accept a surprisingly large range of aircraft including the Q400 which is replacing many 737's in Air Canada and Air West's fleets / Of course, it could also accept all of those types of aircraft currently operating from the very succesful London City Airport. The concept of a small business oriented airport ,wthin minutes of a city centre, is as valid today as it was when SCA was planned...indeed,Aer Lingus is moving many of its Belfast flights into Belfast City airport for this very reason!...None of the promised business flights for which SCA was closed has ever materialised at Robin Hood... This closure was done with undue haste and without any of the legal requirement for an independent examination of all financial data being carried out. Make of that what you will but the Audit Commission was unimpressed with our council for permitting this. Incidentally they never paid the £1.00 either!  |
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 19:22:23 GMT
The 'noisy little planes' were only permitted to use SCA after all civil flights were terminated. The airport was never intended to accept big jets needing long runways nor was it intended to serve the leisure market. It was intended for business use, a need which had been identified as far back as the 1960s by BOAC. With modern aeronautical developments...such as high lift devices and carbon brakes the runway could accept a surprisingly large range of aircraft including the Q400 which is replacing many 737's in Air Canada and Air West's fleets / Of course, it could also accept all of those types of aircraft currently operating from the very succesful London City Airport. The concept of a small business oriented airport ,wthin minutes of a city centre, is as valid today as it was when SCA was planned. None of the promised business flights has ever materialised at Robin Hood...for which SCA was closed with undue haste and without the legal requirement for an independent examination of all financial data. Incidentally they never paid the £1.00 either! air Canada have no 737s to replace  |
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Oct 29, 2012 19:27:34 GMT
You are correct. They ( or their subsidiary 'Jazz Air' )operate CRJs...of which some are being replaced by the Q400. The 737s I was referring too are Air West's. All of this news was in last weeks Toronto Star. The Q400 also operates all Porter Airways succesful and extensive internal and USA services from Toronto City Airport ...whose runway is the same length as SCA's |
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 19:31:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
Post by craig79 on Nov 10, 2012 7:38:01 GMT
Incidentally, it seems that KLM are about to start operating from Manston (that's in Kent) to Amsterdam, meaning KLM will serve 24 airports in UK and Ireland. Closing Sheffield City Airport was clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the economic problems after 9/11. They should have waited. Almost certainly, KLM would have re-started from Sheffield on the basis of their present operating model. Still, it also begs the question of why can't DSA get flights to Amsterdam? Perhaps KLM feel Humberside and Leeds Bradford are too close to justify it.
I believe Sheffield City could be a success. London City works, in part due to location, but primarily due the airports experience - 20 minute check in time, efficient security and good facilities. Fast, quick, no time wasting. No reason why Sheffield could not have done the same. Plane types at London City are Avro-RJ's, Embraer 175/195, Fokkers and even an Airbus A318 going to New York.
|
|
|
CS
Driver
Posts: 35
|
Post by CS on Nov 10, 2012 15:04:13 GMT
Peel Airports twice attempted to sway KLM over from Humberside, both times KLM renewed their contracts with Humberside. Doncaster and Humberside serve a similar geographical area and therefore operating from both could threaten viability. Remains to be seen whether VAG can add anything new, but Humberside is reportedly still a strong route for them. It also has another 18 months to run on the current contract, and the new owners there wont want to see it go.
|
|
|
|
|
Post by craig79 on Nov 10, 2012 18:06:15 GMT
Well maybe Peel should try harder! There's one key difference between HUM and DSA catchment areas - Sheffield. If you live in Sheffield and you want to go to Amsterdam, chances are you'll go from Manchester, East Midlands or Leeds Bradford, rather than Humberside - right?
|
|
|
CS
Driver
Posts: 35
|
Post by CS on Nov 10, 2012 18:37:55 GMT
Correct, so why cannibalise their own routes and offer one from Doncaster, which isnt central to Sheffield?
Fair point if Humberside passengers were negligable, however the majority (circa 85%) of the Humberside passengers originate/terminate in the Humber region, with most of the rest in Lincolnshire. Not really a reason to move to Doncaster when only 6% of your passengers come from South Yorkshire.
Sheffield City is different, as it was on the M1 axis and in the centre of the Sheffield conurbation therefore offering the conveniant competitive advantage. Even with the new road to Doncaster in place, it doesnt make East Midlands or Manchester any further away.
FYI, Peel had offered unbeatable subsidies to attract KLM away from Humberside. They still didn't go. They did, however, achieve success in attracting them to Liverpool. Unfortunately their flights to LPL failed to attract sufficient support and were pulled after a couple of years. Propensity to fly in Liverpool and hinterland is far greater than in South Yorkshire.
Buyer power, in terms of passenger, in this case is strong.
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Nov 11, 2012 8:58:33 GMT
SCA never received any public funding for airline subsidies ( although the original agreement determined that an 'operating subsidy', derived from the profits of the Airports associated Business Park of £850,000 be maintained...which, in the event, wasn't!). However, DSA has certainly received a grant from Yorkshire Forward for the Belfast service and rumour has it Peel has tried to tempt other airlines to operate out of DSA.
After a few years, when DSA's passenger numbers exceeded expectations , the current state of affairs is very poor with very few services and almost as few passengers.The truth is that SCA, given the time needed to build up traffic ,( originally seen as a minimum of 7 years)would have built up services within the UK and near Continent. As it happened, it was effectively closed to commercial carriers 3 years of its first commercial flight.
The 70 seat Q400 is now fast becoming the regional aircraft of choice leaving the larger, noisier and more environmentally unfriendly 737's and A320's for the bigger markets. Despite the protestations of the Council that the Q400 wouldn't be able to operate from the Airport it is used by Porter Airlines for internal services within Canada and services to the USA from Toronto City Airport ....which has same length of runway and has a similar elevation to SCA. Despite information from Bombardier stating,categorically, that the Q400 could, safely, operate from SCA the information was ignored. The decision had been made in August 2001 to close and redevelop!
Sad really!
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Nov 13, 2012 14:19:56 GMT
|
|
|
