Hi guys,

 

Some of you may well know that Plymouth City Airport closed last Decemeber under a money scandal.

 

The airport was being run down to the ground by a property development company whos intention was to soley use the land for housing, airlinks where cut, fuel and landing prices where increased and a city this size must have an airport.

 

Can I ask that you follow the group on Facebook and sign our e-petition? You may well need to be a UK Citizen but any help on social networks is appreciated, please pass it around, I'm looking for your support.

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2758

 

https://www.facebook.com/saveplhairport

 

Thanks to anyone that helps, it all makes a difference.

Reminds me of all those fields near Van Nuys... such a shame. I would be happy to support!

It's a bit late for an e-petition. What was needed was enough passengers using the airport to make it viable while it actually was open.

 

Plymouth City Airport would be profitable.The state should take ownership.

 

Then let the private sector fund it.

There was passengers, plenty of them but the leaseholder purposely put the airport into a down hill spiral so it would be un-viable.

 

It always was viable, it has been for 72 years.

 

The e-petition is really an online version for those that wish to sign, we have 10,000 more on paper + 2,000 on the e-petition.

I understand that the company Viable Plymouth Ltd has a business plan:

 

Last August, Plymouth City Council took the decision to allow Plymouth airport to be closed as there was no private sector company prepared to operate the airport without open-ended local authority subsidies and no scheduled airline found to provide services. That position has now changed. Viable Plymouth Ltd is a new local aviation group set up to fill this void while at the same time, ending public sector exposure to the airport.

http://www.viable.org.uk/

 

Why not let it get on with without seeking public sector (ie taxpayer's) subsidy?

"Why not let it get on with without seeking public sector (ie taxpayer's) subsidy?"

 

I suppose the answer to that question depends upon whether we regard an airport (or any other transportation hub, or link) as benefiting only & solely the passengers who use it, and bringing no benefit whatsoever to the broader community (in the form of business links, for example).

 

Would London as a whole be better or worse off if Heathrow ceased to exist? Should there be arranged a whip-around from current passengers to pay for a third runway?

Plymouth aim is to have a population of 350,000 by 2020.

 

We have poor road and rail links, a crash is enough to close out main trunk roads, the airport is next to a trauma center and without it, transplant ans air ambulances cannot land. They refuse as there is no fuel available.

 

Its not just about passengers, the Navy used it and are now lost without it threatening Devonport dockyard. It has an impact on the city that goes far beyond this post.

The airport would have made it easier for me to visit relatives that live down that way as I am halfway up the country so its a 7h drive at the best of times. I cannot comment on how or why the airport was closed but agree it should be open.

Would London as a whole be better or worse off if Heathrow ceased to exist? Should there be arranged a whip-around from current passengers to pay for a third runway?

 

Heathrow is owned by BAA - aprivate sector company - which also owns Stansted. It makes an annual operating profit of over £560M and is currenly committed to infrastructure improvements of £1,160M. Heathrow earns more than £27 from every passenger travelling through it.

 

BAA funded Terminal 5 so passengers will pay for it, as they will for any future runway. The Labour government's 2003 White Paper was clear:

 

New airport capacity should be paid for by airport users. We look to the airport

operator to take it forward in a way that is responsive to users, and to provide

necessary funding.

 

The fundamental problems seems to be that Plymouth Airport is not capabable of making an operating profit but needs an an open-ended subsidy from taxpayers

.

"New airport capacity should be paid for by airport users."

 

My point was that "airport users" are more than just the passengers, and should include all those that benefit from the presence of an airport, and who therefore can reasonably be asked to pay something towards it (otherwise they're getting a freebie). Local taxpayers would fall into that category.

Unfortunately for your argument, consultants comissioned by Plymouth City Council concluded that there are no worthwhile economic benefits from the airport, so there is no justification for taxpayer support.

 

32. We have concluded that in the absence of any meaningful positive economic contribution to the City of Plymouth, we are unable to identify an economic rationale for the PCC [Plymouth Cty Council] to underwrite the commercial risks involved in maintaining any scale of airport operations at PCA [Plymouth City Airport].

(My emphasis)

 

http://www.plymouth....Cabinet.pdf?T=9

"Unfortunately for your argument.."

 

I was actually arguing a general point regarding the validity or otherwise of taxpayer support for transportation. If there is genuinely no benefit to the broader community in this particular case then it is indeed hard to justify taxpayer support.

This whole thread is about saving Plymouth Airport. An airport that closed because of insufficient demand,

 

In a wider context, much of the claimed economic benefits have been found to be little more than "fairy gold" - it isn't there when you want to put it in your pocket.

I'm not sure that the state should own any regional airport but signed anyway.

 

Social, political and quasi-economic arguments aside, surely the loss of any airport is a bad thing? And the loss of a direct air-ambulance service worse still.

 

Given that PCC clearly wanted an argument in favour of non-involvement, I wonder what the consultants' brief from PCC included.

 

Regards,

D

The consultants were commissioned jointly by Plymouth City Council and the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce and Industry so it wasn't just a report to the Council.

 

The Council doesn't have unlimited funds so if it were to spend money on the airport it would have to be satified that it was the best way to increase the economic benefits. The could well be more cost-effective ways of achieving that. Also, if the Council spends money inh that area it has to decide what areas it's not going to spend it.

 

The report shows that Plymouth Airport has been in decline for years, especially in comparision with other airports in the south west - that it's of marginal economic benefit to the area - that the rypes of aircraft that can use it are limited - and tha,t most importantly, no airline wishes to use it.

 

There is a group called Viable that proposes tio run the airport and a new scheduled airline without public sector support. I suggest it simply gets on and does it in stead of asking for state ownership of the airport. Why does it want that?