Again, I am quite closely in touch with the developments in several other European countries (most of all Germany, Italy, France) and nowhere is it anywhere as bad as in the UK.
AFAIU, in the UK it’s a combination of:
-many airports being in private, profit-maximizing hands
-total overstaffing of medium-sized airfields (especially those with modest amounts if scheduled traffic)
-some UK planning guideline that basically says: HOUSES, HOUSES, HOUSES!
-airfields now being treated as brownfield planning-wise
A fatal combination.
Like Boscomantico, I am not aware of many recent airfield closures other than in the UK (and Ireland, where sadly our occasional destination Galway was shut down). I know that quite a few smaller airfields are struggling to keep alive, especially some former military airfields in eastern Germany which have excellent infrastructure (large concrete runways, aprons, hangars, lighting, instrument approaches) but suffer from an almost total lack of traffic because they are in the middle of nowhere. But until now, they keep going by generating income from other sources, e.g. by leasing part of their land to solar farms, and reducing their staff to the absolute minimum.
and Ireland, where sadly our occasional destination Galway was shut down
I believe Galways is likely to reopen in the near future.
Perhaps the UK has a higher closure rate because they have a larger density of larger airfields?
I think it is because land values are high and there is little money to be made in owning and running an airport. I agree that airports benefit an area but not the owner unless the owner happens to be the local authority. Gloucester is a good example of that and it seems to work well.
Czech Republic is in the opposite phase of the cycle: a few small grass aerodromes previously closed have reopened in recent years and one large military base (LKPO) was converted to civilian use. Also, at least two former big military aerodromes (LKML, LKHR) are no longer listed by CAA but still used by ultralights. Apparently, these two, as well as some listed ones with no airline traffic (e.g. LKHK, LKPC) earn some money by offering space for open-air concerts, car/motorcycle races, etc. and/or leasing out the old military buildings and aircraft shelters.
Most answers I have seen so far are correct.
We need to remember that a lot of airfields (only thinking of the UK here, because thats all I know), stemmed from the war era. That was the ‘requirement’ for the airfields presence. Now the requirements are thinned out, and mostly airfields server a leisure / commercial industry, some which is profitable, some which isnt. Even if say half of said war era airfields are still in use, you dont have to look out your aircrafts window too long to see plenty that have already been taken out of any kind of service. Some are so unusable, that they dont appear on the charts as ‘disused’. They have long been forgotten about.
The particuarly toxic combination is when the land owner (whether that be private/council) is not the business owner. Meaning that the landowner has no interest in aviation, and the sale value of the land for housing / quarrying / whatever is much more than the pitful income from leasing a flying operation on the site. I am not going to bang on (too much) about Panshanger closing and I’ve already said a fair bit about it elsewhere, except to make the point that almost no end of semi-professional campaigning will stop the closure if thats what the land owner so desires. So “what can be done”, very little IMHO, unless as I’ve said before, that some wealthy group/person will buy the land for continued GA use (e.g. Old Buckenham – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Old_Buckenham).
HOUSES, HOUSES, HOUSES is quite correct as with an increasing population, a lot of councils need to present plans up until 2030 I think, and obvious targets are airfelds with good ground, electical and other amenities plumbed in and with little political or other protection.
I think PiperArcher has it. In it’s role as ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ during WWII, the UK built loads and loads of airfields, most of which didn’t serve any real purpose after the war. For those who haven’t done it, overflying the UK is quite amazing inasmuch, as one tends to see the remains of old military fields everywhere. This, however, is largely a UK issue. Combined with the – real or perceived – housing shortage on this island, the allure of airfields for developers and councils is overwhelming. I suspect we’ll see a lot more closures around the UK.
At the risk of repeating myself: There is a real problem in UK because, for some obscure reason, UK perceive aerodromes to be a source of revenue rather than a public service. Perhaps it is from their long tradition of railways and canals being operated by “for profit” companies in the 19th century? Either operate a fully commercial airport (but then with a sufficient commercial custom, either airlines or bizjets – and with able commercial management) or operate on a large team of dedicated volunteers. At EDKV Dahlemer Binz they have a volunteer up at the tower and another one at the C-annex-cashier office on the ground floor, at least two volunteers on duty at all times. THAT works.
If it weren’t so sad, it would be comical to see the Dutch mimicking the UK in this respect, as in so many. Their G/A scene is facing hard times, too.
