Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By defcribed
#1703717
Naive optimism abounds.

An airport with those sorts of fixed costs in that part of Kent can never be profitable.

This is just one developer selling to another that thinks it might be better placed to get the necessary planning permission.

While any thwarting of plans for housing is to be welcomed, anyone who thinks that any of these companies actually have any interest in aviation as a business is deluding themselves.
By pullup
#1703738
I’m afraid I agree with the previous poster....

Can anyone name any airport/ airfield that has been re-opened after a long closure?

Im afraid this is another Plymouth/Panshangar.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1703777
Whilst this is not an official chart showing what might happen. I did find it on FaceBook and it shows what might happen to the airspace if it is treated in the same way as Southend?

Image
By oakworth
#1703793
pullup wrote:I’m afraid I agree with the previous poster....

Can anyone name any airport/ airfield that has been re-opened after a long closure?

Im afraid this is another Plymouth/Panshangar.


Doncaster

Come on folks, we spend most of our time on here moaning about places closing, now one is re-opening and we're still moaning. Riveroak have spent a lot of money getting this far, why don't we give them a chance before damning the project.
User avatar
By shortwing
#1703828
I think many question why they've spent so much money to obtain a large piece of land when their parent company is into property. I'd like to see it succeed as it was where I learnt to Glide and Fly - but I have reservations with the new owners.

I do hope that airspace depiction is not true, it never had more than an ATZ before and unless traffic really ramps up doesn't need more.
By oakworth
#1703829
Given that their legal argument with the existing owners has been about the unsuitability of the site for housing, I don't see how they'd get away with trying to do a 180 now.
User avatar
By shortwing
#1703833
I agree with you.

What if they run it for 12-24 months and conclude like every other version of London Manston / Kent International its not viable. Just a personal opinion but why would a property company, create a new company to run an airport that no one else has successfully managed to do - I hope i'm wrong. I don't want XXX new houses in the area when the roads and infrastructure are already creaking.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1703834
What do you mean by 'get away with'?

I don't think a property development company is answerable to anyone. If they can get planning permission for housing, they'll build housing on it. Ditto any other use they may be planning. It seems extremely unlikely that the company is interested in running an airport.
By oakworth
#1703837
defcribed wrote:What do you mean by 'get away with'?

I don't think a property development company is answerable to anyone. If they can get planning permission for housing, they'll build housing on it. Ditto any other use they may be planning. It seems extremely unlikely that the company is interested in running an airport.


You just answered your own question. Of course they are answerable, they need planning permission.
By chevvron
#1703840
pullup wrote:I’m afraid I agree with the previous poster....

Can anyone name any airport/ airfield that has been re-opened after a long closure?

Im afraid this is another Plymouth/Panshangar.

North Denes has opened and closed several times.
Bedford Thurleigh was closed for many years before re-opening.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1703841
Did anyone mention Plymouth?

Think that they will do well out of this, first they stand to make some Money from the Operation Stack Plus, then they can see how the third runway fiasco goes and potentially develop the airport and if the latter doesn't materialise they build houses.

A Long term plan but a good plan nevertheless.
shortwing liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8