[1978]

Originally Posted by BHRemovals

Its not flat enough

You've got it in one! Flat earthers.

They used to find it hard to accept the world was round.

Now they find it hard to accept that to make an airport viable for travellers you need frequent daily flights to many destinations, not just 3 a week to 3 or 4 destinations. To be viable for airlines they need full planes - or charge prices so high most won't pay!

[BSMan]

I've flown back from Frankfurt mid week before and been 1 of about 4 people on the plane. The service still runs AFAIK though.

Not from RHA you havent, as there has never been any scheduled flight between Doncaster and Frankfurt.

Surely the people that currently fly from EM or Manc are part of the local demand.

Yes, however which airlines do you think they are using? Do those airlines see it as prudent to operate from, say, both East Mids and Robin Hood? Or do 30% of their passengers at East Midlands come from Sheffield and 70% from the East Midlands area? You have to consider the wider strategic picture in this case.

Your final comment is also very true. Why did the Amsterdam route start from RH? The operator knew there was, (and still is), a demand, they were simply surprised we didn't take it up!

Things in theory do not always work in practice.

Yeah, the motorway link should have been planned in from the start for RH.

The north of the RHA catchment area is increadibly sparse. The M1 at East Midlands provides links all the way up to Leeds and down to Northampton, also across to Birmingham. Therefore the link road at RHA would only reduce journey times from Sheffield/Rotherham. Already within easy reach of East Midlands.

[Hydrochillim]

Originally Posted by BSMan

The north of the RHA catchment area is increadibly sparse. The M1 at East Midlands provides links all the way up to Leeds and down to Northampton, also across to Birmingham. Therefore the link road at RHA would only reduce journey times from Sheffield/Rotherham. Already within easy reach of East Midlands.

Not correct I'm afraid. You are forgetting that junction2 of the M18 is that of the A1.

Fact is that RH has a catchment of over 5,000,000 people living within 1 hour of the airport.

Interestingly, Bradford business people showed support for RH as did many from Leeds simply because it is easier to get to than LB!

All academic though as only one thing will make RH a sucess we can enjoy and that thing, our enthusisam to make it work for us, has been singularly lacking for over ten years now

[BSMan]

Fact is that RH has a catchment of over 5,000,000 people living within 1 hour of the airport

And how many of that '5 million' live closer to Leeds and East Midlands? Themselves with much larger catchment areas in a 1 hour drive time.

You are forgetting that junction2 of the M18 is that of the A1.

I'm not but thanks for proving my point. Pontefract and Newark anyone?

[1978]

Originally Posted by Hydrochillim

Not correct I'm afraid. You are forgetting that junction2 of the M18 is that of the A1.

Fact is that RH has a catchment of over 5,000,000 people living within 1 hour of the airport.

Interestingly, Bradford business people showed support for RH as did many from Leeds simply because it is easier to get to than LB!

All academic though as only one thing will make RH a sucess we can enjoy and that thing, our enthusisam to make it work for us, has been singularly lacking for over ten years now

A successful business can't prosper on enthusiasm alone.

It's easy to say you'll support something. Most elementary business plans include some sort of market survey claiming support. A reliable business plan discounts that and uses more realistic modelling. Catchment area analysis has to factor in other service providers overlapping with that area. It also has to take account of the prosperity and travel habits of the 5 million.

I'd remind some that Humberside airport could/should have been driven out of business by Robin Hood. It survives, although it's range of services has been reduced. There's only so much business to go round. Airlines play airports against each other - Ryanair and Easyjet are just the best known!

Airport owners and local authorities also vie against each other to attract new routes. Subsidies are found. In the present economic climate that's going to be harder.

Look at airport movement and passenger numbers. Year on year they fluctuate as airlines switch flights according to sweeteners offered, and subsequent success. However, the bigger airports with better road and rail connections tend to do better.

If Robin Hood succeeds it will be at the expense of other smaller airports, not a triumph of emotion over logic.

[Jim Graham]

Originally Posted by 1978

It's wishful thinking that airports can survive primarily on relatively few seasonal holidaymakers. Luton possibly does. A few others have carved a niche from that. It's a tough game where the weak go to the wall.

If that's the case and all your facts are out there in the public domain why did our political elite (lol) think it would be a good idea to build an airport in the first place? And who championed the idea for Sheffield?

[BSMan]

If that's the case and all your facts are out there in the public domain why did our political elite (lol) think it would be a good idea to build an airport in the first place? And who championed the idea for Sheffield?

Are you refering to Sheffield City Airport? If so, it was never built to serve seasonal holiday makers. Its sole purpose was to plug Sheffield into the Global network by offering high frequency flights on small aircraft to major hub airports, primarily to develop business and encourage investment in the city region through increased connectivity on its doorstep. That purpose has been ignored over time, mainly around the stage leading upto and during the public enquiry over the proposed development at Finningley. The argument for Finningley was that those airlines which served those hubs (Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels) were being pushed out of the market by low-cost airlines, whom used the type of aircraft Sheffield City could not handle. The argument was fundamentaly flawed. In reality RHA has failed to make a mark in the low-cost market due to an inability to fill flights at a frequency that would appeal to business travellers. The airports sole purpose is to fill 737's to the Med, and provide economic migrants with a link to Eastern Europe.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by BSMan

Not from RHA you havent, as there has never been any scheduled flight between Doncaster and Frankfurt.

No, it was from Manchester. I was making the point that the flight often runs nearly empty.

Yes, however which airlines do you think they are using? Do those airlines see it as prudent to operate from, say, both East Mids and Robin Hood? Or do 30% of their passengers at East Midlands come from Sheffield and 70% from the East Midlands area? You have to consider the wider strategic picture in this case.

Fair point, airlines won't deliberately compete with themselves.

The north of the RHA catchment area is increadibly sparse. The M1 at East Midlands provides links all the way up to Leeds and down to Northampton, also across to Birmingham. Therefore the link road at RHA would only reduce journey times from Sheffield/Rotherham. Already within easy reach of East Midlands.

Doesn't your argument go both ways. If there was a link road then the M18 would provide quick access to both the A1 and M1 putting both Leeds, Nottingham and Derby within an hours drive of RH as well as Sheffield, Doncaster and Rotherham.
The question then becomes which is within easier reach and has the most convenient flight.

[BSMan]

The question then becomes which is within easier reach and has the most convenient flight.

Not really, because it all goes back to this..

Fair point, airlines won't deliberately compete with themselves.

That is the problem.

[Cyclone]

There are (maybe were before the economy took a dive) enough airlines to make it work.

[alchresearch]

Originally Posted by BSMan

Are you refering to Sheffield City Airport? If so, it was never built to serve seasonal holiday makers.

But it did do well with Amsterdam and Channel Island trippers which, although supplemental, could only be a good thing. I used the Amsterdam one four or five times for short city breaks.

[Hotmale 1954]

So Manchester Airport was built on a Bowling Green was it? Look from one end of the runway to the other, and you can't see the other end, because the runway is built on quite a large hump.
Houses, ponds, buildings etc, etc were built on, or moved away to facilitate the Manchester runways.
Large swaithes of land had to be made flatter to accommodate the runways and buildings.
Doncaster airport charge too much to land aircraft on their tarmac, consequently, the fares for passengers are more than they are for EMA, or Man.
If South Yorkshire folk can save a shillin', they will do.
The area around the Parkway, over to Catcliffe is well suited to buiding an airport.
Like I said earlier, if the runway had been built long enough in the first place, we'd probably be seeing regular holiday jets, and business flights from there, but, as usual, Sheffield cocked it up again.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I doubt that SCC had much say in funding/construction/route of a main trunk road such as Sheffield Parkway- and that road's route is probably why the runway was never going to be long enough.

[Hotmale 1954]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Shaw

I doubt that SCC had much say in funding/construction/route of a main trunk road such as Sheffield Parkway- and that road's route is probably why the runway was never going to be long enough.

As I said earlier, Manchester and Heathrow Airports built bridges over anything that stood in their way. Stuff was demolished, rare animals moved, ponds relocated, etc, etc.
Runway over the top of the 6 mile long Parkway, no problem.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Rampent

I know. Have to drive/bus it/donny is rubbish.

We are one of the BIGGEST City's in the UK. And we don't even have a airport.

Opines?

We do have a small airport however a larger one is compromised by the hills (they're those rocky things on the ground that rise above the ground) plus if you want air traffic flying over your head 24-7 go and live near heathrow, problem solved

[Hydrochillim]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Shaw

I doubt that SCC had much say in funding/construction/route of a main trunk road such as Sheffield Parkway- and that road's route is probably why the runway was never going to be long enough.

Is that because most of "Sheffield Parkway" is actually in Rotherham?

[Mecky]

Topology and competition from local airports i.e. Manchester, Leeds, East Midlands and Doncaster. That said, runways are seldom level - remember the open titles from the TV series "We'll meet again" and the B17 hurtling down the runway? You can see the dip in the runway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHL22Z2uXl8

[martyn1949]

It's blindingly obvious that Sheffield doesn't generate enough traffic to make an airport viable. And making one out f sloping land would cost 3 times as much as building it on the flat - three times as uneconomic.

Doncaster airport came cheap - with a runway nearly as large as Heathrow thrown in for free, thanks to it being a yank airbase before. Yet it struggles to pay its way (and will until they get a motorway link off the M18 built, and a spur off the East Coast Main Line - then it will take off like a rocket.)

And when that M18 link is built, it will be no time at all from Sheffield - less than half an hour on the motorway - I know, I've gone there lots.

There isn't anywhere nearer Sheffield where you could put one - and the costs of the runway alone would be prohibitive...

And what, pray, has the success or otherwise of a football team got to do with the economics of an airport?

[Rampent]

Originally Posted by martyn1949

It's blindingly obvious that Sheffield doesn't generate enough traffic to make an airport viable. And making one out f sloping land would cost 3 times as much as building it on the flat - three times as uneconomic.

Doncaster airport came cheap - with a runway nearly as large as Heathrow thrown in for free, thanks to it being a yank airbase before. Yet it struggles to pay its way (and will until they get a motorway link off the M18 built, and a spur off the East Coast Main Line - then it will take off like a rocket.)

And when that M18 link is built, it will be no time at all from Sheffield - less than half an hour on the motorway - I know, I've gone there lots.

There isn't anywhere nearer Sheffield where you could put one - and the costs of the runway alone would be prohibitive...

And what, pray, has the success or otherwise of a football team got to do with the economics of an airport?

Lots! The MASSIVE need a airport to fly all the best players in. Look at MancChester - nobody would sign for either team if the airport was in Norfolk. Manchesters U's have a rather less than MASSIVE support from Eire that fly in to Manc land.

I don't buy into this 'flat land' deal and OAP's tea becoming unsettled due to 747 blasts. Like I stated earlier - whats wrong with Low Edges?

[shane39]

Originally Posted by Rampent

Lots! The MASSIVE need a airport to fly all the best players in. Look at MancChester - nobody would sign for either team if the airport was in Norfolk. Manchesters U's have a rather less than MASSIVE support from Eire that fly in to Manc land.

I don't buy into this 'flat land' deal and OAP's tea becoming unsettled due to 747 blasts. Like I stated earlier - whats wrong with Low Edges?

Hahaha!
Classic.................