Just been informed today of the campaign to stop the eventual closure of Sheffield City Airport. www.ssca.co.uk

It seems that the developers are getting so carried away with building offices and flats that they are soon to put them on the top third of the runway and still keep it active !!?

Whats going on with those people at Sheffield Business Park? Have they completely lost their marbles, would you buy a flat at the end of a runway?

I dont reckon the police helicopter will be around soon either, its better off at Doncaster.

Even if we dont save the runway we will have to save the Great crested newts that are there now and expand it as an S.S.S.I.

i totally support keeping sheffield airport open as a regional airport maybee they could hold an airshow at the airport to attract attention

How many business parks does Sheffield have? Hundreds. We only have one airport. Crap as it is, it should be kept as an airport.

What is the council's opinion on the status of it?

It's chaos out at the business park at 5. THere's already too much traffic trying to funnel onto the parkway - made worse since Morrisons opened! And all they're planning to do to sort this out is to add an extra round-about where they're developing the site close to the landing lights.

Couldn't agree more about the proposed flats at the end of the runway - who on earth would want to live there. Airport's a positive bliss to look at compared to the steel works opposite. Not to mention the air quality is abismal!

The runway would still be long enough to land light aircraft + helicopters (or at least that's what we're told!) and that's about all that lands there these days - apart from the queens flight once in a blue moon.

They should open it to the general public for us to go on Holiday from as well as for businesses.

I mean, without that, the next nearest airport is either, Leeds, Manchester or Humberside which would be about an hour and half away.

(puts her reactionary head on)

The airport should have been planned much better. Much more thought should have gone into its development.

As I understand it, the runway is much too short for anything larger than the smallest commercial aircraft. (what, 20/ 30 -seaters?)

This is part of why the companies, like KLM pulled out, because they weren't doing anything, they were't viable.

It is just a white elephant that we have been saddled with, because of this typical Lack of forethought!

what was wrong with the Lightwood site, the old aerodrome, at Norton? Could *that* not have been developed, as the infrastructure (Runways etc) were already in place?

(logically, maybe the electricity pylons could have posed a "bit" of a hazard to incoming planes!! lol but they could have simply been taken underground)

but, the site is on a fairly clear hilltop, and on a fairly flat area... (not in the bottom of a cramped and mucky industrial valley,) beside open land that could be used for expansion...

is that too much like using common sense and logic? (and practicality?)

PT

Why save a white elephant, turn into a lesuire park :suspect: just what we need or a caravan park :hihi:

Originally posted by Jon
Why save a white elephant, turn into a lesuire park :suspect: just what we need or a caravan park :hihi:

Leisure Park would be good... Not sure about a Caravan Park, could end up full of Gypos (Gypsies) or Big Issue sellers.... :lol:

Originally posted by Rich
Leisure Park would be good... Not sure about a Caravan Park, could end up full of Gypos (Gypsies) or Big Issue sellers.... :lol: :heyhey: i put caravan park lol didn't want them parking outside my house :gag:

Originally posted by Plain Talker
what was wrong with the Lightwood site, the old aerodrome, at Norton? Could *that* not have been developed, as the infrastructure (Runways etc) were already in place?
PT I don't think that Norton is nearly big enough as it never had a runway (well unless you count string bags in the dim and distant). The area is too built up too I would think these days.

The best location proposed was over at Barlborough but it never got off the ground (ahem)

Looking at the flood map....

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/826674/829803/?version=1&lang=_e

......couldn't we replace it with a cruiseliner port at Meadowhall?

Originally posted by tas1
It's chaos out at the business park at 5. THere's already too much traffic trying to funnel onto the parkway - made worse since Morrisons opened! And all they're planning to do to sort this out is to add an extra round-about where they're developing the site close to the landing lights.

It is just a white elephant that we have been saddled with, because of this typical Lack of forethought!

Solution to this is obvious, and actually demostrates the forward thinking planning that was involved - we live in the 21st century - everyone should be taking helicopeters (or at the very least, hovercars) to work.

Originally posted by craigmason
i totally support keeping sheffield airport open as a regional airport maybee they could hold an airshow at the airport to attract attention
Regional airport??? It has been a white elephant since it started!
If the ones that planned the airport were seriouse they would have planned it with foresight that finningly would be up for grabs as one of the longest run way in the UK.

It is now more or less used as a helipad for SY police helicopter.

The area that they chose to have an airport at tax payers expence! was wrong and was limited to any improvement.

I hope they do close it!...it is no good to anyone as it is.

The money wasted on this venture could have been used to fund better equiptment for the hospitals etc

If it does close! will there be any questions as to why Sheffield paid so much for the White elephant???? Looking at previouse white elephants in Sheffield like super tram etc...I think not! people here sit and take whatever is thrown or taken away from them without a word........Sheffield people are gullible or too lazy to bother asking why!!!!...and doing anything about it!

Originally posted by DerekH
Regional airport??? It has been a white elephant since it started!
If the ones that planned the airport

If it does close! will there be any questions as to why Sheffield paid so much for the White elephant???? Looking at previouse white elephants in Sheffield like super tram etc...I think not! people here sit and take whatever is thrown or taken away from them without a word........Sheffield people are gullible or too lazy to bother asking why!!!!...and doing anything about it!

I agree with derek, that the airport seemed to be an exercise in futility....

however, I don't actually think that the Supertram is (now) the white elephant it seemed to be when it was first built. it is popular, and well-used, and the thing is packed to the "gunnells" dring the day, and there's hardly breathing room on it at peak times. it is a bit under-used at night, (except on the meadowhall spur), where folk use it to get to M'hall and centertainment..

the tram is okay, if a bit restrictive about where it goes. It's fine if you live on the routes, or ar wanting to access areas it serves,(eg hillsborough, city, Mad-as-hell, or crystal peaks etc... or if you want to Park-and-ride) but is not so convenient if you aren't going where it takes you, or you don't live on the routes.

the Airport is definitely underused. it is, as derek said, merely a glorified helipad for the police helicopter, these days. which is a desperate, crying shame, as it could have been a flagship.

I think that, surely, the planners "had" to have known, when the thing was even at the design stage, that the runways would be totally inadequate for the sort of aircraft that would have been needed to bring the usage and the revenue in..? that it was never going to be viable within such a cramped area, and such small runway(s)?

it's a bit like the Monorail that was sold to the city of sprinfield, (in the cartoon "the simpsons") in my opinion.

P "monorail! monorail! monorail! T

The people of Sheffield didn't support their local airport.

They don't deserve one.

Originally posted by Yorkie
The people of Sheffield didn't support their local airport.

They don't deserve one.

Hmmm.......

On a couple of occasions I looked in to flying to London and Edinburgh (business / pleasure) during the time when the railways were really screwed after the Hadfield Train Crash, and couldn't do it from Sheffield.

If nowhere else, surely they could have flown something to London.

Perhaps if the airport had been built with regard to what the people of this city actually needed / wanted it might have been better used.

As for the Supertram - when it was planned it was put forward as part of an integrated transport system - but then central government popped up and put the kibosh on joined up planning.

Joe

Originally posted by DerekH
Regional airport??? It has been a white elephant since it started!
If the ones that planned the airport were seriouse they would have planned it with foresight that finningly would be up for grabs as one of the longest run way in the UK.

It is now more or less used as a helipad for SY police helicopter.

The area that they chose to have an airport at tax payers expence! was wrong and was limited to any improvement.

I hope they do close it!...it is no good to anyone as it is.

The money wasted on this venture could have been used to fund better equiptment for the hospitals etc

If it does close! will there be any questions as to why Sheffield paid so much for the White elephant???? Looking at previouse white elephants in Sheffield like super tram etc...I think not! people here sit and take whatever is thrown or taken away from them without a word........Sheffield people are gullible or too lazy to bother asking why!!!!...and doing anything about it!
None of this is true though.

The airport was funded by a combination of British Coal, RJ Budge and good old capitalism.

There is little if any 'tax-payers' money in it so there all the airport does is to contribute taxes for those hospitals etc.

Originally posted by Tony
None of this is true though.

The airport was funded by a combination of British Coal, RJ Budge and good old capitalism.

There is little if any 'tax-payers' money in it so there all the airport does is to contribute taxes for those hospitals etc.
I will have to check your statements here but I know for sure that funding for Sheffield airport comes under the Sheffield council./
Capitalism....the tax payer?

I will post further after my investigation into facts.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
I agree with derek, that the airport seemed to be an exercise in futility....

however, I don't actually think that the Supertram is (now) the white elephant it seemed to be when it was first built. it is popular, and well-used, and the thing is packed to the "gunnells" dring the day, and there's hardly breathing room on it at peak times. it is a bit under-used at night, (except on the meadowhall spur), where folk use it to get to M'hall and centertainment..

the tram is okay, if a bit restrictive about where it goes. It's fine if you live on the routes, or ar wanting to access areas it serves,(eg hillsborough, city, Mad-as-hell, or crystal peaks etc... or if you want to Park-and-ride) but is not so convenient if you aren't going where it takes you, or you don't live on the routes.

the Airport is definitely underused. it is, as derek said, merely a glorified helipad for the police helicopter, these days. which is a desperate, crying shame, as it could have been a flagship.

I think that, surely, the planners "had" to have known, when the thing was even at the design stage, that the runways would be totally inadequate for the sort of aircraft that would have been needed to bring the usage and the revenue in..? that it was never going to be viable within such a cramped area, and such small runway(s)?

it's a bit like the Monorail that was sold to the city of sprinfield, (in the cartoon "the simpsons") in my opinion.

P "monorail! monorail! monorail! T

Ok Pt we agree on something! The tram cost around 273 million to build.....we sold it to stagecoach for 1.2 million....and they are making a profit....makes you think!

Originally posted by DerekH
Regional airport??? It has been a white elephant since it started!
If the ones that planned the airport were serious they would have planned it with foresight that Finningley would be up for grabs as one of the longest run way in the UK.

It is now more or less used as a helipad for SY police helicopter.

The area that they chose to have an airport at tax payers expence! was wrong and was limited to any improvement.

I hope they do close it!...it is no good to anyone as it is.

The money wasted on this venture could have been used to fund better equiptment for the hospitals etc

If it does close! will there be any questions as to why Sheffield paid so much for the White elephant???? Looking at previouse white elephants in Sheffield like super tram etc...I think not! people here sit and take whatever is thrown or taken away from them without a word........Sheffield people are gullible or too lazy to bother asking why!!!!...and doing anything about it!

This looks very much like an e-mail that was received at the information desk at Sheffield City Airport today. I really can't tell you how pleased the how pleased the staff member that opened it was that you cared so much about her job. The fire crew with her were also delighted to learn that you wanted them to lose their jobs too.

Perhaps if you had done a search of this Forum you would have found out something about the Airport before you posted here, and sent your e-mail. Maybe you would have answered some of your own questions:

1) The Airport was not built at tax payers expense. The site was a steelworks which closed in c1985. It became an open cast mine, and part of the planning consent for the opencast was that a runway and other infrastructure had to be put in place out of the profits from the opencast. The remainder of the airport was developed as a private business. If the Council had helped to fund it, maybe it wouldn't be at the mercy of property developers as it is now.

2) There is much more than the police helicopter there. They have their own helipad at the western end of the runway. At the eastern end there are four fixed wing flying schools, four helicopter companies either with a presence or permanently based there, and a significant number of privately owned aircraft there. If sufficient funds for a second air ambulance are raised, that will also be based there.

3) When Sheffield Airport was built Finningley was seriously being considered for even more prisons for Doncaster

4) Sheffield was always planned as a City Airport, similar to London City and other City Airports throughout the world. Even with Finningley, it still has a role to play as a general aviation airport

I could go on. Sheffield Airport has a role to play, and is carving a niche as a useful, convenient, friendly and increasingly busy GA airport. Building yet another business park on the airport will lose Sheffield its only runway. Once lost, it will never be built again - all for the sake of a few office blocks.

Before you start e-mailing people and telling them that they don't deserve their jobs, get a few facts straight first.

:rant:

I hope they do keep it open, even as a light/general aviation airfield, it is still a valuable resource for what is supposed to be a large and modern city.

What I can't understand is, why develop on the runway when there is so much open land around there anyway. For a start, just look at the massive area just to the north which used to be railway sidings.

- MJP

Originally posted by MichaelJP
I hope they do keep it open, even as a light/general aviation airfield, it is still a valuable resource for what is supposed to be a large and modern city.

What I can't understand is, why develop on the runway when there is so much open land around there anyway. For a start, just look at the massive area just to the north which used to be railway sidings.

- MJP
Good question.

Perhaps there are issues with the land?

I seem to remember that some types of pre-used land can be built on for commercial use but not housing use if the land has been 'spoiled' in some way by heavy industrial use or dumping.

I'd love to see someone put in some services that connect to London, though. I sued to do a fair amount of business down there and it would be nice to have an alternative to the still dodgy railways.

Joe

Well the sidings are also planned for development, so good news all round eh?

The airport failed as a 'regional airport' for all sorts of reasons, but Finningley will solve that problem by bringing an 'international airport' onto the doorstep. It's hardly a problem to nip to Doncaster is it?

It would be nice to have an 'international airport' in Sheffield, but let's face facts folks - it ain't going to happen!

This way, we get to keep a working airport, more employment, more housing, more investment.

plus, the new international airport will have sheffield's name in it anyway, much to the frustration of the people of doncaster i suspect!

why would they wana build flats and offices at end of runway?are they stupid or what they havent gone marbles theyve gone crackers mentally stupid ***** although i would of prefered the airport to be busy like other airports just feels like an exibition show.

Just for those of you who think that nothing ever flies in to Sheffield, a business jet with a party of people who have made a major investment in this region flew in from Munich today (maybe they would have invested elsewhere if it was less easy to travel here?) and a large helicopter, also full of business people, flew in from London.

An even bigger business jet is expected tomorrow.

A couple of smaller business helicopters also flew in - one of them our new one. Any thoughts as to where we can base ourselves if the Airport closes? Finningley won't want general aviation, and it's too far from Sheffield which is, after all, the largest city in the region.

Maybe you would rather they took their investments elsewhere - and the jobs that go with them - to somewhere that has an airport if Sheffield Airport closes?

Just how many people does Sheffield City Airport actually employ?
I once booked Sheffield to Singapore (I thought that was really cool) but I never actually made it due to KLM withdrawing its services.

does anyone know how much the airport cost??

Originally posted by MrHelicopter
Just for those of you who think that nothing ever flies in to Sheffield, a business jet with a party of people who have made a major investment in this region flew in from Munich today (maybe they would have invested elsewhere if it was less easy to travel here?) and a large helicopter, also full of business people, flew in from London.

An even bigger business jet is expected tomorrow.

A couple of smaller business helicopters also flew in - one of them our new one. Any thoughts as to where we can base ourselves if the Airport closes? Finningley won't want general aviation, and it's too far from Sheffield which is, after all, the largest city in the region.

Maybe you would rather they took their investments elsewhere - and the jobs that go with them - to somewhere that has an airport if Sheffield Airport closes?

Not at all, Mr H, I for one, definitely wish to see the Airport utilised fully, and properly, and have it teeming with investors both at the airport and investors in local industry.

we WANT this regeneration, we desperately need this investment! we ant to see sheffield vibrant and buzzing!


PT

Originally posted by matsalleh
Just how many people does Sheffield City Airport actually employ?
I once booked Sheffield to Singapore (I thought that was really cool) but I never actually made it due to KLM withdrawing its services.

6/7 fire crew/refuellers on a rotating shift system, 3 reception staff on a rotating shift system, two radio operators (a.k.a Air Traffic Control), Airfield Operations Manager, Business Manager.

Aviation-related jobs:
We have 4 full time and one part time (inc one full time pilot) and 2 part time pilots
There are three other helicopter companies, four fixed wing flying schools all with staff and pilots and an aviation medical examiner with an office at the airport.

All these Will be lost to Sheffield if the Airport closes, irrespective of the economic impact on the fourth largest city in the country if it loses the asset of an airport.

Have to back up Mr H here - the company I work for is about 1/2 way down (but to one side) of the runway and the number of light aircraft/helipcopters that use it is on the increase.

The area around the sidings is also currently being flattened for development, and according to the plans there'll be a distribution centre there eventually.

I've also heard that a company are looking into starting a shuttle service to London airports - think using helicopters. This will be a big bonus.

In 1998 I flew Sheffield to Los Angeles, not direct fo course. The service I got from Sheffield Airport and the flight to and from was brilliant. Much better than the rest of the journey.

Sheffield needs an airport, and any planning required for alternate development should be refused point blank.

I too have been disappointed, like so many others, as to how the ‘airport’ has turned out – I even recall reading a quote in The Star from Prince Phillip when he opened the facility, in which he referred to “the opportunities that this new airFIELD would bring to the area!” Made it sound like a glorified gliding school.

But let’s put it into context. These are the facts as I understand it:

An airport for Sheffield was first mooted decades ago. For ages there was campaigning from the local business community to end the tag of Sheffield being ‘officially the largest city in Western Europe (or was it the Western World?) without its own airport’.

The Tinsley Park open-cast mining application by RJB Mining (who took over most of British Coal’s concerns a few years after the denationalisation of the NCB), presented a unique opportunity to use private money to develop an airport on a piece of (rare) flat Sheffield land. As Mr. Helicopter states, the planners made RJB/BC remediate the contaminated land and level it after mining activities had ceased, in preparation for an airport to be built. In exchange, RJB were giving the mining rights in the first place.

The developer who was appointed to build the airport was an arm of the RJB (Richard Budge) Group of companies, which included RJB Mining – I think this arm was called RJB Land or RJB Estates. Anyway, their plans as I recall from reports in The Star from YEARS ago (so I hope I remembered this correctly), were to build a small regional airport, but with a longer runway than the one they have there now. Unfortunately, RJB Land went bust during the initial ground works and the whole project looked doomed.

Now I suspect that under pressure to get some kind of airport built on this site, after decades of trying, the powers that be (and that would include the Council) were then somewhat at the mercy of any developer that put themselves forward to finish the job. Sure enough the new developer proceeded on the basis of it being a smaller airport, with a shorter runway, costing less. This ultimately turned out to be its downfall.

Now here’s the bit that nobody on this Forum has answered yet –
If the site as a whole was originally big enough to accommodate a longer runway, then why do Peel Holdings (who own the airport and want to extend their business park onto part of the runway) now insist that the site can not accommodate a longer runway?

All that said, everyone in the industry (from what I’ve read) acknowledges that the aviation market at the time the airport was being built was completely different than it is today. Small planes, hopping between small local airports close to population centres, or feeding international hub airports from these small airports, were thought to be where the market would expand in future. In the longer term, there was even a possibility of Vertical Take Off and Landing passenger planes or at least Very Short Take Off and Landing passenger planes, entering commercial service. Also a quieter, smaller local airport would inherently require shorter check-in times, which it was thought would be another pull. So a short runway at Sheffield was not perceived to be a problem.

However, what no-one predicted was the subsequent boom in budget airlines. These carriers prefer a bigger plane because (assuming they can fill it or nearly fill it), it keeps their cost down. This, coupled with the general increased competition that budget airlines have brought to the industry, and the record fuel prices, has meant that Sheffield City Airport simply opened at the wrong time for a runway of its size.
Still, whilst understanding why the venture was a flop as a scheduled flight passenger airport, I too have to agree that to allow Peel Holdings to build on part of the runway seems incredibly short-sighted. Who knows what turn the aviation market might take in another ten years’ time? You can’t reclaim the runway once it’s been built on!

If Sheffield and South Yorkshire’s economic regeneration takes-off, to the degree that we all hope it will, there might be a business market in Sheffield / Rotherham big enough to sustain small plane scheduled flights to London and the like in future. Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield Airport will not fly you anywhere, and will be geared towards large planes. Also travelling to RHDSA from West Sheffield (say) in rush hour could take ages. The two airports could compliment each other, as Peel Holdings said when they bought both of them together a few years ago.

Now it seems that Peel are just out to make a quick quid. From the look of some Sheffield City Council planning committee minutes I saw on their website a few weeks ago, it looks like SCC are only too willing to let Peel go ahead with the buildings. They recommended that the scheme be approved by Council, because, they say, in a few years (when the terms of the original development agreement expire) they will not be in a position to reasonably object to the proposals anyway.

Please can we only state facts ..... the Runway is NOT too short because a Regional Airport can easily manage with Aircraft that can get into London City .... Sheffield's Runway is LONGER than London City. The Queen and Tony Blair have in the past twelve months flown into Sheffield in BAe146 4 Engined environmentally friendly Jets..... This Aircraft can take more than 80 passengers and is great for Sheffield..... more FACTS to follow when I have time. Visit www.ssca.co.uk

That's a good point - London City is about the same length, although it does have starter extensions. But the real issue I think is that Sheffield City is going to be shortened and new offices built on the land previously used by the runway. Why can they not put the new buildings somewhere else for heavens sake without downgrading the existing airfield and limiting it's use even further in the future - they will never be able to extend the runway in the future. This just seems so short sighted to me - and I get the feeling that this could only happen in Sheffield.

People dont support their local airport because its of no use to them.
I dont know how long its been there but I've nevber used it.

www.ssca.co.uk

Worth a look .... more to follow ..... see Runway Photographs tab

Plan of Action

HOPEFULLY..................

Labour AND Conservatives AND LIb Dems AND Greens will put aside Party Politics and quickly reject the Planning Application to dig up the Runway AND stop all related anti Airport new Planning Applications so that a positive way forward emerges soon.....
The PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ON THIS ONE

PETITION

A major Petition is under way and please can all of you download and print out from the web-site Forms which need to be returned ASAP even if not full of signatures for running total.

The Petition will be finalised on New Year's Day 1 January 2005 and presented ... maybe The Lord Mayor will agree to be present on that day to receive it ! !

Council Meeting Wednesday 1 December 2004 .... please be there to fill the Public Gallery .... Anne Smith will attend to the protocol needed to bring the attention of the Council to this matter and maybe get Councillors to debate the Regional Airport need issue .... again hopefully from a knowledgeable position.

PLEASE MAY I PERSONALLY REQUEST THAT IF A MOTION IS TO BE PROPOSED THAT ANNE SMITH PROPOSES AND DIANE LEEK OF THE LIB DEMS SECONDS ... maybe a first in true Democracy for the Opposition.

""""People dont support their local airport because its of no use to them.
I dont know how long its been there but I've never used it """

says one User....

Please can I reply to this one ........ It certainly is no use to people around the area ... BUT IS SHOULD BE and can be if we get Passenger Flights back .... British European asked to put on Flights to Belfast and were turned away so WE have to travel to Leeds Bradford to get to Belfast easily by Air instead of just up the Parkway.

Biggles

For someone who claims to be so well informed why is both you web site and correspondence on this site so factually incorrect.

Are you purely trying to protect your own interest and hobby?

Originally posted by Yorkie
The people of Sheffield didn't support their local airport.

They don't deserve one.

Let's face it, they don't need one. There's Leeds 30-odd miles to North, East Mids similar distance to South, and Manchester not so far to West. Sheffield's transport trump card is it's proximity to the M1.

The regional airports that work without Ryanair et al tend to be those connected to military uses. Campbeltown, for instance, or Newquay. Mind you, the vulnerability of these has been demonstrated recently in the latter case, from where the military helicopter maintenance is to be pulled. The civilian function depends on the RAF to maintain the runway, so it could close. Although with Cornwall being one of Europe's deprived areas it's to be hoped that support for the airport venture will be found somewhere. It's a huge benefit to a region without the overland transport access benefits enjoyed by Sheffield. Twould be no bad thing if Sheff City Council would help the place play to its strengths of darn fine transport links, a skilled, adaptable, willing and plentiful workforce and loads of brownfield gagging to be put to use.

The airport, now it's here, might be better off acting as a freight landing place, where stuff gets transferred to trucks or into distribution depots, as it's happily right by the M1 and M18. Then Leeds, E Mids and Manch can concentrate on the Ryanair and Easyjet-stylee stuff they do rather well. There's certainly no place for flats out there in that God-forsaken outpost of Sheff. Just a thought.

Reply to Optimist
Please state where facts are wrong and they will be put right.

YOU are wrong about me personally since if we are successful in getting Sheffield Airport back to Commercial flight I will have to leave and travel to Gamston.

I have no financial interest in the Airport nor in any new plan.

Just care about Sheffield City .... my home place.

Biggles

I for one would be very happy to see it go.

Consider the following:-


• Climate change - greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft are uniquely damaging and are likely to increase substantially over the next 50 years. By 2050 emissions from aircraft will contribute to between 4 - 15% of predicted manmade climate change. Technological and operational improvements will not be sufficient to offset the effects of increasing emissions. The Government must aim to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions from all UK origin flights at levels forecast for the year 2005. An urgent study is therefore needed to establish this prognosis and follow-on national and international policies. We do not believe that
emissions trading schemes as currently envisaged will be effective. We need to see clear evidence of greenhouse gas reductions by this sector.


• Local and regional airport-linked impacts - quite simply, noise and air quality environmental impacts will deteriorate as flight and passenger numbers increase. At the moment, local impacts get a completely "free ride". Local authorities and environment protection agencies need statutory responsibility for aircraft noise and air pollution enforcement standards in line with the World Health Organisation Charter on Transport, Environment and Health guidelines and policy recommendations that the Government says it has a "political commitment" to applying to the air transport sector. The Government must confirm that it will unhesitatingly apply the WHO Charter on Transport, Environment and Health to the air transport policy development process
under way right now .We would like to see an independent pollution control agency for this industry as well.

• Switch short haul air to rail - rail travel is substantially less
environmentally damaging than air transport when comparing emissions per passenger kilometre. And if you consider door-to-door journey times for distances up to 1,000 kilometres, rail can be quicker! We want the Government to urgently begin a 10-year programme to transfer all flights of up to 1,000 kilometres around the UK and to our near European neighbours from air to rail. We are confident that simply by encouraging an air to rail shift within the UK, NO extra runway capacity would be needed , permanently removing 30 million air passengers from planes to trains!

• Patterns of consumption - as we move towards a low-carbon economy, all sectors of our industrial and personal ransportation activity must play their part in reducing how, when and where we consume fossil fuels. The ways in which businesses ship people and goods around need to be challenged - for instance does any business or profession really need to ship paper-based documents overnight by express air courier when they can be sent electronically at 3,500 kilometres per second? Can videoconferencing installations and their use be linked to cuts in air travel emissions by business? Could we get by without air freighting strawberries from Mexico? We recommend that the Government looks at ways in which alternatives to air transport can be encouraged and consumer education programmes used to highlight the need to decide how much air transport the environment can afford in our low carbon, sustainable mobility future.

We fervently hope that the Government will act to control and limit the harmful expansion of an industry that badly needs "sustainable" as its watchword not "predict and provide" and which reflects the guidance set out by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1994:

"An unquestioning attitude towards future growth in air travel, and an acceptance that the projected demand for additional facilities and services must be met, are incompatible with the aim of sustainable development…" and that "The demand for air travel might not be growing at the present rate if airlines and their customers had to face the costs of the damage they are causing to the environment".


For more info see http://www.airportwatch.org.uk.

The idea that we need regional airports to fly to other cities in the UK is ridiculous. What we need is energy-efficient high-speed railways. Don't sign this petition,

Simon
Committee member.
Yorkshire and Humberside Transport Activists Roundtable
http://www.yhtar.org.uk

Originally posted by wildnorthlands
What we need is energy-efficient high-speed railways.

We also need world peace, an end to famine and self cleaning toilets* - but it doesn't mean its going to happen - so in the meantime its probably best not to burn our bridges by building on the runway - just as Beeching did (yes, in a government report) with the railways in the 60s.

(who knows, they may invent a hydrogen powered plane which doesn't produce any CO2 - but needs a nice long runway to take off)

* The railways certainly need these

I applaud your noble aspirations, sooner or later the whole world will have to wake up to impending environmental doom, but in the meantime Sheffield can't go environmentally friendly unilatterally.

To summarise what I think most (but certainly not all) people on this thread are saying, is that for the council to approve the planning proposals to build on the runway at Sheffield City is potentially short-sighted.

From an environmental justification point of view, this airport is already there and general aviation is still using it in some numbers - didn't they just build (or apply to build) a new hangar there recently? So campaigning to reject the planning proposal (or at least have it more rigourously looked into), is not going to introduce any sudden increase in air traffic, it will just maintain the status quo for now.

Yes, in an ideal world, instead of short haul flights we'd all be taking high speed inter-city electric trains, with the electricity to power them 100% generated from renewables, but that's not going to be an option for decades. Even when that is a reality, history suggests that Sheffield will be on a branch line that will built several decades after the rest of the nation is connected to the network.

But in the meantime, as these decades slowly pass, there may be a change in the aviation market, and this airport could become viable for a handful of scheduled passenger flights again, in addition to the existing GA business. If it does it would be a drop in the ocean in terms of additional pollution, and will only be temporary until your hard campaigning eventually results in the high speed rail network that you dream of. If it doesn't then it doesn't add to pollution at all - it's just an existing piece of underused tarmac.

But the point is, let's not allow a developer to scupper any chance of this airport ever helping bring desperately needed inward invetment into the area and add to Sheffielder's travel options, by letting them build on the runway. There's plenty of other brownfield site nearby ripe for developments like this instead.


By the way, I see from today's Star that the leader of the City Council, Jan Wilson, has called for a full report into the future viability of the airport and the background to the planning application. She has asked anyone who knows anything about the subject to contact her. What an invitation! I'll bet there could be a few contributors to this thread getting in touch with you Mrs. Wilson!

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl
The developer who was appointed to build the airport was an arm of the RJB (Richard Budge) Group of companies, which included RJB Mining – I think this arm was called RJB Land or RJB Estates. Anyway, their plans as I recall from reports in The Star from YEARS ago (so I hope I remembered this correctly), were to build a small regional airport, but with a longer runway than the one they have there now. Unfortunately, RJB Land went bust during the initial ground works and the whole project looked doomed.
That was actually AF Budge Construction, owned and run by Tony Budge - RJ's brother. They certainly did go bust, but AF was always the one interested in airports, not RJ.

AF owned Gamston Airport at the time, and I suspect that he still does. He had a penchant for sending the wives shopping in Paris in their Kingair. :thumbsup:

I worked on the original planning application for the airport and the surrounding business park, and I've still got one of the original brochures for the airport that was prepared for the the planning application in... oooo 1991? It makes very interesting reading, and shows very very ambitious plans at the time, and certainly didn't need anything building on the the runway or in the line of sight of the glide path. Great care was taken to ensure that buildings didn't interfere with CAA guidance. Having said that, the runway was always intended to be a spine road with buildings either side if the airport didn't succeed.

(This was all in the dim and distant past so if I've got any details wrong please feel free to correct the above)

Regardless of Finningley, Sheffield NEEDS this airport to be in full working capacity. Looking at the original plans. I don't understand any commercial development need to build on the airport apart from denying any competition to Finningley when Peel eventually sell Sheffield Airport.

Edit: I checked, and it was Budge (Mining) Ltd that ended up with the original 'Sheffield Aerocentre' proposal. Looks like RJ may have taken over after AF went bust.

Those plans you refer to moderator unfortunatelh show most of the additonal develoment that you refer to on 'green belt'.

Its nice to see that so many people state that economic regeneration will be lost if the runway is revised. Of course the relaity is, as I understand it, that the developers are proviing a continued comittment to avaiation out of SCA for cc 10 years (which they don't have to do under the current arrangemt because of the millions of private money lost in giving Sheffield what it asked for). This bespoke iconic facility can then work in harmony with the international (SCA could never do) facility at RHDS.

Sheffield gets the best of both worlds. Investment and avaiation.

the optimist

Originally posted by optimist
Those plans you refer to moderator unfortunatelh show most of the additonal develoment that you refer to on 'green belt'.
No it doesn't.

then you are confused

I'm not confused at all, and you are still wrong.

Don't we have a 'big' airport at Donny now? Why do we need the Sheffield one ? Its not like anything other than private planes land at it anyway as its too short and in my opinion in the wrong place.

Mr Peck, a qualified pilot, said: "Finningley airport lay dormant since the war, just sitting there for the right moment to come along. That moment has now come with proposals for it to become an international airport"

Didn't the RAF use Finningley for a bit of flying after the war or was that a different Finnigley?

Weren't there a few Battle of Britain air displays and a Vulcan bomber or two flying around?

Seems the SSCA aviation expert has missed about 50 years of history?

Originally posted by BIGGLES
Please can we only state facts ..... the Runway is NOT too short because a Regional Airport can easily manage with Aircraft that can get into London City .... Sheffield's Runway is LONGER than London City. The Queen and Tony Blair have in the past twelve months flown into Sheffield in BAe146 4 Engined environmentally friendly Jets..... This Aircraft can take more than 80 passengers and is great for Sheffield..... more FACTS to follow when I have time. Visit www.ssca.co.uk



If the runway is longer than London City Airport why aren't easy jet, jet 2 and ryanair flying into sheffield. That would be great wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Lancer
Mr Peck, a qualified pilot, said: "Finningley airport lay dormant since the war, just sitting there for the right moment to come along. That moment has now come with proposals for it to become an international airport"

Didn't the RAF use Finningley for a bit of flying after the war or was that a different Finnigley?

Weren't there a few Battle of Britain air displays and a Vulcan bomber or two flying around?

Seems the SSCA aviation expert has missed about 50 years of history?
the airport was operational untill 1996.
Concorde also landed there as the runway is one of the longest in the world..........
There were Vulcans, dominie, jet stream, jet provost, maint for sea king and wessex helicopters,Hawk & tucano aircraft for training..... quoted from an ex raf flight sgt! nyone want to add any BS to

There appear to be some inaccuracies / confusion in your statement dated 16th October on the ssca web site.

As an outsider I see nothing but investment at SCA. Provided new hangars, apron parking (I believe you benefit from?), offices for other pilots and the like. When it became obvious that the owners could not get max from terminal they have invested a lot for all our own benefit.

The arrival of royal helicopter surely backs up what SCA are trying to promote in the future?

I also understand that Plymouth makes a hefty loss each year, despite buying their own airline and re-branding! You should refer to the J Mothersole statement and the arrangement it would appear SCA inherited. Surely if all the money invested by the owners was added up they (private investment, not public as some contributors have stated) must be down a considerable amount over the years. Therefore it would appear they are entilted to work within the exisitng contract confounds. As others have stated they are in fact protecting avaiation for a future period (they don't have to), just on a shorter runway. By doing this they ensure that SY can continue to seek and benefit from inward investment whilst gaining an international facility at RHDS and regional facility at SCA.

It would appear that all this debate is about is fanatics potentially at some point in the future not having the convenience of their hobby from SCA and some of the originals members of the SDC struggling to come to terms with the fact that they may have got it wrong - why cant everyone look to the future and the bigger economic arguments for both Sheffield and SY. Everyone gets it's wrong occasionally, the more intelligent amongst us learn from these mistakes and move on.

The statement made by SCC would suggest that it has to be inevitable?

OPTIMIST

London City Airport runway is 1,500 m, Sheffield is 1,200 m.

The largest aircraft atLCY is a BAe146 with a limited range.

Sheffield City airport as a regional airport is unsustainable.The aircraft that could potentially use it would have an absolute maximum of 100 seats (with the only jet capable of using the airport having 4 engnies) making them expensive to operate on a per seat cost.

Sheffield, with the greatest will in the world does not have an economy any where near as bouyant as London to support these high cost servies. It is SOLELY the financial sector in London that supports LCY, and 80% of their passengers fly on business. Sheffield, or any other UK city except London can not support this. Ask yourself the question, would YOU pay £400 for a flight to Nice from Doncaster Sheffield when you can get a Thomsonfly flight for £50?

The BAe146 is VERY restricted in operating through Sheffield. It may well have brought the Queen in from London, but in aircraft performance terms it is very different bringing in 5 passengers on a 30 minute flight, than 100 passengers on an hour flight. This aircraft could NOT and NEVER DID operate commercially through Sheffield.

The above is FACT. not my opinion, fact. Ask any airline or airport professional. Sheffield city airport is a great airport, just not suited to todays airline industry.

Which is exactly why Sheffield has a new airport in the guise of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. It's 35 minutes from the centre of Sheffield, and could potentially offer every service you would want.

My advice would be support your NEW local airport, book the flights, take the holidays, otherwise the long dreary drive to Manchester or London through massive traffic jams and crap weather will be all that awaits you forever more!

the choice is yours. Campaign against Sheffield's redevelopment and keep the runway. You still wont get an airline and no amount of pressure is going to convince any airline to operate a loss making service.

or

Support your future, you have a potentially world class airport a short and easy, congestion free drive down the M18. Use it. Doncaster SHeffield airport IS a regional airport, it's YOUR regional airport.

Your choice.

I for one think that all efforts to keep our airport open deserve our support.
As has been said earlier it was a shame that more preperation was not given to the commercial aspects of having a runway which was not able to take the large aircraft needed to sustain such a venture.
When you think that sheffield is the fourth biggest city then this is really a embarsment on the whole city.
I for one say keep it open.

Originally posted by royjames
I for one think that all efforts to keep our airport open deserve our support.
As has been said earlier it was a shame that more preperation was not given to the commercial aspects of having a runway which was not able to take the large aircraft needed to sustain such a venture.
When you think that sheffield is the fourth biggest city then this is really a embarsment on the whole city.
I for one say keep it open.

Keep it open for what purpose RoyJames and whose expense?

My reading of the threads is that no public funds have gone into the Airport, only private money. It has not cost the Council or the rate payers a penny. Any commercial company that continues to put money into a loss making business will not be in business for long - why should the airport backers keep losing money so a few private pilots can indulge themselves? Is this what Harry Peck is really after?

Optimist says the runway is too short for any reasonable commercial operation. Royjames says it was a shame that more preperation was not given to the commercial aspects of having a runway which was not able to take the large aircraft needed to sustain such a venture.

Well the runway is what length it is - what does Royjames suggest is done to make it work?

Originally posted by justme
London City Airport runway is 1,500 m, Sheffield is 1,200 m.

The largest aircraft atLCY is a BAe146 with a limited range.

Sheffield City airport as a regional airport is unsustainable.The aircraft that could potentially use it would have an absolute maximum of 100 seats (with the only jet capable of using the airport having 4 engnies) making them expensive to operate on a per seat cost.

Sheffield, with the greatest will in the world does not have an economy any where near as bouyant as London to support these high cost servies. It is SOLELY the financial sector in London that supports LCY, and 80% of their passengers fly on business. Sheffield, or any other UK city except London can not support this. Ask yourself the question, would YOU pay £400 for a flight to Nice from Doncaster Sheffield when you can get a Thomsonfly flight for £50?

The BAe146 is VERY restricted in operating through Sheffield. It may well have brought the Queen in from London, but in aircraft performance terms it is very different bringing in 5 passengers on a 30 minute flight, than 100 passengers on an hour flight. This aircraft could NOT and NEVER DID operate commercially through Sheffield.

The above is FACT. not my opinion, fact. Ask any airline or airport professional. Sheffield city airport is a great airport, just not suited to todays airline industry.

Which is exactly why Sheffield has a new airport in the guise of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. It's 35 minutes from the centre of Sheffield, and could potentially offer every service you would want.

My advice would be support your NEW local airport, book the flights, take the holidays, otherwise the long dreary drive to Manchester or London through massive traffic jams and crap weather will be all that awaits you forever more!

the choice is yours. Campaign against Sheffield's redevelopment and keep the runway. You still wont get an airline and no amount of pressure is going to convince any airline to operate a loss making service.

or

Support your future, you have a potentially world class airport a short and easy, congestion free drive down the M18. Use it. Doncaster SHeffield airport IS a regional airport, it's YOUR regional airport.

Your choice.



Justme, you seem to know about these things, why aren't Jet2 and easyjet flying out of Sheffield Airport - this is what those wanting to keep the runway want isn't it?

If the only airlines than can use the runway use aeroplanes that can only take a few passengers relatively short distances - down to London for example - what is the point?

You can get to London from Doncaseter in less than 90 minutes - didn't the Sheffield Airport air service to London fail within weeks because no one used it. Where was the local support then?

Is this all to do with the old guard in Sheffield having their noses put out of joint because the big new airport for the region is nearer Doncaster than Sheffield. Mind you, it has got Sheffield in the name.

Who is really behind this campaign - other than Natwest Bank? Unusual for a high street bank to sponsor campaigns and use its logo in such a way.

The SSCA site seems to be promoting Sheffield Airport to spend time and effort following the model of Plymouth Airport and buy and start an airline. Surely there is one important aspect mssing in the SSCA plan - funding! Who do the people behind SSCA believe is going to pay for an airline and run it?

The SSCA link tells the reader that: "As Plymouth’s main runway is only 3,805ft (1,160m) long, the number of commercial airliner types the new airline would be able to operate was restricted". Is this a model to follow - perhaps those in the know will comment.

It seems the Plymouth based airline runs trips from Plymouth to Manchester (via Bristol), and subsequently, Plymouth – Jersey. Hardly international.

I cannot see where the thread of the SSCA case is going - can anyone help?

Jet2 & easyJet do not use SZD because the runway is too short, the approaches are too steep due to the high rising buildings and obstructions to the runway. The terminal is far too small (well it was before it closed) the airport is poorly located.

Robin Hood Airport will offer all that you want. I think someone above hit the nail on the head, is this whole thing simply a case of wanting it in Sheffield and not Doncaster?

I fully sympathise with your plight to keep SZD open, but face facts, the airport has no commercial future, accept it and move on. If we all lived in the past we'd still be living in caves.

Originally posted by justme

Robin Hood Airport will offer all that you want. I think someone above hit the nail on the head, is this whole thing simply a case of wanting it in Sheffield and not Doncaster?

.... If we all lived in the past we'd still be living in caves.


But it's so utterly ridiculous !! Who can relate to a modern facility like an international airport named after a medieval myth like Robin Hood. And anyway, - whatever the facts may be, Robin Hood is associated more with Nottingham then South Yorkshire.

Why didn't they just call it South Yorkshire Airport ??

Originally posted by Greybeard
But it's so utterly ridiculous !! Who can relate to a modern facility like an international airport named after a medieval myth like Robin Hood. And anyway, - whatever the facts may be, Robin Hood is associated more with Nottingham then South Yorkshire.

Why didn't they just call it South Yorkshire Airport ??
History/myth Robin Hood hailed from Loxley!!!! not Nottingham.

What is in a name???? they can call it THe Doncaster City Airport....That should turn some heads

Sheffield City Airport has always been privatley owned and therefore never cost the taxpayers anything.

It was built with (the successful) London City Airport in mind which has a shorter runway than Sheffield.

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert, or aviation enthusiast, or even a frequent flyer, nor do I have anything against RHDS Airport (that facility will benefit all of S. Yorks and beyond, including Sheffield), but I AM all for common sense.

Much has been said, understandably, about the history of SCC airport and why it failed to sustain scheduled commercial flights. I think we've now all been enlightened - the runway is on the 'short side of ideal' for the preferred planes used in today's fickle market and the crippled South Yorkshire/North Midlands economy means people do not have the disposable income to sustain premium-rate business routes using expensive-to-operate small aircraft.

So let's accept the situation at present and look at the medium- and long-term future.

I am not advocating intervention with lots of public money to subsidise a service that wouldn't otherwise be commercially viable at present. Besides, this kind of intervention would probably fall foul of European anti-competition laws, as happened at Charlois Airport in Belgium, where Ryanair were encouraged to land there with (illegal) Regional Government subsidies.

But rather than allowing Peel to build over part of the runway, irreversably, when there is plenty of other nearby land ripe fore development, why not 'mothball' that section of runway that is proposed to be built on.

By this, I mean do not continue (at great expense) to maintain this section of runway to usable CAA standards, but cordon it off, paint it an internationally recognised "out of bounds" colour and only carry out the most essential of repairs / maintenance - like burst drainage repair.

That way, IF through the launch of new large short-take-off, cheap to operate, larger planes, combined with much more demand in Sheffield due to successful economic regeneration, the market did once again create a demand for passenger flights at SCC, then at least that demand could be met by reopening that extra section of runway. That might not be for 40 years, but it would be far cheaper to start repairing the cracks on the tarmac replacing dud airfield lighting at that juncture, than building a completely new airport, or ripping up the offices (and paying to relocate their tenants) and totally rebuilding that section of runway from scratch! Land pressures in the future will be far worse than now, so finding suitable regional airport sites in the UK then will be a nightmare.

Obviously, even the mothball approach would require SOME maintenance budget, but it would be extremely minimal. Maybe Peel could be encouraged pay for this by a new agreement with SCC as current leaseholder of the land. In return SCC could provide some of their other land stock at a reduced price as an alternative site for Peel's proposed offices development.

If the market never changed in SCC's favour, then at least no public money was would have been wasted, nor private money on unnecessary full maintenence.

2 things to consider. Is there actually as much land as you think surrounding the immediate area to cater and cope with the economic demand. I am reliabily informed that most is actually allocated - must be good news for the region - hopefully jobs etc.

Secondily, the idea of moth balling. Quite interesting but in this instance impossible. According to SCC statements come 2007 the land is transferred to the operators. Told by a SCC contact that this is legally binding.

Like you Newcastle I am both supportive and a realist. If it brings more jobs, and bolsters our economy and future then reluctantly I think it is right.

Originally posted by DerekH
History/myth Robin Hood hailed from Loxley!!!! not Nottingham.

What is in a name???? they can call it THe Doncaster City Airport....That should turn some heads
Derek

I did say "whatever the facts may be". Robin Hood's adversary in all the films I've seen, though long ago now, has been the Sheriff of Nottingham, - not the Sheriff of South Yorkshire.

And there's a lot in a name. For a typical Homer Simpson type American I'm sure the association of Robin Hood would be with Nottingham.

Don't know about turning heads, there'll likely be some head scratchting by tourists expecting to land in Nottingham only to find they're somewhere in the South Yorkshire outback. :D

I see whats happening.

The Owners who took it over dont want it to work, so they can develop it and Sheffields people have no airport and the owners get richer as the land is full of offices worth millions,,,,,,SOME KIND OF GRANT I SUPPOSE for the development and the owners gain not Sheffields People.

The original management made it work so they got the push. The new owners make sure it doesnt work so on paper its a better option to get the green lights to develop.

Why did KLM leave ? Was it because they got gently pushed ? Why didnt other airlines come in ? Never phoned back I imagine ...

SMELLS TO ME.......

I think the new owners should be made to hand it over to the council or similar to run it and encourage people to use it....Perhaps the original management....looks like they made a good job of it....

I flew from Sheffield with KLM and flew with a airline to Jersey it was packed.......

I SMELL SOMETHING FISHEY---- AND ME THINKS THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND OUT.....

Next job letter to my MP..

Originally posted by Greybeard
Derek

I did say "whatever the facts may be". Robin Hood's adversary in all the films I've seen, though long ago now, has been the Sheriff of Nottingham, - not the Sheriff of South Yorkshire.

And there's a lot in a name. For a typical Homer Simpson type American I'm sure the association of Robin Hood would be with Nottingham.

Don't know about turning heads, there'll likely be some head scratchting by tourists expecting to land in Nottingham only to find they're somewhere in the South Yorkshire outback. :D
I see your point! I don't know why they don't just keep the Name of Finningly.......It is known worldwide from the days of the war.
I wonder how much it has cost for someone to think up the new name?

Here's one Question for the Thread.
When the Airport was firsted planned, Why was the land that it was to be built not purchaced from Sheffield Council.
The way I see it is that leasing Land for the purpose of building an Airport is subject to all sorts of problems and with a lease that has to be renewed in 2007..............The owners of the airport buildings and runway would lose money should the lease not be renewed....As this doesnt make sense for any business man to go into such a situation, ........Why did they do it in the first place.

Another question is, If the Airport was to be a private Venture.. with no public funding, Why call it The Sheffield City Airport?

You are missing the pont which has already been explained by mnay within this thread.

The only way the SDC could get someone to build and run an airport was to grant a lease / agreement where should the venture be financially unviable then those private investors would have the opportunity to do something else with the land.

It should alos be noted that they don't just get the land for nothing. The SDC agreed a mechanism which takes all losses to date and plays these against the value of the opportunity. Therefore the developers are in fact paying the 'true value'.

You talk rubbish, what does that mean in english

YES IF SCA DOESNT WORK

A PRIVATE BUYER (THAT IS PEEL) HAVE AGREED GET TO BUY IT VERY CHEAP.

HENCE THEY DONT WANT IT TO WORK

SO THEY GET IT CHEAP.


WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IS PUT IT UP FOR SALE AS A AIRPORT TO BUY AS AIRPORT AND RUN AS A AIRPORT NOT DEVELOP IT FOR OFFFICES..........

I AM SURE ITS OUT THE BAG WHAT PEELS REAL INTENTIONS ARE AND HAVE BEEN.

PUT IT UP FOR SALE BEST BUYER WINS AND PERHAPS IF SOMEONE BUYS IT WITH THE INTENTIONS OF MAKING MONEY AS A AIRPORT IT WILL WORK....OPPOSED TO SOMEONE WANTING TO BUY IT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESNT WORK TO DEVELOP IT INTO OFFICES

to the layman it means that should they run the airport until 2007 and find that over it's life it has lost money (if you check with companies house you will see that it has lost money every year - hardly suprising - it's an airport) then they get the site (because they were prepared to invest 10's of £m to set up and run) for it's market value, minus all loses accrued to date.

Who would want to be in their shoes? Do you think that all those in this thread who say that it should be kept open would want to run / inherit themselves based on the original SDC deal!

Your commnets were exactly what was considered when it the deal was first struck with SDC. That's why there was an Airport Consultancy Committee put in place to monitor. I believe this includes the leader of the council and other well respected buisness men.

All the issues here which are being raised (and why not if you are passionate about something) should really be directed at the people involved with SDC when the deal was brokered. Not the operators who it would appear have continued to make a go of it through active investment. Look how the thing has changed in recent years - its hardly been run down!

ps - lets not forget that Peel could shut the whole thing anyway in 2007 and Sheffield would lose all aviation. The SCC statement however confirms that they will be protecting avaiation for a further 10 years min at the shorter more economicaly vaiable format.

I wonder who the commitee is anything to do with Peel

Yes the airport has changed

All its baggage handling area and customs etc to handle most flights have been stripped out. And changed to offices

these are all obvious signs of peel group wanting to earn money from aviation'''''

what a load of rubbish

this company have run it down and the only money spent is for offices and get it ready for the 2007 runway office development.

as it it being closed in 2007 watch this space I dont think peel can close it as easy as that..

No need to shout!

could be worth saving if MGM build the big casino complex in don valley as it may be quite useful for flying in all the big spenders on their private jets!

Saveit

You talk such rubbish.

Peel bought an airport and tried to operate an airport. The airlines left because they were loosing more money than sense and the airport became unviable.

So, peel have decide, quite pro-actively and for the balanced good of all to redevelop the site to acheive the maximum OVERALL benefit to everyone.

Of course you want an airport, that is obvious and to be commended, but for Gods sake see the reality, the airport in todays air travel market is unsustainable. The air travel market is geared towards mass travel low cost airlines. 150 + seater aircraft with low operating costs. As I have explained, smaller aircraft are expensive to operate and hence the whole thing become unviable.

KLM left because of this reason, they couldn't make the operation pay, and with Jet2 and Bmibaby operating to AMS from nearby passengers were led by the fares. There is no profit in connecting traffic, and they couldn't operate a large aircraft, which would have lowered the seat cost due to the ridicuoulsly short runway.

There is no rat, no dodgy dealings, nothing untoward, it is simply a case of the project didn't work. Accept it and move with the times. Of course you are dissapointed, and who wouldn't be? But Sheffield city airport is not designed or able to compete in todays industry.

the best thing you can do, for the good of Sheffield is support what you have. There is an airport down the road, use it, you can go on as much as you like about Sheffield City, but with Robin Hood Airport down the road, the airlines, if THEY want to serve Sheffield will go there.

And as for the ridiculous comment about Peel not retunring phone calls or chasing airlines ... I can only assume you are not a business man. Coincidentally, does any one actual have a list of these airlines that want to operate into Sheffield City? If so, I would be interested to see it.

Just me, sounds quite up on the subject. So what would good would presenting these companies to you do?

You cant do anything and sounds like you dont want to.

Dont forget this is more than business its lives, dreams and nightmares.

When DCS is up and running it won't matter, will it? Which big airports are actually in the city they're named after? And what's in a name? If we can fly to MORE places at a LOWER price from DCS, then let's not cry that a white elephant is drawing its last breath.

The benefit of listing the airlines (if they exist) is that someone may see it and speak to them! Of course, it could be a lot of hot air and their are no airlines asking .... Or it could be that someone has heard Jet2 say thay would like to capture the Sheffield market and then someone has understandably assumed they want to operate to Sheffield.

My bet is on one of the last two .... and the latter is funny because as we have already proved, the majority of UK airlines today can not operate into SZD.

Finally, a point of reference, the IATA code for Robin Hood Airport is DSA, not DCS as listed!

Sheffield Airport is/was a total waste of money and resources.

I flew from there to Belfast and I had to go there and back in a day.

I could have got cheap flights from East Midlands, but chose to pay nearly three times as much so I could get home at a reasonable time and not have to drive back after along day.

The flight going out there was fine, the flight back was cancelled and I had to fly back to Birmingham and then be bussed back to Sheffield airport. There were people on that flight who had trains to catch who were then left stranded in Sheffield.

Sheffield Airport is a total embarrassment to the city, if we were going to open an airport we should have put our name to Doncaster Airport in the same way Leeds and Bradford have done.

The council are/were going to sell the airport, land etc for £1.00 (one pound)!

An inquiry is to be held (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?sectionid=58&articleid=874857)!

been sold for £1 in todays local paper some 1 gonna get rich eh!! steve>>>

This deal to acquire the freehold for a nominal price was in the contract from the begining.
It requires the airport to fail as a business for this clause to kick in.
There is a confllict of interest here as it can be in someone's interest for failure to occur.
Are the investors losing money on the airport going to be going to be the ones to recoup any losses from the capital gain on the land sale? Not necessarily so.
Who is to say that the current scenario is not what was planned by some astute characters from the begining?

We, the council tax payers look like being set up to be ripped off once again.

Hmm, well without knowing what the £1 deal is for it's impossible to make any sort of value judgement.

The land will be effectively owned on a long leasehold that is frankly as good as a freehold anyway.

Depending on the terms of the lease and any clawback or permitted development rights the leaseholders may well have an 'effective freehold'. meaning that the £1 is merely an administrative matter, and actually has no value at all.

This story could well be totally irrelevant and meaningless.

Its such a shame when papers publish stories which are so obviously incorrect.

Moderator is correct - no truth in the £1 deal. The cost must surely be the £10's million that the developers / operators have incurred under the terms of the lease? The accounts since opening in 1997 speak for themselves and anyone can view these via companies house.

So you take the losses, add the value of the land, and still get a very negative figure - it's not rocket science to work that out. I would suggest that those quoted in the paper (Consv member, and maggot / fish man) try and engage their brains before sounding so silly in the press.

The article in the Star states that although the operators could close in 2007 because of continous losses they are prepared to continue, just on a more economical basis for an indefinite period.

How is the city loosing out? The SSCA web page is ridiculous. Saving SCA is exactly what these people seem to be doing. The alternative is they close it. They also continue to invest in development, providing jobs, social inclusion etc. The big boards on the Parkway mention 3,000 jobs because of the exisiting facility, why stop another 3,000?

The only real oposition seems to be coming from hobby pilots. Do they really know better than those employed by the government in putting their white paper together.

At last it would appear the truth is looming. Stop worrying about your own personal hobbies and start focusing on what is good for our region. Investment, jobs, prosperity - not a few old woman with nothing better to do!

Ironic that a local Tory councillor is complaining about the sale of the airport to the people who have run it down for £1.
The Sheffield Development Corporation was an undemocratic quango appointed by the Thatcher government to redevelop the East End. The City Council was unable overrule any planning decisions taken by this quango (mainly businessmen) whatever the detriment to the city as a whole....they did what they liked. Apparently they liked to give land worth millions, purchased by the taxpayer, away for £1 but we've only just found out!
Whatever the faults of the "Old Labour Council" they would have said a lot more about this act of robbery than Jan Wilson has.

Just spotted this maybe they could be used at sheffield airport??


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3990329.stm

You can take your pick of big airports now if you want to fly to Majorca.

Its innovations like the jet pods that will make Sheffield City Airport Great.

As a general aviation airport with its hard runway and lighting system, makes it one of the best in the country.
Its so close to the Sheffield postal sorting office, the Arena and Meadowhall not to mention the new businesses that could NEED its services.

It doesn't need big aircraft to be successful, small and plentiful is another business winner.

global tempreture dropped by a whole 2 % when 911 forced planes to be grounded, a 3 hour charter flight polutes the air just as much as a car being run for 1 whole year ...

do we really need another airport ?

has anyone else noticed the humidity rising and the air getting dirty??

If only they'd arrange themselves with EasyJet, Ryanair, or one of those. Most small airports like that in Europe are thriving on the cheap carriers...