Teesside Airport Scoops Award

Revenues have DOUBLED
Losses have FALLEN by £7million
Losses are HALF of what was forecast in Bens 10 year plan signed and unanimously agreed 5 years ago.

Financial results out today.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
What investment in the area has it encouraged?

I believe this is a lie but I'm willing to be proven wrong
Click to expand...
There's a huge investment in the cargo terminal. The road into the cargo area is finished now, from a roundabout on the road to Eaglescliffe. And since someone mentioned buses, there's a new route to and from Stockton and Yarm to Darlington via the airport. More frequent buses.

And a new taxi drop off, and the taxi office in the terminal is manned now.
 
It’s good for the area having a good airport like Teesside. Any award is testament to the staff and not Houchen. Unless of course he is involved day to day, which he clearly isn’t.

When I used Teesside regularly it was a miserable depressing place. The change is massive.
 
I've been critical on what has been spent on this airport, especially if it's local money which has been diverted, as I just don't think the airport is necessary, or could be profitable for the area v the risk. The airport doesn't have many flights, so it won't be supporting many jobs I expect, not for the cost. Also, I don't like the way it's been used as a "flagship" for Ben Houchen, like it's what the area needed most, as it certainly isn't, it shouldn't even be top 10. It's like showing off a gold watch, when you don't have a house.

I did however use it again last week, first time for about 5 years and it is very good. From getting parked, to being through security in the bar took about 10 minutes, and it's only 10 minutes from my house so it's a dream in that respect. The staff were great too mind, and the food and drink at the bar was good and reasonable on price which was a shock.

On the way back we got diverted to Newcastle though, due to fog (lack of airport equipment), which delayed us getting home by about 6 hours. There was another load of people who had been delayed over 30 hours, for the same reason. I'm not sure if it's a "foggy" airport, but that could be a problem if the airport doesn't upgrade the landing aids.

The problem is, for the airport to work, it probably needs passenger numbers at least what they were at the peak, probably 1m per year, but I don't even think we're at a 5th of that. If we don't get the passenger no's then the airlines will leave again, and we will be left with a massive expense, with no use. I can just see the lines now "we've got no more money for your area, since what was wasted on the airport, come back in 20 years". If the passengers do come, then everything about the airport will likely get slower, or worse, so how good it is probably inverses with how busy/ successful it is.

The new security machines are good, but everywhere will be updating theirs (before Jun next year) to have those, and the liquids laws are in the process of being changed, so that positive over other airports will vanish.

90% of the flights this week are effectively Aberdeen or Amsterdam, how many people from the local area are using those, v those who are not in the area? There's only so many times you can visit the red light district, but sure, Amsterdam is a massive hub, but the time saved to go anywhere via there means you could just likely go from Newcastle or Manchester and save on cost/ switching planes.

The need to fly to Aberdeen will probably dry up with the oil and gas, so it's going to need some all year round and steady flights long term. Problems if there's only odd flights here and there is that there is no scope to bump people onto the next flight, as it might be days or a week away.
 
Norfolkred1 said:
Been to Alicante twice and loved it, Benidorm for a few hours and hated it. My Bro loves it, me personally hate the thought of spending a night in the place.
Click to expand...
Benidorm is like everything which is wrong with England, but supercharged and only marginally offset by good weather.
 
Andy_W said:
I've been critical on what has been spent on this airport, especially if it's local money which has been diverted, as I just don't think the airport is necessary, or could be profitable for the area v the risk. The airport doesn't have many flights, so it won't be supporting many jobs I expect, not for the cost. Also, I don't like the way it's been used as a "flagship" for Ben Houchen, like it's what the area needed most, as it certainly isn't, it shouldn't even be top 10. It's like showing off a gold watch, when you don't have a house.

I did however use it again last week, first time for about 5 years and it is very good. From getting parked, to being through security in the bar took about 10 minutes, and it's only 10 minutes from my house so it's a dream in that respect. The staff were great too mind, and the food and drink at the bar was good and reasonable on price which was a shock.

On the way back we got diverted to Newcastle though, due to fog (lack of airport equipment), which delayed us getting home by about 6 hours. There was another load of people who had been delayed over 30 hours, for the same reason. I'm not sure if it's a "foggy" airport, but that could be a problem if the airport doesn't upgrade the landing aids.

The problem is, for the airport to work, it probably needs passenger numbers at least what they were at the peak, probably 1m per year, but I don't even think we're at a 5th of that. If we don't get the passenger no's then the airlines will leave again, and we will be left with a massive expense, with no use. I can just see the lines now "we've got no more money for your area, since what was wasted on the airport, come back in 20 years". If the passengers do come, then everything about the airport will likely get slower, or worse, so how good it is probably inverses with how busy/ successful it is.

The new security machines are good, but everywhere will be updating theirs (before Jun next year) to have those, and the liquids laws are in the process of being changed, so that positive over other airports will vanish.

90% of the flights this week are effectively Aberdeen or Amsterdam, how many people from the local area are using those, v those who are not in the area? There's only so many times you can visit the red light district, but sure, Amsterdam is a massive hub, but the time saved to go anywhere via there means you could just likely go from Newcastle or Manchester and save on cost/ switching planes.

The need to fly to Aberdeen will probably dry up with the oil and gas, so it's going to need some all year round and steady flights long term. Problems if there's only odd flights here and there is that there is no scope to bump people onto the next flight, as it might be days or a week away.
Click to expand...
Works both ways with the weather when planes couldnt land at Leeds Bradford a couple of months ago loads where diverted to Teesside.
 
Andy_W said:
90% of the flights this week are effectively Aberdeen or Amsterdam, how many people from the local area are using those, v those who are not in the area? There's only so many times you can visit the red light district, but sure, Amsterdam is a massive hub, but the time saved to go anywhere via there means you could just likely go from Newcastle or Manchester and save on cost/ switching planes.
Click to expand...
The early morning flight to Amsterdam is very busy now. Most of those people are using Amsterdam as a hub, it's not their final destination. Three example - you could leave Teesside at 06.20 and be in Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York by midday local time.

Travelling from Newcastle or Leeds or Manchester is a huge extra time penalty, subject to the vagaries of the weather. If you fly from any of those three, you may need to stay in a hotel overnight, so any cost saving on the ticket is lost, and more. And Newcastle and Leeds tend to be spoke airports to other hubs anyway, so the time advantage is gone.

If people have strong ideological beliefs stopping them from using the airport, then that's their choice. Actively discouraging others from using it is really petty though.
 
Soutra said:
The early morning flight to Amsterdam is very busy now. Most of those people are using Amsterdam as a hub, it's not their final destination. Three example - you could leave Teesside at 06.20 and be in Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York by midday local time.

Travelling from Newcastle or Leeds or Manchester is a huge extra time penalty, subject to the vagaries of the weather. If you fly from any of those three, you may need to stay in a hotel overnight, so any cost saving on the ticket is lost, and more. And Newcastle and Leeds tend to be spoke airports to other hubs anyway, so the time advantage is gone.

If people have strong ideological beliefs stopping them from using the airport, then that's their choice. Actively discouraging others from using it is really petty though.
Click to expand...
It's not even an extra hour to get to Newcastle or Leeds airports, let's be honest about it.

I used Teesside fairly regularly if going via Schiphol, Newcastle if going via Heathrow. There wasn't a great deal in it travel time wise.

Newcastle the better choice of the three if doing a weekly commute using public transport.

Manchester's a different problem with the M62 and appalling rail service. I used it for a while commuting and it takes forever.
 
ThePrisoner said:
Yes. "Hardly anyone is using the airport. This is great!" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Totally Agree.
It will change as more flights are attracted and passenger numbers increase.
Schipol is a tremendous hub and in many cases better than Heathrow or Gatwick. Newcastle doesn't have that many scheduled flights - apart from to the London hub.
Having an airport on Teesside is good for attracting companies.
 
peboro said:
Works both ways with the weather when planes couldnt land at Leeds Bradford a couple of months ago loads where diverted to Teesside.
Click to expand...
Yeah sure, of course but it's the first flight I've ever had diverted though, out of about 300, so wasn't sure if it was common there? I worked in the RAF too on aircraft for 10 years, and we never had a plane diverted for fog (various bases), which now thinking back is quite remarkable. I suppose those aircraft had better landing aids mind, as well as the runways.

It was called "Durham Tees Valley" airport though, and valleys often get fog, and that airport is right by the river, and low level.
 
I recall someone saying Teesside has a longer runway than Newcastle (something to do with the Bombers using it during WW2 - Air Force 1 landed at Teesside too I think when Bush visited Blair for a beer in Sedgefield?). I was also told Newcastle can't increase their Emirates capacity because the runway is too short for the big A380. Business opportunity there for Houchen and Co....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top