Am interested to hear peoples' views on the possible future prospects of the airport. All replies (ideally constructive!) welcomed.

There's been much discussion over this subject. I'd recommend doing a search.

But in short - it's no longer used by any commercial airlines. It's sole use now is for helicopter training and i think maybe south yorks police may operate their copters from there.

The runway is also due to be reduced in length to 'accomodate' the new business park.

Basically it's f****d!

:(

I think the plans to shorten the runway at the airport is an insult to our thriving city. If 'alternative' development goes ahead, funds should be injected to ensure that the airport functions (or Heliport as it will become) are maintained for it to greater itself as a much needed value add to local "big" business in the area. However? If it can't survive as a small airfield, how can it survive as a heliport on larger scale? It may always be our failed attempt at becoming airbourne, without some serious backing from the business community. (The business community will only invest, if sufficient demand is there).

Im sad to hear about the airport.
Sheffield deserves a good airport because she is a brilliant city.
Its disappointing because I thought the airport there was going to do nothing but improve.

The council commissioned a Report about the future of the airport and this was presented quite some time ago. There were a few gems in the report, not least of which was that the airport would actually make money if charged a ground rent that was appropriate for a small airport. Instead, the airport is charged a very high rent on the basis that the land is office park development land. Regular users of the airport might also notice that it is very well manned despite having virtually no flights. Similar private airports are run with as few as 2/3 staff and volunteers (often engineers in private companies) as volunteer firemen. Sheffield has a full fire brigade, several reception staff, admin staff, an airport manager and a tower which is manned 12 hours a day. These high, and completely unnecessary, costs mean it is even less likely to make money.

Because the airport can be seen to lose money it means the freehold will pass to the developers for £1. If the council had any guts then they would investigate this over manning and could fight this loss.

Going back to the report that was written at great expense and presented to the council. The authors reported on the future of the airport if the runway was reduced from 1200M to 650M and said that it would mean that some aviation could continue. When the developers sbbmitted plans for reducing the runway they didn't actually state how long the shortened runway would be but a quick measurement of the plans shows it to be about 300M. This is too short for anything but a helicopter. This means they had a report written but then sneaked in a shorter runway afterwards. Part of the current runway is in green belt (really!) and so they have planned to build right up to the border of that greenbelt and leave the bit of runway that they have to leave.

If you accept that they will cose the airport anyway, then you need to luck at the mess they plan to make of the space. Essentially this will be lots of square units all along the old runway. No imagination whatsoever has been used in its planning.

I'm sure this has been gone into plenty before, but the Robin Hood Airport development at the former RAF Finningley base near Doncaster has essentially shown where the main aims of the operators of both (Peel Airports) are. RHA has massive potential for a development hub due to its long runway (able to accomodate Jumbos and the new monster plane). Afraid from a Sheffield point of view I can't see how it can compete unless it finds a niche in the market. There must be some scope for developing it as a training base / heli pad?

It would have been great to see some serious investment before now - like 2 new runway extensions at the Tinsley end and Parkway end (maybe out over the parkway?), an extension to the terminal and ramp and flights by an investor such as Easy or Ryan. But, it wasnt meant to be.

The council commissioned a Report about the future of the airport and this was presented quite some time ago. There were a few gems in the report, not least of which was that the airport would actually make money if charged a ground rent that was appropriate for a small airport. Instead, the airport is charged a very high rent on the basis that the land is office park development land. Regular users of the airport might also notice that it is very well manned despite having virtually no flights. Similar private airports are run with as few as 2/3 staff and volunteers (often engineers in private companies) as volunteer firemen. Sheffield has a full fire brigade, several reception staff, admin staff, an airport manager and a tower which is manned 12 hours a day. These high, and completely unnecessary, costs mean it is even less likely to make money.

Because the airport can be seen to lose money it means the freehold will pass to the developers for £1. If the council had any guts then they would investigate this over manning and could fight this loss.

Going back to the report that was written at great expense and presented to the council. The authors reported on the future of the airport if the runway was reduced from 1200M to 650M and said that it would mean that some aviation could continue. When the developers sbbmitted plans for reducing the runway they didn't actually state how long the shortened runway would be but a quick measurement of the plans shows it to be about 300M. This is too short for anything but a helicopter. This means they had a report written but then sneaked in a shorter runway afterwards. Part of the current runway is in green belt (really!) and so they have planned to build right up to the border of that greenbelt and leave the bit of runway that they have to leave.

If you accept that they will cose the airport anyway, then you need to luck at the mess they plan to make of the space. Essentially this will be lots of square units all along the old runway. No imagination whatsoever has been used in its planning.

its a complete abomination - for such a large city

turn it into a drag racing strip etc

turn it into a drag racing strip etc

I referred earlier to airports of a similar size being operated, at a profit, with a fraction of the staff. If the airport had less staff and a sensible rent then it could make substantial amounts of money by using the space for quite different activities. There is an airfield near Brackley, called Turweston, which has two full time staff who run the tower and refuel aircraft. That aerodrome is also used for both rally cars and the main runway is used for testing racing cars. This doesn't cause any problems to aircraft and allows the airport to make money and stay open.

What should really be discussed isn't whether the airport should/will stay open, but rather how it has been run. The contract the developers have is that, if it loses money, they can buy the freehold for £1 and then build lots of expensive offices. Regardless of whether you want and airport, whether Finningley is better situated, or whether the city needs more offices, it is a scandal that the reward for making a loss is several £millions of development land for £1. Having visitted a vast number of small airports in the UK, Europe and the North America, I can honestly say I have never seen an airport with so many staff and so few aircraft.

being realistic about it Sheffield City Airport should not have been built at all. South Yorkshire, not just Sheffield, needed an airport and the obvious and most viable site was always going to be at Finningly. There isn't a problem with it being a bit of a drive out the city - few big cities have an airport right close to the city centre and many involve a 30-60 minute journey from the city that carries their name.

being realistic about it Sheffield City Airport should not have been built at all. South Yorkshire, not just Sheffield, needed an airport and the obvious and most viable site was always going to be at Finningly. There isn't a problem with it being a bit of a drive out the city - few big cities have an airport right close to the city centre and many involve a 30-60 minute journey from the city that carries their name.

In fact many cities like Sheffield have multiple airports. In North America and even France, it would be normal to have two or three airports for the city. It would be normal to have an international airport and also a smaller, city airport, that is more local. In any case it would be better to have BETTER facilities than Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. It should be the aim of the council to make us stand head and shoulders above smaller cities and not say "other cities can manager with an airport 30 minutes away so whay can't we". Above all else there is the fact that the developers can buy the land for £1 having demonstrated that the airport makes a loss and nobody has really investigated this or fought it. My knowledge of the way they operate leads me to know that massive savings can be made and extra revenue generated which would lead to a profit. Making a profit means that the developer doesn't get to buy it for £1.

At the time the Airport opened, there was much talk of the use that businessmen would make of the facility - in fact, they kept pushing the council to open an airport. So, the council opens an airport - and the business community totally ignored it, and carried on using the trains, cars, and other airports. Now I hear that they are maoning that they do not have an airport:loopy:

At the time the Airport opened, there was much talk of the use that businessmen would make of the facility - in fact, they kept pushing the council to open an airport. So, the council opens an airport - and the business community totally ignored it, and carried on using the trains, cars, and other airports. Now I hear that they are maoning that they do not have an airport:loopy:

This isn't the case. What actually happened was that there were a few flight to either London or Amserdam. Those flights were under utilised. In fact the airport is used by many businessmen every day on private flights. In fact at least two major business leaders have been put off investment in Sheffield to my knowledge when they heard the airport was to close.

Runway shortening starts today!

The CAA inspected the runway on the 6th of July and have officially reduced its usable length. This is a small reduction (the takeoff distance available reducing from 1319M to 1199M) but is the beginning of the end. I am going to call the CAA and ask them why they reduced it, but it is probably because of the distance from the runway to some obstruction. The way it works is that there must be a buffer zone (in front and to the sides at an angle) from the end of the usable length to the fist solid object. They built offices that might encroach on this area and even built one office that obstructs the view from the tower to the end of the runway. Since the company was obliged to keep a certain standard of airport open for 10 years then I wonder how these various minor shortcomings affect that contract?

The council commissioned a Report about the future of the airport and this was presented quite some time ago. There were a few gems in the report, not least of which was that the airport would actually make money if charged a ground rent that was appropriate for a small airport. Instead, the airport is charged a very high rent on the basis that the land is office park development land. Regular users of the airport might also notice that it is very well manned despite having virtually no flights. Similar private airports are run with as few as 2/3 staff and volunteers (often engineers in private companies) as volunteer firemen. Sheffield has a full fire brigade, several reception staff, admin staff, an airport manager and a tower which is manned 12 hours a day. These high, and completely unnecessary, costs mean it is even less likely to make money.

Because the airport can be seen to lose money it means the freehold will pass to the developers for £1. If the council had any guts then they would investigate this over manning and could fight this loss.

Going back to the report that was written at great expense and presented to the council. The authors reported on the future of the airport if the runway was reduced from 1200M to 650M and said that it would mean that some aviation could continue. When the developers sbbmitted plans for reducing the runway they didn't actually state how long the shortened runway would be but a quick measurement of the plans shows it to be about 300M. This is too short for anything but a helicopter. This means they had a report written but then sneaked in a shorter runway afterwards. Part of the current runway is in green belt (really!) and so they have planned to build right up to the border of that greenbelt and leave the bit of runway that they have to leave.

If you accept that they will cose the airport anyway, then you need to luck at the mess they plan to make of the space. Essentially this will be lots of square units all along the old runway. No imagination whatsoever has been used in its planning.


The crux of the matter is that "the council [does not have] any guts [and therefore I think it must be far-fetched if not stretching reality to expect that] they would investigate this over manning and could fight this loss."

Sheffield City Airport was never 'set up' as a going concern. It was always meant to fail. Why? Ask Peel Holdings. A friend of mine ( plus a few others) were on the consultative committee. Mysteriously, as soon as they started asking questions, they were banned from the Airport. No reasons given. Read into that what you will.

Why does this keep happening? Meadowhall? The National Centre for Popular Music? The Ski Village? and now the airport? All of these should be raking in loads of revenue for the Council and Sheffielders, why is it just big businesses benefitting all the time? KenH's post, raises questions we should all be raising a bit more vociferously.

Sheffield City Airport was never 'set up' as a going concern. It was always meant to fail. Why? Ask Peel Holdings. A friend of mine ( plus a few others) were on the consultative committee. Mysteriously, as soon as they started asking questions, they were banned from the Airport. No reasons given. Read into that what you will.

We're also having problems with Peel Holdings. They want to convert two nice stretches of open parkland and moorland into an industrial estate and a racecourse, and despite the hundreds of objections from residents and local councillors, the Labour council have not refused their requests.