Jump to content

Shetland's airports (and parking)


breeksy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been digging around for answers

to my previous questions.

 

Sumburgh is scheduled to be open 363 days per year

scatsta some 265 days .. that mean 27% of days it is probably not going to be available as a diversion, and of course Sumbugh is available at least 14 hours per day

 

on average 100 fixed-wing plus a similar number of helis divert to sumburgh in a year

 

I am sure they will now exactly how many go the other way (7-10?) if they don't know there is something far wrong

 

still wind (doesn't actually mean no wind, but may be the factor of strong crosswinds)

 

146 to scatsta 36?? pass 146 to sumburgh 93 pass.

 

saab from sumburgh 36 passengers saab from scatsta 10 passengers

 

HonestJohnDoe, I'm intrigued as to where you got this information from? as it certainly isn't accurate by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

angel wrote{HonestJohnDoe, I'm intrigued as to where you got this information from? as it certainly isn't accurate by far. }

 

Excellent, you obviously know better, what are your figures, them?

 

I'm not getting at you as you have obviously got these figures from somewhere and not just plucked them out of thin air, I am very interested in knowing where they are from and possibly when they're from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my intent is not to 'bicker', it just would be interesting to know where the facts and figures are coming from, as a lot of it is incorrect, it surely isn't very helpful to anyone being give false/inaccurate/out of date figures. Whatever happens with the airports will happen, and I just cross my fingers and hope that the decision made will be the right one for Shetland and won't be one that will be regretted in years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my intent is not to 'bicker', it just would be interesting to know where the facts and figures are coming from, as a lot of it is incorrect, it surely isn't very helpful to anyone being give false/inaccurate/out of date figures. Whatever happens with the airports will happen, and I just cross my fingers and hope that the decision made will be the right one for Shetland and won't be one that will be regretted in years to come.

 

I fully agree with you. Bickering is not for here. Also, those involved with the to & fro of figures should state where they get them or don't post at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Published figures!

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2005Annual/Table_06_Air_Transport_Movements_2005_vs_2004.pdf

 

Passenger numbers are on the caa website to if you can be bothered to hunt for them, they are there though. 2005 passenger numbers for Sumburgh: 121,000 Scatsta: 239,000

 

NewMagnie wrote:

The arguement for the status quo is pretty compelling...

 

And if it's not become obvious so far, I agree. The reason i've dug all these numbers out is to show that Scatsta is really quite good at what it does (I'm not saying that Sumburgh couldn't) and throwing all these extra passengers and planes at Sumburgh could result in the lose of some specialised servicing on both sides. With the best will in the world, adding all these oil workers into the Wilness terminal could cause delays to tourists/Shetland residents who currently have the undivided attention of the Sumburgh staff and facilities. Would Sumburgh, a couple of years down the road, start looking for money to expand the seating/waiting areas? If so (and it is and IF), would that money not be better spent now at Scatsta so that Shetland keeps two large airports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Published figures!

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2005Annual/Table_06_Air_Transport_Movements_2005_vs_2004.pdf

 

Passenger numbers are on the caa website to if you can be bothered to hunt for them, they are there though. 2005 passenger numbers for Sumburgh: 121,000 Scatsta: 239,000

 

I think the figures related to the diverted traffic rather than the throughput. Handy link though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any records on the caa website that could clear up exactly how many divert where. The oil companies are just that - COMPANIES and if they can't land where they want due to the weeather they WILL operate from the next best thing because they CAN'T let down their customers. If they don't get the flights moved the passengers don't just resort to sleeping in the Hrossey's bar, they are stuck on the rig, and get narky quick! :x

 

A couple of days worth of flights a year can amount to a lot of flights quickly and so HonestJohnDoe's figures (whilst probably off a bit and i commend him for his retraction by the way) SOUND a lot worse than the reality.

 

Opposite direction divertions have been rare until this year when I think there was a change of willlingness or a more flexible approach to getting the job done regardless. :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I see what you mean about it being a good link pooks in 1997 the total number of passengers both through the terminal and transit at sumburgh was 361505 would this number have included all passenger movememts eg oil charters, scheduled services, charter aircraft for boats crew changes, and helicopter refuellers from Aberdeen etc?

 

Pre 1999 Sudden Stop was some of the work currently at Scatsta not undertaken at Sumburgh? and did this work not co-exsist with the Scheduled service?

 

Also what would be the specialist services that we could lose in Shetland from both locations if the work was to move? It is imperative that these should be noted and retained at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segregating the public and oil traffic by having them and their aircraft at different airfields provides a focused (perhaps that would been a better word than specialised) service to both parties. Nobody is having to wait for anything else. I'm sure that pre 1999 the work must have co-exsisted but was it without incident? Were the travelling public never delayed inbound or outbound because of oil traffic? Was there never an occassion of the last sausage roll selling to an oily just before you got there? Always plenty of seats when the oilys are trapped due to poor weather offshore? etc. :?:

 

 

I know a busy airport looks better than an empty one but really, does Sumburgh need the extra work? It's subsidised and is in no danger of closure. With the all singing all dancing runway extension, extra commercial flights and business should be drummed up by all means but don't just pick on the obvious oil traffic just because it looks like an easy target. This isn't a dig at anybody that's reading this but that's what HIAL seem to be up to. They never lost the oil traffic in the first place because the runway needed extended. And looking on the HIAL website finds a £49.13 per tonne of fuel surcharge for no other reason than that piece of traffic being oil related. Woof! That's not oil friendly.

Rant over... :twisted:

 

 

Also what would be the specialist services that we could lose in Shetland from both locations if the work was to move? It is imperative that these should be noted and retained at all costs.

 

What we could lose if the work moves is the option of any air travel to or from Shetland when the fog rolls into Sumburgh during the summer. But I've pointed this out already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad you got that off your chest :) , you misunderstand me what I am trying to say is if we are to keep both Sumburgh and Scatsta available to the shetland public and the oil industry then we have to come up with a better arguement than Jacque from Paris will never travel to shetland on holiday again because Billy going to the oil rig got the last sausage roll!

 

I would assume but may be wrong that it is easier to buy seats and improve the internal facilities at the larger terminal in sumburgh cost ways than to do the same at Scatsta given your assement on the shared use of resources causing delays, why would the Shetland public be happy at putting money into upgrading an airfield still to come second to the airfields primary and privately owned interests.

 

the staus quo may still prevail yet, but if not then surely as a whole we should look at how we keep this valuable asset available to us, a possible avenue would be for the council look at developing it with a mind for the inter island and ambulance service while maintaining a level of service that could cope with periodical diversions of weather diverted traffic?

 

From what I have read here nobody is saying it should shut but as it is, it would be unable to handle all Shetland bound traffic on a given day as well as its own work load, and surely thats not customer friendly either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the travelling public never delayed inbound or outbound because of oil traffic? Was there never an occassion of the last sausage roll selling to an oily just before you got there? Always plenty of seats when the oilys are trapped due to poor weather offshore? etc. :?:

 

I am sure that traffic must have been delayed due to oil traffic but I wouldn't imagine it would have been by a significant amount of time. All aircraft need to get on the ground and then be up in the air when they need to be. This is usually on a first-come first-served basis as far as I am aware. Providing the individual companies have their ground staff in order and their flight plans in the system then there should be no significant delays on outbound traffic.

 

As to seating and eating...

...if the oil-traffic were to relocate back to Sumburgh then I think it would be in HIAL's interests to reopen the largely unused upper-floor of Wilsness Terminal which should provide ample enough seating for the offshore folk. I would reckon that the canteen would be better supplied as well, having plenty of sausage rolls to go around as they would be able to order them beforehand, rather than looking into a crystal ball and guessing if they were going to get oil-related traffic that day.

 

I am in no means agreeing to the closure of Scatsta. The more spread out, availability and diversity of employment that Shetland can muster is all needed. I can see the points on having a local diversion as well. The only problem with this is that how long would it last? What happens when the weather is too bad to land at either airport? What happens when Scatsta has been reduced to such a skeleton crew that they can't man the de-icing equipment and/or the fire crew?

 

If the IAC decide to pull out of Scatsta then I reckon the Council (or anyone else) would have a very hard time keeping the place open as a diversionary airport. Aircraft won't be allowed to divert there unless it has a fully capable ground crew, including a certain amount of firemen/women and appliances in place. This means that it would only be able to be used as a diversion in a full emergency. I personally reckon that most pilots would take their chances on plopping it down at Sumburgh or diverting to Kirkwall rather than avoiding hills at an airport they are not familiar with only to be met with a reduced fire/rescue service.

 

Only time will tell what the oil companies want to do and I don't think that there is a lot anybody can do about their decisions. Shetland wouldn't be the rich island it is now if it wasn't for the oil and for that reason I don't think the council has a lot of power in what decision the oil companies make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currenty work at Scatsta, I've not been to Sumburgh Airport in a good few years but thinking about it, they would need a lot more staff were they to take on the oil traffic. We at Scatsta are sometimes open til after 9pm opening early to get the traffic caught up (if we've had delays due to offshore conditions or Weather at Scatsta). Everyone at the airport works hard, and work together and flights get moved as quickly as possible. We occasionally divert to Bergen, for example in March when we had all that snow, as someone previously stated, flights have to move to keep to oil companies happy and I have to say I wouldn't like to be stuck on a rig when I'm supposed to be at home. The figures from the CAA are figures from the airports themselves, we keep records of every flight in and out of the airport every day. All we can do is wait to hear what'll happen, and what'll happen to my job I suppose. The future seems pretty uncertain at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeems:

Oil traffic would get priorty in the event of diversions in from Sumburgh and delays to Loganair passengers would be inevitable but at least they wouldn't be going back to Aberdeen or Atlantic air passengers ending up - god knows where! :wink:

 

Back to the idea of some investment into expanding the facilites for accepting diversions. Surely investing some money at Scatsta would provide a better service to the travelling Shetlandic public than putting yet more money into Sumburgh (it must have had enough by now?). Because, if all the oil traffic is in Sumburgh, delays (unavoidable) are going to be year round - potentially daily. Improve Scatsta and the only time the public is second best to oil customers is during the days when Shetland main public airport is fog bound. As for coping with ALL of shetland's traffic, i'm sure the staff at Scatsta would do their best and pull out all the stops for the odd occasion when the Saabs come to visit as they have in the past.

 

Using Scatsta for inter island and Ambulance traffic is unlikely. Tingwall is ideally placed (close to the hospital and transport links for islanders) to provide a good onward service for it's current traffic. And i doubt the council would close it.

 

Pooks:

Providing the individual companies have their ground staff in order and their flight plans in the system then there should be no significant delays on outbound traffic.

Ask anybody involved with the oil traffic and they will tell you it's a very dynamic, rapidly changing operation. Unexpected delays are gonna creep in regardless of planning.

What happens when Scatsta has been reduced to such a skeleton crew that they can't man the de-icing equipment and/or the fire crew?

Not sure what you mean here, under what circumstances does this happen? :?: During it's published opening hours it has to be fully maned up. If the Transport Partnership is serious about formalising diversion procedures manning levels would be complete for whenever stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...