Airport ‘must rid itself of passenger burden’ (From The Northern Echo)
Send us your pictures, video, news and views by texting NORTHERN ECHO to 80360 or email us
Durham Tees Valley Airport ‘must rid itself of passenger burden’
2:38pm Thursday 5th January 2012 in News
UNCERTAIN FUTURE: Durham Tees Valley Airport
DURHAM Tees Valley Airport should turn its back on passenger flights in order to secure its immediate future, according to a group representing the interests of private aircraft owners.
The airport, which made a loss of more than £2m in the last full financial year, has seen passenger numbers plummet in recent years and was put up for sale last month by its majority shareholder, Peel Airports Limited.
John Elliott, a director of the Durham Tees Valley Airport Private Owners’ Group, who has flown privately from the airport for more than 20 years, said a rethink was now required to avoid the risk of total closure.
In an open letter, which has been sent to MPs and neighbouring local authorities, the group said it had witnessed the decline of the airport and was not surprised it was being put up for sale or “likely to close”.
It said: “Despite the call for investment in the airport, it is clear what it really needs is stabilisation, in order that it is preserved for a future time, a decade ahead or more, when a recovery of passenger traffic may return.
“Who is going to invest in a failing airport with two other large airports close by?”
The group said the airport should rid itself of the burden of the high cost of handling passenger traffic and operate for the time being as a general aircraft airfield, meeting the needs of airport-based businesses, as well as freight aircraft, the police and air ambulance, and flying clubs.
Mr Elliott said: “Attempts have been made to make it a successful passenger airport for many years and it is clearly not going to happen.
“What we are saying is at least retain it in a viable state for eventual development in the future when economic circumstances may change, which is better than losing it altogether as an airfield.
“We are concerned about the loss of the airport, and the choice may have to be between a slimmed-down operation as a general aircraft airfield or nothing at all.”
Responding to the letter, a spokesman for Peel said: “Future operations at the airport would be a matter for any prospective buyer.”
Meanwhile, in a separate development, a spokeswoman for international aviation company Cobham, which is based at the airport, confirmed it had been in talks with Peel about the airport’s future, although she would not comment when asked if it was possible the firm could leave the site.
Monica Hallman said: “Cobham is a significant operator from Durham Tees Valley Airport and has been in discussion with Peel about its future.
We look forward to discussing our operations there with the prospective new owners.”
Cobham, which provides civil and military flight inspection services, has a multimillion pound contract with the Ministry of Defence and employs about 50 people in the region.
Comments(5)
oxbridge
says...
10:49pm Thu 5 Jan 12
It's time the people of Teesside stud up for themselves and told our neighbours to get stuffed!
Teesside needs to be independant of Newcastle. Why should we have to drive up to their airport when we have a perfectly good one on our own dorstep.
jhooton
says...
8:23pm Fri 6 Jan 12
To keep the airfield it must become a non commercial airfield. We must keep Cobham and try to attract maintenance companies and private companies to attract private jets - almost copy Biggin Hill airfield. We saw a company providing an aircraft recycling service, it is companies like this who will provide jobs for the local community and a future for the airfield, but we need to keep them going!
The General Aviation Community has been hit hard by rising fuel prices, landing fees, security fees and homing fees from the airfield - they need to reduce these fees if general aviation pilots are to fly or flying school are to operate.
This is purely my opinion, but we have seen this happening for a number of years now, we really need to act on it now, or alot more people will become unemployed - something that this area the surrounding communities do not need - times are hard as it is and this certainly will not help!
Paul Carlton
says...
10:40am Mon 9 Jan 12
The only thing this airport needs is a committed and dynamic owner that will forge ahead with the required improvements that are desperately needed.
This will then make the airport attractive to airlines and passengers.
The comments made above show that the only interests these people have are their own continued use of the airfield to the detriment of everyone else in the region.
Why should people from this area have to travel 50 miles or more to get anywhere when we have a fantastic asset on our own doorstep.
The costs of setting up a new airport are huge compared to the tiny costs of refurbishing the one we have.
This asset is not only for the north east but for the entire country.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and new owners found that want to commit fully to a long term plan that will bring success to EGNV
Guy Fawkes
says...
3:27pm Tue 10 Jan 12
However, I agree with the gist of the article, which is that MME doesn't have a future as a passenger airport unless there are big changes.
1 - The £6 departure fee needs to go. OK, it's nothing compared to the cost of the plane ticket, but for leisure travellers who can't just put it on the company credit card, it's a big psychological turn-off.
2 - Regular lo-co and charter flights need to return, or else the leisure market won't.
3 - The punitive air transport duty on short-haul fights needs to go. In my view this is a big reason why the bottom has fallen out of UK internal and European leisure and budget business flying, which accounts for most of MME's business (unlike NCL, it doesn't and never did have any long haul passenger services).
4 - Better public transport links to and from the airport would help. I've tried to get there by train and taxi once, and once was enough, thanks to a 40-minute wait at the terminal after arriving back. Without this, people who are staying away for longer (e.g. two-week holidays or longer business trips) are going to be put off by the cost of parking, especially when NCL and MAN have good train services.
5. Having options for Star Alliance and Oneworld frequent flyers as well as Skyteam would boost MME's appeal to business travellers. Again, NCL and MAN offer this.
Much as I like the speed and convenience of using MME, I fear that if these things don't happen, it's game over for it as a passenger airport, sooner rather than later.
always right says...
3:59pm Thu 5 Jan 12