Teesside International Airport - General Thread

[LBAYORKIE]

This is the first UK airport to completely scrap the 100ml liquid rule – and it’s not in London

This airport in the North of England is beating some of the UK's biggest aviation hubs to meet the government's 2024 deadline

www.cntraveller.com

 

[Stagman]

Tender has been put out for two new hangars to be built.

Teesside Airport's big expansion plans to bag further investment

Officials have announced plans to introduce two new 33,000 sq ft hangers on the north side of the airport

www.gazettelive.co.uk

 

[Stagman]

RAF Voyager ZZ343 dropped in at dinnertime before heading to Poland.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

RAF Voyager ZZ343 dropped in at dinnertime before heading to Poland.

Troops/equipment from Catterick?

 

[Stagman]

Probably most likely.

 

[Stagman]

Good article about the Air Traffic Control.

Inside Teesside Airport's air traffic control tower

As the industry faces a shortage of air traffic controllers, the BBC looks at what the job involves.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pat]

I see they are still using one of the most important pieces of equipment, paper flight strips. The article brings back happy memories from nearly 40 years ago

 

[Stagman]

Major expansion plans are on show in the Terminal building.

Just looking at the images, it looks like space for over 40 aircraft stands. Which will be a very welcome boost and make the airport even more attractive going forward.

Here is the link to the online document.

https://www.teessideinternational.com/business/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/05/Airport_Business_Park_12-pager9-compressed.pdf

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Teesside Freeport director to leave role as Michael Gove reveals Teesworks inquiry

The man in control of the Teesside Freeport is to leave his role, The Northern Echo can reveal. It comes on the day Michael Gove confirmed an…

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

Not directly relevant to the airport, but may have consequences.

 

[Stagman]

Eastern showing as a couple of flights between Humberside and Teesside today and tomorrow (Tuesday).

 

[Stagman]

Houchen on Hospital Radio has said that more destinations to be announced September/ October time when routes are put on sale.

 

[Stagman]

Construction of first unit on the Airport South Business Park is well underway.

First Steel Erected at £200M Airport Business Park in Major Milestone - Teesside International Airport

The first steel on a £200million business park is now in place as construction of a vital new link road to the site also nears completion. Business Park South at Teesside International Airport will create up to 4,400 jobs when fully operational, made up of 1.9million sq ft of logistics...

www.teessideinternational.com

 

[pug]

Houchen on Hospital Radio has said that more destinations to be announced September/ October time when routes are put on sale.

New routes like the DLM that was announced earlier in the year for S24 which is actually a direct replacement for the AYT that is running this year? So no growth.

Or like the ‘new routes’ announced by LM that lasted all of 5 minutes, after pissing Eastern Airways off who were by all accounts pretty happy to walk away with a wad of cash and not commit to the actual flights planned?

The fact that Houchen paid 80 times the amount for the airport than Peel did when they purchased it from the public sector in 2003 is almost incomprehensible. The narrative that Peel were going to close Teesside was a bare faced lie, they just wanted to build houses on the non critical parts to underwrite some significant losses - why is this same principle not being applied to the ‘business park’?

The fact that Houchen is prostituting the airport to the airlines and getting very little interest short of a couple of token flights by Ryanair in return suggests there is a huge element of saving face about the whole thing. How many people employed to run the airport are actually experience in the world of commercial aviation? Esken were told to pack their bags very swiftly, perhaps their realistic approach didn’t sit in well with the Houchen propaganda?

Don’t get me wrong, Teesside could tick over very nicely with a modest set of routes tailored to suit the business and leisure passenger in its limited catchment area, but as with any business it has to be sustainable and has to have an ROI commensurate.

The difference between private ownership and public ownership here? The tax payer is being fleeced to prop up some marginal routes to the Med by Ryanair who would happily pull out at the drop of a hat - they’ve since announced a large base up the road at NCL which should speak volumes in itself. The airport has become a money pit and by the time this is fully realised by the public, Houchen will be elsewhere in his political career and the tax payers on Teesside will be left picking up the pieces.

This has significant parallels with what is going on at DSA, admittedly on a much reduced financial scale but is exactly the same in principle.

 

[Stagman]

New routes like the DLM that was announced earlier in the year for S24 which is actually a direct replacement for the AYT that is running this year? So no growth.

Or like the ‘new routes’ announced by LM that lasted all of 5 minutes, after pissing Eastern Airways off who were by all accounts pretty happy to walk away with a wad of cash and not commit to the actual flights planned?

The fact that Houchen paid 80 times the amount for the airport than Peel did when they purchased it from the public sector in 2003 is almost incomprehensible. The narrative that Peel were going to close Teesside was a bare faced lie, they just wanted to build houses on the non critical parts to underwrite some significant losses - why is this same principle not being applied to the ‘business park’?

First of all the six Labour Councils sold off the airport for £500k when it had land value at the time of £40m.
£500k split between six councils ain't going to boost any of the six councils coffers by very much.

Why didn't the Councils sell it off for far more then £500k. Well the reason follows nicely onto the next point.

You say that it is a bare faced lie that narritive was to close off to build houses. Belive me it is no bare faced lie at all.

This is quote from a Council Director who was involved with signing deal off. Who had talked to me about the airport and the reasons.
"The Councils wanted the airport closed but couldn't be seen to do it themselves as it would be political suicide. The Councils wanted Ingleby Barwick MkII built across the whole airport site. The Councils mainly Stockton/ Darlington would reap huge benefits from huge amount of Council Tax from the new houses."

 

[pug]

First of all the six Labour Councils sold off the airport for £500k when it had land value at the time of £40m.
£500k split between six councils ain't going to boost any of the six councils coffers by very much.

Why didn't the Councils sell it off for far more then £500k. Well the reason follows nicely onto the next point.

You say that it is a bare faced lie that narritive was to close off to build houses. Belive me it is no bare faced lie at all.

This is quote from a Council Director who was involved with signing deal off. Who had talked to me about the airport and the reasons.
"The Councils wanted the airport closed but couldn't be seen to do it themselves as it would be political suicide. The Councils wanted Ingleby Barwick MkII built across the whole airport site. The Councils mainly Stockton/ Darlington would reap huge benefits from huge amount of Council Tax from the new houses."

That’s not true. Peel were given permission - as expected for a private sector business - to close the airport should it not be able to stem the losses. They were NOT planning to close the airport, even though the option was there. They wanted to build houses to help fund the proposed business park that it was envisaged would help subsidise activity at the airport. Houchen and his mates (one of which I presume you spoke to) used the airport as a political pawn to gain votes. That is all.

Anyway, the airport is a loss leader and is far from a going concern. At what point does nearly £100million in tax payer subsidy become a good investment of public money? That is a stupendous amount of money for an airport that will never meet the ambitious outlined in its flimsy business plan. Add to this the fact that Eskern ‘left through mutual agreement’ only half way through their agreed term, to be replaced by a Teesside Airport Foundation, which allows for the Airport company to avoid scrutiny through FOI, you can draw no other conclusion than this is a publicity stunt by another one of Boris Johnson’s toxic politic and is at least dodgy if not stinking of corruption.

Peel, on their parting with the airport, advised that the operator would need an investor with limitless money. Does that not sound similar to DSA?

Truth, as unpalatable as it may be, is that small airports have become the victim of widespread consolidation in the air passenger market. Whilst Teesside (and Humberside) were successful with the charter airlines of the past, there are now only one or two. Risk for low-cost airlines is far too high to be trying to set up bases at backwater airports, airports themselves cannot make money from such a venture unless they reach a critical mass far higher than most of their catchment areas can sustain. These airlines are not only enticed by low to no handling charges, as evidenced when Houchen tried to poach Wizzair - who ended up at LBA - as if there ain’t the passengers there are no money to be made no matter how much an airport may or may not charge.

Perhaps if the airport is a loss leader then let the market dictate whether it is a success or becomes a housing estate. As it would appear this is only kicking the can down the road. Soon as Houchen moves on or is replaced the airport will be one of the first to take a hit. Run it in a realistic manner with a proper sustainable business plan to the point it is at least losing a manageable amount and it might be safe and a justifiable cost to shoulder, assuming KLM stick around.

As things stand the airport is being run as an expensive vanity project, and there are very few if any actual industry experienced people leading it.

 

[Stagman]

That’s not true. Peel were given permission - as expected for a private sector business - to close the airport should it not be able to stem the losses. They were NOT planning to close the airport, even though the option was there. They wanted to build houses to help fund the proposed business park that it was envisaged would help subsidise activity at the airport. Houchen and his mates (one of which I presume you spoke to) used the airport as a political pawn to gain votes. That is all.

I was told what I put from Council Director something like 6 years before Houchen came on the scene.

So what I have said has nothing to do with Houchen at all.

 

[pug]

I was told what I put from Council Director something like 6 years before Houchen came on the scene.

So what I have said has nothing to do with Houchen at all.

In that case it ties in with Peel agreeing in around 2014 with the minority shareholders that they be given permission to close the airport should it be proven unviable. Which, let’s face it, it isn’t is it. Houchen has snatched an opportunity for popularity much like Boris did with Brexit.

Perhaps if it wasn’t being used as a political tool, and a toy box for Houchen, and a proper airport group with experience in managing small regional U.K. airports were appointed to run it, then it might have a future. As things stand all that’s happening is it’s spending its way into its own inevitable downfall, which would be sad.

 

[Stagman]

April 2003 Peel purchased 75% shares in Teesside for £500k. In 2012 Peel were handed 14% more shares at no cost, taking it upto 89% ownership.

 

[pug]

April 2003 Peel purchased 75% shares in Teesside for £500k. In 2012 Peel were handed 14% more shares at no cost, taking it upto 89% ownership.

Yes, the authorities were keen for Peel to take over in 2003 as they had experience with LPL, and there were ongoing discussions with Bmibaby which required capital investment and ongoing financial support that wouldn’t have been justified by public spend.

As it happened Bmibaby discovered that the market was poor and pulled out, they were then taken to court by Peel over breach of contract - they had been handed subsidies in the form of rebates to aid in marketing, they also promised a second based aircraft that never materialised - which Peel won. Proof if any were needed that Peel did go out of their way to establish new routes but the risk was just too high. Flyglobespan also came in briefly but went bust as a victim of their own lack of direction and overall increase in barriers to entry in the UK airline market. Ryanair pulled out when Peel introduced a passenger surcharge in an attempt to stem the losses, but by the time they did introduce it Ryanair olly operated about three flights a week at probably very little in the way of contribution to the airports overheads. Peel then decided that it was not viable to handle aircraft of 737/A320 size or larger just once or twice a week. The costs of doing so are far more than an E190.

Of course this is an inconvenient truth to Houchen and his supporters, much like it is to those wanting to see DSA reopen.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Teeside airport to use hydrogen to power vehicles.

Teesside International Airport

♻️ Hydrogen refuelling station coming to Teesside Airport ⛽ Following recent success in hosting a temporary hydrogen refuelling station, the airport will now be installing a permanent station,...

www.facebook.com

I've tried to edit this, so that the link is live (i.e. 'clickable'), but it still shows as just text. When I did manage to link to it, it seems to need a Facebook login, which I don't have.