Waterford Airport

Nijmegen

Teebor15 wrote: »

You guess? So you haven't a clue really what airports are able to pay their way!

Shannon was made part of the Shannon group because it can't stand on it own two feet. Cork is thrown in with Dublin because it can't pay its debts so by your logic all airports bar Dublin should be left go. So lets have just one entry point to our island nation and let's have it located at the overheating Capital city!

Now why stop at airports? Lets stop building and maintaining all roads and bridges that aren't tolled as they are costing us money without returing a cent to the exchequer. It doesnt matter that they are transport infrastructure supporting business & tourism in their regions just like regional airports, they're just not paying their way!

I think you're obdurately missing my point to be honest. Subsidised airports that are nonviable are not required in a country that is in the top half of "smallest countries in the world by area". There's an equally valid argument that by cutting subsidies to nonviable airports you will help to drive traffic and viability to other regionals, like Cork and Shannon.

As for the hyperbole about shutting the roads, as far as I'm aware they are all extremely well trafficked in moving goods and people around the country to and from various ports, including one or maybe two airports.

road_high

I think the point being that all the other airports got vast sums to develop their infrastructure (and full runways) and why shouldn’t WAT at least have the opportunity to do the same.
At present is there any sign of a route restarting? Bar that botched attempt last year

Teebor15

Nijmegen wrote: »

I think you're obdurately missing my point to be honest. Subsidised airports that are nonviable are not required in a country that is in the top half of "smallest countries in the world by area". There's an equally valid argument that by cutting subsidies to nonviable airports you will help to drive traffic and viability to other regionals, like Cork and Shannon.

As for the hyperbole about shutting the roads, as far as I'm aware they are all extremely well trafficked in moving goods and people around the country to and from various ports, including one or maybe two airports.

I'm not missing your point. You said all commercially non viable airports should be allowed close. Dublin is the only airport in the country that can pay its own way at the moment so should be the only airport open. I'm arguing that airports are transport infrastructure which facilitates business and tourism just like roads & bridges and just because they require some state support the payback in jobs supported and tax to the exchequer far out ways the investment.

For example, Cork airport supports 10,000 jobs in the region it serves. So if they can't pay their bills themselves they should be closed?

Although as I've just pointed out both Cork and Shannon are not viable according to your criteria why should Cork and Shannon i.e the South West and Midwest get preferential treatment over other regions. Why should they have an advantage over the other regions like the North West and South East.

Nijmegen

road_high wrote: »

I think the point being that all the other airports got vast sums to develop their infrastructure (and full runways) and why shouldn’t WAT at least have the opportunity to do the same.
At present is there any sign of a route restarting? Bar that botched attempt last year

But when they get those sums they still require subsidies to operate, apparently. Waterford would, to that evidence, be another punt where government will end up spending more taxpayers money after the fact to support it because there aren't enough passengers.

I'm not missing your point. You said all commercially non viable airports should be allowed close. Dublin is the only airport in the country that can pay its own way at the moment so should be the only airport open. I'm arguing that airports are transport infrastructure which facilitates business and tourism just like roads & bridges and just because they require some state support the payback in jobs supported and tax to the exchequer far out ways the investment.

For example, Cork airport supports 10,000 jobs in the region it serves. So if they can't pay their bills themselves they should be closed?

Although as I've just pointed out both Cork and Shannon are not viable according to your criteria why should Cork and Shannon i.e the South West and Midwest get preferential treatment over other regions. Why should they have an advantage over the other regions like the North West and South East.

The second order effect argument is a valid one if the second order effect is large enough, and its proven that removing the first order totally removes the second. IE, if Knock airport closed would no tourists visit the region any longer?

As I said earlier, I'd leave them all to their own fates. But I do believe that locals should have the ability to vote to raise local taxes for things they really, really, really want that central government isn't going to provide. Although I wouldn't hold out great hope there, as Irish people have a real love of demanding something get paid for whilst also protesting against the imposition of any direct costs for same.

ExoPolitic

Nijmegen wrote: »

But when they get those sums they still require subsidies to operate, apparently. Waterford would, to that evidence, be another punt where government will end up spending more taxpayers money after the fact to support it because there aren't enough passengers.



The second order effect argument is a valid one if the second order effect is large enough, and its proven that removing the first order totally removes the second. IE, if Knock airport closed would no tourists visit the region any longer?

As I said earlier, I'd leave them all to their own fates. But I do believe that locals should have the ability to vote to raise local taxes for things they really, really, really want that central government isn't going to provide. Although I wouldn't hold out great hope there, as Irish people have a real love of demanding something get paid for whilst also protesting against the imposition of any direct costs for same.

Work this one out;

Close airport = lose 10,000 jobs in region.

lose 10,000 sources of tax income to the government.

Suddenly the subsidy given to the airport looks rather minuscule compared to the income tax they just lost out on.

notharrypotter

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Work this one out;

Close airport = lose 10,000 jobs in region.

lose 10,000 sources of tax income to the government.

Suddenly the subsidy given to the airport looks rather minuscule compared to the income tax they just lost out on.

I am fascinated by this.
Do you honestly mean to tell me that there are 10,000 people currently employed at the airport?

ExoPolitic

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am fascinated by this.
Do you honestly mean to tell me that there are 10,000 people currently employed at the airport?

Damn, I'm autistic and even I could work out that's not what it meant...

Nijmegen

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Work this one out;

Close airport = lose 10,000 jobs in region.

lose 10,000 sources of tax income to the government.

Suddenly the subsidy given to the airport looks rather minuscule compared to the income tax they just lost out on.

So, in further to what I said above about the second order effects of subsidies, the question is would 10,000 jobs disappear because the subsidy ends? People reporting second order effects are fond of double and treble counting everything - when an attraction in the area say they support 1,000 jobs by bringing more people into cafes etc, the airport nearby might also claim to support those 1,000 jobs. Remove the airport, does nobody at all come to the area anymore? Remove the attraction, does nobody come? Etc.

Ongoing government subsidies are rarely value for money when its teased out and they are some of the hardest things to kill irrespective of their actual economic effects.

But now we're into a political argument (free markets vs etc) and I guess there's a forum for that.

road_high

Runway funding approved according to posts I’ve seen on Facebook

RadioRetro

More on the runway funding: https://www.waterfordlive.ie/news/home/423134/waterford-airport-welcomes-massive-funding-for-runway-extension.html

RadioRetro

Questions raised over funding for Waterford's runway extension:

Independent.ie: Shane Ross’s €5m grant for airport with no flights.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/rosss-5m-grant-for-airport-with-no-flights-38218208.html

Harry Palmr

Boo hoo! It's got no flights cos it's got no runway!

5 million when private industry is coughing up 7 should be no brainer in an age of 2 billion quid hospitals.

JCX BXC

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Boo hoo! It's got no flights cos it's got no runway!

5 million when private industry is coughing up 7 should be no brainer in an age of 2 billion quid hospitals.

It has a runway, yet can't attract the same flights on small aircraft that every airport in Ireland has.

One waste of money doesn't justify another waste of money.

gozunda

JCX BXC wrote: »

It has a runway, yet can't attract the same flights on small aircraft that every airport in Ireland has.

One waste of money doesn't justify another waste of money.

Talked to an engineer down that way who said the siting of the runway is completely unsuitable due to topography and prevailing wind direction. If that is the case seems crazy that money is being thrown at what is in effect is a non operational airstrip at present

BowWow

Harry Palmr wrote: »

5 million when private industry is coughing up 7.

I read article differently - 5M from Government, 2M from Councils and Private Industry being asked for 5M.

So 7M from the Public, nothing else guaranteed....

Harry Palmr

Today's hatchet job by the indo was clearly aimed at the independent group. I'd disregard the whole thing.

Here is "de papure" who being based in Cork are no friend of Waterford as a rule (and yes they crowbar in local concerns)

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/meagre-offer-to-waterford-airport-actions-show-priorities-of-government-930638.html

Neworder79

JCX BXC wrote: »

It has a runway, yet can't attract the same flights on small aircraft that every airport in Ireland has.

NO airport in Ireland with a "small runway" has maintained commercial scheduled routes: Galway closed, Sligo only SAR, Donegal 1 PSO route.

Kerry would be totally dependant on 1 PSO if it didn't have jet capable runway (2000m) to server Ryanair 6 routes.

Ireland West (2400m) has grown to 20+ routes based on jet operators like Ryanair, AerLingus and sun charter companies. FlyBe operate some smaller turboprops on 3 routes but no guarantee they would have served there if it didn't have the critical mass generated by the bigger airlines.

There are very few European airlines operating smaller turboprop or commuter jet sized aircraft. Those who do are focused on high-yield hub feeder routes.

If you can't accommodate the B738/A320 the major LoCo airlines are using you can't compete with hundreds of airports across Europe bidding for their traffic.

Fox Uniform

gozunda wrote: »

Talked to an engineer down that way who said the siting of the runway is completely unsuitable due to topography and prevailing wind direction. If that is the case seems crazy that money is being thrown at what is in effect is a non operational airstrip at present

Your engineer friend does now what he is talking about, its amazing all these engineers who have nothing to do with Waterford yet think they have all the technical info.

You do know that its just extending the current runway, the design plans were completed 12 months and good to go. The runway is aligned with the prevailing wind which is generally 210.

Maybe take a look at what actually goes in Waterford - it's far from a non operational airfield.

https://m.facebook.com/wataviation

gozunda

Fox Uniform wrote: »

Your engineer friend does now what he is talking about, its amazing all these engineers who have nothing to do with Waterford yet think they have all the technical info.

You do know that its just extending the current runway, the design plans were completed 12 months and good to go. The runway is aligned with the prevailing wind which is generally 210.

Maybe take a look at what actually goes in Waterford - it's far from a non operational airfield.

https://m.facebook.com/wataviation

Except the engineer does. From the article above the Airport "hasn’t had a single commercial flight in three years"

That's fairly non operational imo

marno21

gozunda wrote: »

Except the engineer does. From the article above the Airport "hasn’t had a single commercial flight in three years"

That's fairly non operational imo

The airport hasn't been closed down. It's still had the SAR base, general aviation, and business/private jets.

Dawn Meats Group use the airport several times per week with their own based aircraft.

The airport hasn't been idling.

gozunda

marno21 wrote: »

The airport hasn't been closed down. It's still had the SAR base, general aviation, and business/private jets.

Dawn Meats Group use the airport several times per week with their own based aircraft.

The airport hasn't been idling.

Point taken and granted - that referred to commercial non operation as per the article.

L1011

Neworder79 wrote: »

Donegal 1 PSO route.

Donegal has maintained a commercial service to Glasgow for nearly 30 years

faoiarvok

gozunda wrote: »

Point taken and granted - that referred to commercial non operation as per the article.

Most of those mentioned above are commercial operations – someone is being paid to run them.

I’m fairly skeptical of Waterford’s ability to sustain scheduled passenger flights even with the runway investment, but to refer to the airport as non-operational and then shift the goalposts to try double down on that argument is nonsensical.

notharrypotter

marno21 wrote: »

The airport hasn't been closed down. It's still had the SAR base, general aviation, and business/private jets.

Dawn Meats Group use the airport several times per week with their own based aircraft.

The airport hasn't been idling.

Yet it is totally reliant on state subvention to cover it's costs.

No proposed runway extension will change this.

Regarding the "maintenance hanger" business.
How is that working for Knock?

Pie in the sky requiring even more subsidies.

Harry Palmr

Why not call it an investment rather than pie in the sky - and that's assuming your contention is right which it may not be.

Is there any reason a Waterford hub facility for Dublin Aerospace (the company) couldn't wash it's face?

Oasis1974

Good news for Waterford INTERNATIONAL Airport!!!! New Airline coming when runway extension is ready.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjZlaacPd8

Neworder79

I the context of a national policy advocating growing our 4 key regional cities €5m for longterm aviation infrastructure is a pittance, especially given 60% is being invested by local business and councils willing to drive development of the airport. Similar amounts are announced for greenways, local works schemes every week without any scrutiny.

Dunmoreroader

Neworder79 wrote: »

I the context of a national policy advocating growing our 4 key regional cities €5m for longterm aviation infrastructure is a pittance, especially given 60% is being invested by local business and councils willing to drive development of the airport. Similar amounts are announced for greenways, local works schemes every week without any scrutiny.

But it might divert some people in the Southeast from flying from Dublin or Cork (Yikes!) or some UK tourists might fly into Waterford rather than Cork or Dublin; we can't be having that! Or business-people scouting locations for investment might, God forbid, choose Waterford over Dublin or Cork OMG!!
We need to know our place down here in our pretend city in our 2nd-class region;
"Send your children to our world class Uni's and don't be getting notions about upgrading WIT, send your heart-attack sufferers to our state-of-the-art hospitals and if you want to fly away, well we already have multi-million euro state funded airports to facilitate you, you silly little pixies, what are you looking for €5M for when we're burning €3 Billion on rural broadband and €2 Billion digging a hole in the ground so the National Children's Hospital can be as close as possible to the Consultants favoured south Dublin residential areas.
Be happy with your lot and don't be getting notions.":rolleyes:

roadmaster

I think i read in a article last year Dublin aerospace are looking to move some work out of dublin to another airport. With the runway extension could waterford be an option? I know hangers would have to be built but i am sure a grant for that could be found

notharrypotter

Mi

roadmaster wrote: »

I know hangers would have to be built but i am sure a grant for that could be found

Says it all.