Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 26
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1721277
It’s not just flying. The majority of Brits appear to be totally price driven. No consideration of quality or durability, just the cheapest. Things need to change or UK Plc will never be able to survive in independance.
Charliesixtysix, ChampChump, Lindsayp and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By romille
#1721286
Flyingfemme wrote:It’s not just flying. The majority of Brits appear to be totally price driven. No consideration of quality or durability, just the cheapest. Things need to change or UK Plc will never be able to survive in independance.

I agree that almost everything is price rather than quality driven, but in this disposable world we live in people seem to be happy to save a few pence and put up with poor quality.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1721287
Brits (or just people?) are incredibly price-conscious.

I spent a short time running our local pub while it was in between tenants. I discovered that people would drive to the next village because Carling was 10p a pint cheaper.

I struggled to believe it, but it's true.
By PlaneStupid
#1721296
Gustosomerset wrote:At the risk of having missed this earlier in the debate (if I have, apologies) - what do people think the owner's strategy really is?

"The Wiltshire Core Strategy (CS) Core Policy 25 supported the principle of new development at the Airfield but sought to strike an appropriate balance between the flying activity and the amenity of the residents of Salisbury."
So the planners are happy in principle for the owners to build new houses - though evidently not as many as he wanted. But the principle of such development is based on a balance with flying activity. Remove the flying activity and you remove any chance of achieving that balance.
Do people seriously believe that the owner is thus undermining the chances of a revised application (at least in the near future) simply in a fit of pique? That seems unlikely to me...


I think a compromise on housing numbers could easily have been achieved that would have mollified the residents and ensured the continued flying at OS. However, the owner - apart from removing 13 hangar homes homes from the original application, which were neither here or there anyway - has refused to negotiate or attempt to come to any form of understanding.

I popped up yesterday to have a look. Admittedly, it was a warm day but the whole place was buzzing with activity around the GoSkyDive operation. People were using the cafe facilities and seemed to be really enjoying themselves. If OS has that sort of captive audience and footfall, why the heck aren’t they cashing in and marketing their ground facilities to help subsidise the operation? In the couple of hours I was there, the Cessna Caravan transporting the parachutists was on the go constantly. Just ONE private aircraft took off. In 2014 there were 95 planes registered there - today there are 25 and yet Compton Abbas has a waiting list for hangarage. Doesn’t make sense.
By cockney steve
#1721303
@PlaneStupid said
removing 13 hangar homes homes from the original application, which were neither here or there anyway

On the contrary, "Service-leases" would generate an income-stream , set a precedent for Airparks with residential hangarage and maybe offer a lifeline to struggling airfields by so-doing.

Long-term security of airfields is a 2-way street. The mere thought of housing without the noise of aircraft is enough to send property-values skyward.-The Government needs, therefore, to consider putting a "blight" on Airfields, such that , like Agricultural-land and listed- buildings, the deterrence- value to profiteering sees -off developers, who's main objective is to cram as many small, shoddy breeding-boxes on a site as is possible, take the maximum profit and then leg it to the next bit of exploitation. Perhaps mandatory occupation of one of the properties on the site would focus some minds? :twisted:

The key to land-values is residential-planning possibility. A compromise ,in the case of airparks, could possibly be to designate the hangarage as "Aircraft storage or business-use only " thus deterring the opportunist who buys with the thought of turning the whole unit into a bigger home.
It is a thorny problem which is not helped by the problem of too many people in certain areas of the country.
Nick liked this
By Cns416
#1721307
defcribed wrote:Brits (or just people?) are incredibly price-conscious.

I spent a short time running our local pub while it was in between tenants. I discovered that people would drive to the next village because Carling was 10p a pint cheaper.

I struggled to believe it, but it's true.


I'd quite believe it.
On my local city newspaper online comments I try and explain that driving to a town 1 hour away just because it has free parking is totally insane unless you happen to live between the city and said town.
The readers are sadly so thik that they cannot understand you need to cost in your car's usage at 45p/mile covering both petrol and wear and tear. - not to mention your time and the cost of that - opportunity cost as the economists would say. the cost of having to do something when you could be more profitably busy elsewhere.

Its the same when explaining car use in preference to an available public transport option. If you already have your car and have paid the annual fixed costs of owning and running it then it make most economic sense to use it as much as possible to get your effective pence per mile cost down. If instead you use public transport a lot in preference all you are doing is contributing to their fixed running costs as well as your own.

Its hopeless though - as you have discovered.
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1721385
map5623 wrote:
PlaneStupid wrote:Doesn’t make sense.


It does if you are a property developer.


I still don't see how it does...per my original question.
The owner/developer must have a plan....but I don't see what it is...
By PlaneStupid
#1723989
Gustosomerset wrote:
map5623 wrote:
PlaneStupid wrote:Doesn’t make sense.


It does if you are a property developer.


I still don't see how it does...per my original question.
The owner/developer must have a plan....but I don't see what it is...


I don’t think the owner/developer does have a plan, as things have not panned out quite as he expected. His previous quotes to the media suggested he was extremely confident that planning permission was merely a formality, so the refusal has clearly put a spanner in the works.

Latest update is he has gone for judicial review in an attempt to overturn the planning inspector’s decision.

However, 31 October and closure date is looming fast.
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1723996
Perhaps you're right...and the eviction of the tenants is simply a fit of pique, but I still find that quite hard to believe. The fact that the local plan specifically supports the principle of new development at the Airfield seems to me to distinguish this from other airfield development proposals where the planners are fundamentally opposed to development. But that support clearly rests on 'an appropriate balance between the flying activity and the amenity of the residents of Salisbury.' So why curtail the flying activity on which that perception of balance depends? It weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for development.

Perhaps it's significant that the UK based 'owner' ceased to be a 'person with significant control' in the business that owns the airfield earlier this year. Perhaps the spanner in the works impacted him as well as the tenants...As you say, it'll be interesting to see if the judicial review is granted.
User avatar
By Jonzarno
#1724152
TheFarmer wrote:I keep saying this, time after time. I recall being Monocock and Marjorie and saying it then, too.

Unless GA stops wanting to be cheap, there will be nowhere to fly to.

For some reason, everyone whinges about a landing fee. Or that the fish pie at X is 80p dearer than the fish pie at Y.

It’s madness.

Over the years GA has been on self-destruct. I’ve seen it happen since I got my PPL in 1989. It’s become a price sensitive hobby for people where the hardware’s value has outstretched the user’s pockets.

Unless you fly something that can get in and out of 500 metre strips, GA is not going to be viable for many in 20 years time.


I agree!

“There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey”

John Ruskin (also used to advertise Baskin Robbins ice cream! ....... :D )
By cockney steve
#1724166
but, but, but.......The problem is not wanting"cheap" -it's more like not wanting to be fleeced..

Buy an uncertified component and it's £x - Certify it, and suddenly its £4x (or even more. I have seen on this very forum, examples of a Jodel /Robin switch which was originally used in a now-obsolete Citroen car (brake-lights on a tin-snail, aka 2cv? )- the "aircraft" version -totally unobtainable, but the "car" version as cheap as chips and readily available in most motor-factors. (just swap it out, mate and keep schtum")
The excuse for price-gouging usually goes along the lines of "rigorous quality -control" ("bull") or "cost of Certification and Product-liability Insurance.........be interested to know, given that bits still break or malfunction or wear out prematurely, how often this insurance is called-upon? How often is there a free replacement by the manufacturer......NO!- One hears about mandatory directives to change-out/ modify
faults that the unlucky owner is expected to pay crazy money for.
How people can pay ~ £2 for a cup of coffee is beyond me.....but there again, I learned about budgeting and the value of money ,at an early age.
By PeterMa
#1724198
Oddly I think in the café at Old Sarum it was about £2 when I was there a few weeks ago ! ….. the irony ….
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 26