Shetland's airports (and parking)

[Pooks]

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.

 

I was referring to the oil traffic having already been moved elsewhere. No point keeping an airport open on the off-chance of a diversion.

[Sudden Stop]

No no no, it would be far, FAR too expensive to keep it open just for the off chance of a diversion - it would probably be the first airport in the country that was there just as a back up!

 

Also, if it closes and some day down the road it becomes apparant that it did serve a vital purpose, it'll be nigh on impossible to re-open. It takes years of slow expansion to recruit and train the wide varity of staff needed to run a CAA authorised airport.

[Pooks]

Yep, that was my point. Jeems suggested that Scatsta could still be used as a diversion if the Council were to keep it running with the ambulance and inter-island flights. I was pointing out that it would be highly unlikely. Think I've made that clear this time!

[jeems]

I was trying to show that the arguements used so far to keep it open really wont have much impact on the oil companies decision, If they can get savings they will move that is the one certain thing in all of this, if Serco wont give them the savings they want, they will move.

 

What the arguements are being used for is an attempt to force the council into funding something that the oil companies should be paying for.

[NewMagnie]

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.

 

I was referring to the oil traffic having already been moved elsewhere. No point keeping an airport open on the off-chance of a diversion.

 

That's not quite how it works. Diversions don't occur on an off chance - every aircraft going anywhere has ot log a flight plan with area ATC. this includes departure airport, arrival airport and diversionary airport as well as details like times, passengers, etc.

 

The diversionary airport has to be made aware of the flight plan and, if it's outside it's normal operating hours, it will charge for the service by the hour.

 

Airports need to be manned to an appropriate level - generally low category (less than 3) is acceptable for Helicopter diversions. Scatsta doesn't need any scheduled business to operate as a low category helicopter diversion as a low cat aerodrome - it gets a bit more involved if you want to use fixed wing but beyond the flypast to keep the ATC in practice and to familiarise the fire crews, it can, theoretically, be maintained soley as a diversionary airport with no scheduled business - depending on the political will to actually do it and the approval of the CAA.

 

It certainly doesn't take years to establish an airport on this basis - Sctasta was established over the course of 12 months with the biggest obstacle to full operation being the construction of the hangar. (Delayed because of Britsow's tight arsed approaches to capital construction) But ATC and fire cover was developed in a matter of weeks.

 

Not that I'm an advocate for any of the above, quite the reverse. Jeems has a point, there is an element of a private company trying to get assets from the public purse - and the likliehood of that being politically acceptable (or even remotely ethical) is slim.

[jeems]

Thats right new magnie, and if there is no available suitable diversion then the flight cant go ahead. As Angel stated Scatsta often stays open late to complete their flying program, for this to happen Sumburgh often stays open for a diversionary airport to allow them to operate, obiviously they charge for this service as you state but it means that the public money sunk into Sumburgh is already helping the operation work.

[Sudden Stop]

Jeems has a point, there is an element of a private company trying to get assets from the public purse - and the likliehood of that being politically acceptable (or even remotely ethical) is slim.

 

A quick look at our glorious leaders' list of capital projects shows up over 5 million quid for an extention to the Sella Ness pier. Is this not for a private company's use? Yes, there will be FIVE whole local jobs created but for what other purpose is this public expentiture than to provide a private (forgien at that) company the means to make itself profit? And to quote his Ratterness:

 

"Overall Shetland will be a big loser if Scatsta goes and I would be in strong opposition to any plans of this sort," he said.

 

"That HIAL are trying to bring something like this about raises all sorts of issues. A publicly funded organisation cannot go into business competition with a private one. I see this behaviour as mystifying."

 

£900,000 of the cost of Sumburgh's runway extention came direct from the SIC. Is it 'ethical' that that money might put 80+ locals out of work?

 

Keeping some staff on at Scatsta to act as a diversionary airfield as and when required is silly. Cat 6 fire cover for the 146, air traffic controllers and who can forget security (all NEEDED before a airport can take the public in). That's a lot of people sitting around doing nothing.

 

Scatsta needs it's own traffic to remain open and therefore be available to provide a diversionary option.

 

I doubt that the money 'sunk' into Sumburgh has already helped the IAC operation. What effect has the runway extention had on an aircraft's ability to use it as a diversion? Surely Sumburgh would have been named as a diversion before the extension?

[penfold]

"Overall Shetland will be a big loser if Scatsta goes and I would be in strong opposition to any plans of this sort," he said.

 

"That HIAL are trying to bring something like this about raises all sorts of issues. A publicly funded organisation cannot go into business competition with a private one. I see this behaviour as mystifying."

 

Its a public airport Sudden Stop so how can they stop anyone that can meet their criteria and the Civil Aviation Authoritys from operating from it?

The airfield is publicly owned but the companies that operate services from it are privately owned, the only services run by HIAL are the ATC/TELS and fire services, the fuel is supplied by Air BP a private company who also supply fuel at Scatsta? the scheduled service is operated by Loganair a private company?, The two search and rescue operations run by Bond and Bristows both private companys and of which Bristows also operate from Scatsta.

 

So what we have in honesty is an airport publicly owned at Sumburgh which private companies pay to operate from and an airfield at Scatsta that a private consortium lease from a public body e.g the COUNCIL so whats the difference both publicy owned both used by PRIVATE companies.

[Sudden Stop]

so whats the difference both publicy owned both used by PRIVATE companies.

 

Exactly!

 

So surely, no one would mind if Scatsta got a few hundred grand from the council to upgrade the facilities on it's airport??? And ensure the continuation of the oil contract at Scatsta thus saving a lot of jobs

[Pooks]

Not wanting to cause an argument here (honest, no, really!) but...

 

..you talk about the loss of employment should Scatsta close. Should the contract be awarded to Sumburgh then surely this would be a minimal loss of local employment (local as in Shetland)? If the contract goes to Aberdeen or Norway or anywhere else then it will be a sad, sad day. Even then, that day is going to come, the oil is rapidly running out (as National Geographic etc, etc keep on telling us).

 

In fact, if you look at it from the tree-hugging point of view then Shetland is possibly the most environmentally-unfriendly island in the world. Bickering over what is essentially a platform to exploit the earth's natural resources...if the North Sea was devoid of oil what position would Shetland be in now?

[NewMagnie]

[quoteA quick look at our glorious leaders' list of capital projects shows up over 5 million quid for an extention to the Sella Ness pier. Is this not for a private company's use? Yes, there will be FIVE whole local jobs created but for what other purpose is this public expentiture than to provide a private (forgien at that) company the means to make itself profit? And to quote his Ratterness:

 

£900,000 of the cost of Sumburgh's runway extention came direct from the SIC. Is it 'ethical' that that money might put 80+ locals out of work?

 

Keeping some staff on at Scatsta to act as a diversionary airfield as and when required is silly. Cat 6 fire cover for the 146, air traffic controllers and who can forget security (all NEEDED before a airport can take the public in). That's a lot of people sitting around doing nothing.

 

Scatsta needs it's own traffic to remain open and therefore be available to provide a diversionary option.

 

I doubt that the money 'sunk' into Sumburgh has already helped the IAC operation. What effect has the runway extention had on an aircraft's ability to use it as a diversion? Surely Sumburgh would have been named as a diversion before the extension?

 

Well, there's such a thing as compounding the error.

 

I've already made the point that the public investment at Sumburgh is likely to make Scatsta that bit less attractive so I don't think we're at odds there.

 

Also, as I've said, I'm not an advocate for Scatsta offering diversionary only services - I'm merely pointing out that it's technically possible.

 

The money 'sunk' into Sumburgh will aid the IAC to the extent that it increases Sumburgh's poor weather capacity so that it can be used as a diversion or an alternate in conditions where this wouldn't have been possible previously.

 

As for the ethical issues around awarding public cash to private industries - that is indeed tricky. I'd suggest that there's a difference between funding public assets such as roads, harbours or airports for the public good by which private industry indirectly benefits and directly funding privately owned assets - particularly when those assets are owned by multinational corporations with outrageously healthy balance sheets .

 

The idea that Scatsta is leased from the council isn't quite correct, the main runway is privately owned and all the built assets are provided by IAC. I believe the SIC owns the East/West runway and part of the dispersal only. I could be wrong though, its a good few years since I worked there.

 

Regardless, my point is that the SIC/CT might find it difficult to justify expenditure at Scatsta with their existing investment at Sumburgh outstanding - at least in the eyes of the auditors.

 

They might also be quite reasonably accused of undermining their own investment by using further tranches of public moolah to persuade a paying customer not to utilise the business asset they've just invested in.

[Rasmie]

sudden stop said

Exactly!

 

So surely, no one would mind if Scatsta got a few hundred grand from the council to upgrade the facilities on it's airport??? And ensure the continuation of the oil contract at Scatsta thus saving a lot of jobs

 

 

 

So what are you actually doing about this. Have you applied for the money to the SIC yet. Time is running out

[Sudden Stop]

NewMagnie: You are making FAR too much sense and therefore i have decided not to listen to you.

 

Rasmie: I've put it on my Santa list, will that do? He seemed offer the best odds.

 

Looking at the list of things the council wants to spend money on there's not much chance really. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though......

[Seaflech]

First post on Shetlink, but this is an interesting thread.

 

I think the main argument has to be not whether Scatsta or Sumburgh are victorious in securing the future of oil-related traffic in Shetland, but that Shetland itself is. As was pointed out the worst-case scenario would be if the work was lost to Aberdeen or Norway for example, causing all jobs to leave Shetland at a stroke.

 

There are certainly arguments for both staying at Scatsta and moving to Sumburgh. With Scatsta staying open a massive benefit is that there is a second fully operational airfield on the Islands, very handy in the case of weather diversions. However the payload restrictions of the shorter runway at Scatsta mean the option can be unattractive to the likes of Loganair, due to the low number of passengers they can lift out of there.

 

Sudden Stop - Yes Sumburgh would've been used as a diversion before the runway improvements, but if a Flightline 146 arrived over Scatsta and couldn't land due to weather pre-extention (ie there would be a reduced max landing weight) and was fairly heavy with extra fuel, it would be unlikely to burn off precious diversion fuel to get down to max landing weight at Sumburgh if it meant using the fuel it would need to get back to Aberdeen. Now that the runway at Sumburgh is longer, its max landing weight is increased and there are more options available.

 

As for the ethics of public money (SIC) being used to fund a private venture, two words sums that up - Smyril Line. Lets hope the Faroese don't extend their runway, it would cost us millions!

[NewMagnie]

First post on Shetlink, but this is an interesting thread.

 

I think the main argument has to be not whether Scatsta or Sumburgh are victorious in securing the future of oil-related traffic in Shetland, but that Shetland itself is. As was pointed out the worst-case scenario would be if the work was lost to Aberdeen or Norway for example, causing all jobs to leave Shetland at a stroke.

 

There are certainly arguments for both staying at Scatsta and moving to Sumburgh. With Scatsta staying open a massive benefit is that there is a second fully operational airfield on the Islands, very handy in the case of weather diversions. However the payload restrictions of the shorter runway at Scatsta mean the option can be unattractive to the likes of Loganair, due to the low number of passengers they can lift out of there.

 

Sudden Stop - Yes Sumburgh would've been used as a diversion before the runway improvements, but if a Flightline 146 arrived over Scatsta and couldn't land due to weather pre-extention (ie there would be a reduced max landing weight) and was fairly heavy with extra fuel, it would be unlikely to burn off precious diversion fuel to get down to max landing weight at Sumburgh if it meant using the fuel it would need to get back to Aberdeen. Now that the runway at Sumburgh is longer, its max landing weight is increased and there are more options available.

 

As for the ethics of public money (SIC) being used to fund a private venture, two words sums that up - Smyril Line. Lets hope the Faroese don't extend their runway, it would cost us millions!

 

All more or less true. particularly the initial point about retaining airport jobs in Shetland.

 

Regarding previous SIC investments which have proved to be less than wholly profitable - other than pointing out that this is rather the nature of investment and that this is why it's actually called 'speculation' rather than 'sure fire, 100%, no risk, guaranteed return, cash cow' - all I can do is repeat my previous point -

 

"there's such a thing as compounding the error"