Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Quick ramble about Manston Airport closing and stuff

As this is the beginning at what looks like the end picture of G-APYK, the inaugural flight, 30 March 1963 from the book I publish about Air Ferry the first commercial airline at Manston http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/1997_twilight_of_pistons.htm

And here is the story of the commercial beginning of Manston from the same book http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tp/ and http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tp/id3.htm 
And here a picture of Concorde at Manston.

There is a World War 2 P51 Mustang coming into the airport tomorrow at 14.30 and it looks like loads of private pilots are going to Manston tomorrow so it looks as if there may be a fly past.

Some thoughts on the local blogging scene now, there is quite a bit of posting and comment on the local blogs so I have updated the JavaScript site that I wrote to keep tabs on this, see http://thanetblogs.blogspot.co.uk/ I think the main ones are there, let me know if I have missed any that should be included. I lack the technical skill to do this for the blogs that aren’t hosted by Google’s Blogger so if you can please do a better job. 

That said I can vary the maximum length of comments and posts there and I can also vary number of comment and posts there so any thoughts on this will also be gratefully accepted.

On the subject of hostile comment I have updated the bumph at the bottom of the comment form here, but the bottom line here is that abusing the comment facilities here takes up my blogging time so there are less new posts and therefore less to comment about.

I have added the link to the bbc story about why the offer may have been rejected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-27411419

29 comments:

  1. Good riddance to Manston!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Manston will still be there anon 9:02 pm. It might not be as many would like it to be but never the less it will still be there. And if it weren't for the people who served there you might not be able to make the comment you just did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I served there several times when in the RAF and I have absolutely no regrets that it is closing. Long overdue in fact. Fine as an RAF station but never as a commercial operation. Completely wrong location. Catchment area too small and too far away from London.

      Delete
    2. You 9:19 are a blatant liar because to have served there several times you must have been a regular of some years service and the unit has not been big enough for years for anyone to have served there more than once, unless they were a Firefighting instructor, and those are usually civilians.

      Delete
    3. How many are there.?

      Delete
    4. Perhaps he was a silver service waiter William ?

      Delete
    5. Possibly, Lyndon, but they have not even had a normal mess structure there for years with a senior ranks, sergeants and above facility, called the Phoenix Club, and a Blues & Twos Club for the junior ranks. Thus much more self service than silver. In modern times the chances of being stationed at Manston once were less than one in a thousand which, if chummy above had really been in the RAF, he would know.

      Delete
    6. Well argued William and you rightly kicked my attempt at levity into touch.

      Perhaps he served there for a month and went AWOL a couple of times ? One's brother occasionally dropped in there in his Victor Tanker. I have previously been loathe to mention this as the sibling usually jettisoned fuel before bumping in. AVTUR rain. Send the monitors off the scale. Or as his Scottish crew mate (and Best Man incidentally) was wont to say "Doing the wee Malcy on Thanet". At the wedding, off thread, the Jock Best man did a toast of the burning Drambuie so brother then tried it and burnt his upper lip and nose. At that point the rugger players burst into song "Why was he born so beautiful why was he born at all". I thought immediate first aid so doused him with a jug of water. Mother was furious and Father philosophical "At least he didn't hit him with the jug". Surely William, as aircrew who polluted the Thanet skies, he was punished enough.

      It was an ex Dambusters Sqn pilot who was surveying in 70s for a viability study of making Manston into an oil refinery associated with plans to make Pegwell the focal pipeline point for the largest enclosed harbour in the world.

      Delete
    7. Found it now, Rick. Very apt if I might say.

      Delete
  3. Perhaps they should never have filled in the trenches in Flanders, left all the bomb sites across London or demobbed everyone after ww2 0916.

    I think people can be respectful and thankful for the armed forces without keeping every relic from the war.

    Plus the mod gave it up 15 years ago. Take it out on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sadly you miss my point 6:38, but what else can we expect from those who celebrate the loss of 150 jobs. Regarding Manston, what will be will be, but it's history remains, unless there are WW2 deniers out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think those who are happy to see the loss of Manston Airport should ponder a while on the shameful circumstances of it's current demise. The company who took it over in November last year has a track record of appalling business practice, a list of cases with the Office of Fair Trading (as was) as long as your arm, built up Stagecoach bus co. on Thanet by driving all local (and family) transport businesses under, rather than legitimate competition. They also make use of/abuse every government hand-out there is to grow even more obscenely rich. This current 'closure' is yet another scam for them to write off the debts of a consortium of companies of which they are a major part. We are losing a vital asset from this area, that has been deliberately run down over a number of years so that the mega-rich can just pocket even more cash - much of it from you, the tax-payers. So, before you may think you are ever so grown-up, worldly-wise and cynical, logical, unsentimental or whatever in applauding the shut-down, just think for a while what it actually is you are applauding.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is unfair to suggest that people who believe Manston could not continue losing £10,000 a day, and should not be supported by the taxpayers, are "happy" or "applauding" its closure. Your contempt for Stagecoach is no justification for the continued existence of an unsustainable airport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankyou, Anon 09:46. I don't seem to remember Manston ever being supported by tax-payers money. I for one would actually prefer if some of my tax money was used as a cash injection to give a business like this a boost - rather into some big-business fat-cat's back pocket by way of the abuse of government funds claimed to support supposed business initiatives. The trouble is Manston has never been expanded in the real way that would make it succeed i.e.as a cargo hub. When there is talk of ridiculous plans to build new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick, not to mention the even more ludicrous plans for Boris Island or the Isle of Grain hub, why is a facility like we have here not being developed? Think of the billions of public funds due to be possibly ploughed into those monstrosities when a much more economical plan would be to develop Manston as well as the existing South East airports. So, your argument re. public funds and the airport does not really stand up. On the subject of my contempt for Stagecoach: I make no secret of the fact that I do hold them in very deep contempt, as I do any business that operates that way and the corruption that accompanies them. I certainly do not want our lives to be determined by an 'oligarchy' of such overgrown (corruptly grown) big businesses - who even eclipse the power and influence of our elected governments at both a local and national level, dispensing with things like our airport in some kind of corrupt financial wheeling and dealing. Infratil and Stagecoach are in each other's pockets - Manston was run down deliberately for this for years (as I stated in my previous post).

      Delete
    2. Just a note on the running costs of Manston here for clarification, the figures come from when Infratil were running the airport and are all in the public domain. The cost of running the airport was around £20,000 per day, £8,000 from the government via the MOD £12,000 by the operator offset by around £2,000 per day by the money the airport were taking in charges and paid to the operator.

      Delete
  7. Stagecoach ran Thanet Bus off the road by using the same colour buses on the same route, and charging lower fares. Watch this on You tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF9SyrCFxg8&feature=youtu.be and then decide how you feel about Ms. Gloag.

    The trouble with Manston was that there was no will on the part of TDC to make it work. With the right approach then Manston could have made it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Port deserted with ferry lost, no Pfizers, no hoverport - and now no airport. For years its just been down, down, down Thanet has sunk. This is the last straw. Is this some plot to turn this area into a social dumping ground for all the undesirables from London. They'll soon be able to send all the great unwashed down here...to do nothing. Come to Ramsgate! Costa-del-Dole!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 10.57am

    £20,000 a day to subsidise never more than 150 jobs.

    And you talk about people 'undesirables' living off the tax-payer???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The £20,000 a day was not funded by the taxpayer. Planestation, Infratil and now Ann Gloag have pulled out because they were losing money, but it was their money to lose, not ours.

      The total jobs, including businesses dependent on the airport, was nearer 550, but why let that worry you as long as you get your undisturbed sleep. The words 'selfish' and 'prick' spring to mind.

      Delete
    2. You forget the uncollected fines and tax projects such as the car park

      Delete
  12. 4.50

    So £8k a day to subsidise no more than 150 jobs, happy now? Do the maths. My point is still irrefutable. These were non-jobs in 'the real world'. As to your claimed 550 depending on the airport for work, will it still make me sound like a 'selfish prick' to point out that a) These were effectively tax-payer funded businesses b) If you choose to make your living serving the needs of an airport, consider yourself extremely lucky to have the chance of now commuting to and working at a number of successful airports in the South-East. It wasn't a 'Job for life' you thought, surely?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 4.50

    You couldn't attract enough business in daylight hours so don't blame the anti-nightflights stance. Wrong location, poor management, better alternatives available. Result? Shut Down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What maths and where do you get your figures. It was you that talked of £20,000 a day, I merely pointed out it was not taxpayers money. The jobs are at firms who were dependent on the airfield, but they are not taxpayer funded and, even if they were, would that not be better providing jobs for British people than seeing millions in aid disappear into the Swiss bank accounts of sundry despots.

      Where exactly did I blame the night flights, you are confusing your anons, I merely corrected your false statement. Also, you are still a selfish prick.

      Delete
    2. Of course the subsidies on fuel taken by Stagecoach have nothing to do with the wealth of the richest woman in Britain?

      Delete
  14. I see that a plane with engine problems did an emergency landing at Manston today. Next time it could crash onto Ramsgate instead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a completely staged little drama that was as for planes crashing we are lucky all of the worn out freight planes flying into Manston that other airfields didn't want have not flopped on our town I saw one take off when Wiggins had it and it came as close to crashing as I have ever seen and I have seen many crashes so forgive us Peter if we heave a sigh of relief,
    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Yaaaawwwwnn"... another person that hides his identity.

      Did you take my advice & phone in to those "biased" radio shows that you were complaining about? I thought not.

      Delete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.