Where has XH558 thread gone?

[MicrolightDriver]

..It's a shame that they managed to get the public to part with millions even after flying had ceased, but it was all consumed by wages and expenses, with nothing going towards the aircraft's future. If they have found a benefactor, its great news, but he/she must be the most gullible person in the world to trust these people with his/her money!!

Are we sure about those things? Nothing spent 'towards the aircraft's future'? hmm. Also, to call someone 'gullible' you presumably know the ins and outs of the proposed hangar arrangements currently subject to solicitors' activity?

Well I would love to be proven wrong MLD, I'm just saying what I see! If VTST have put money aside to guarantee 558 is safe, even if visitor numbers in the coming decades don't meet the costs of a rented hangar, then fair play to them. I can't help feel that the current model of raising cash from a charity called "Vulcan to the Sky" mainly by selling off David Walton's spare parts, sticking names to the aircraft and selling gift shop tatt, is unsustainable; and a two/three aircraft museum at a sewage farm making enough cash to pay for a return on a £3 million hangar, just seems pie in the sky.

My suggestion to the VTST is to spend less on wages (and solicitors), and buy that piece of land themselves, so if nothing else, at least 558 has a home of her own.

Can something good be salvaged from the Doncaster Airport retirement home decision? I don't know, I wish I was gullible enough to believe it could, but I fear its a very uncertain future.

OK, so suddenly less certain about the 'nothing going towards the aircraft's future', and back to the old buzzwords.

Just one question though - Is the bit about the sustainability of this tiny 'aircraft museum' just something that people write so as to deliberately misunderstand the future hangar 'offer' or do people really think that's all it's intended to be?

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Is the bit about the sustainability of this tiny 'aircraft museum' just something that people write so as to deliberately misunderstand the future hangar 'offer' or do people really think that's all it's intended to be?

It's difficult to see any aspect of this project, since retirement, that can be considered sustainable. It's been a constant, gradual decline ever since they chose Doncaster. Always, always reductions in public engagement, activity, expectation, engineering capability. The results of each and every fundraising activity pished away paying salaries and consultancy fees.
Then, when things look really bleak, someone with more money than sense bails the trust out of yet another crisis.
It's only sustainable in as much as the supply of easy money from well meaning, philanthropic donors can still be relied upon.

[Dan O'Hagan]

Forrester bailed them out again then?

[MicrolightDriver]

Is the bit about the sustainability of this tiny 'aircraft museum' just something that people write so as to deliberately misunderstand the future hangar 'offer' or do people really think that's all it's intended to be?

It's difficult to see any aspect of this project, since retirement, that can be considered sustainable. It's been a constant, gradual decline ever since they chose Doncaster. Always, always reductions in public engagement, activity, expectation, engineering capability. The results of each and every fundraising activity pished away paying salaries and consultancy fees.
....

I appreciate there's been a good deal of negative revisionism on here over the last couple of years, but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

The point I was really making in the sentence you've quoted, as you well know, is around this tendency people have to mis-characterise, venture into blatant supposition, and add derogatory buzzwords into their 'statements'. What does it tell us about those opinions? If everything was genuinely so terrible, would there be a need to embellish?

[ericbee123]

Is the bit about the sustainability of this tiny 'aircraft museum' just something that people write so as to deliberately misunderstand the future hangar 'offer' or do people really think that's all it's intended to be?

It's difficult to see any aspect of this project, since retirement, that can be considered sustainable. It's been a constant, gradual decline ever since they chose Doncaster. Always, always reductions in public engagement, activity, expectation, engineering capability. The results of each and every fundraising activity pished away paying salaries and consultancy fees.
....

I appreciate there's been a good deal of negative revisionism on here over the last couple of years, but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

The point I was really making in the sentence you've quoted, as you well know, is around this tendency people have to mis-characterise, venture into blatant supposition, and add derogatory buzzwords into their 'statements'. What does it tell us about those opinions? If everything was genuinely so terrible, would there be a need to embellish?

Microlight has my vote for next Prime Minister. If he can put so much positive spin on this, he’d cakewalk Brexit.

Anyone who can put “negative revisionism” and “multifaceted” in the same sentence is someone you underestimate at your peril.

[Dan O'Hagan]

I appreciate there's been a good deal of negative revisionism on here over the last couple of years, but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

Lucrative? Until they had to pay the going rate to stay in the hangar, then couldn't afford it...

[IgnatiusJReilly]

but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

Given that nobody here knows for sure a) what the reasons were for VTTS to leave Hangar 3 or b) whether they were really operating at a profit at that time, all we know for sure is that VTTS were asked to vacate the premises. Whether or not they were 'covering the rent', whatever the agreement was, clearly someone else was willing to pay more for that hangar.
The operation may well have been 'lucrative' but if their cost base was being heavily subsidised through a short term, discounted rent agreement then I would suggest that it would be misleading to think that the operation was inherently profitable.

[MicrolightDriver]

but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

Given that nobody here knows for sure a) what the reasons were for VTTS to leave Hangar 3 or b) whether they were really operating at a profit at that time, all we know for sure is that VTTS were asked to vacate the premises. Whether or not they were 'covering the rent', whatever the agreement was, clearly someone else was willing to pay more for that hangar.
The operation may well have been 'lucrative' but if their cost base was being heavily subsidised through a short term, discounted rent agreement then I would suggest that it would be misleading to think that the operation was inherently profitable.

As you rightly point out, much is unknown. There was no suggestion at the time that they weren't able to pay their agreed rent - just that they were outbid, or actually that the airport simply had wider priorities. All very unfortunate and clearly not what was planned, but either risk can be mitigated for the future with some new tenancy terms in a new hangar facility.

[bernarde]

but I think it should be remembered that they were operating a multifaceted ( and apparently lucrative ) hangar business with XH558 at its centre. If they establish themselves back in a hangar, this time with brand new facilities, who is to say they can't operate similarly again?

Given that nobody here knows for sure a) what the reasons were for VTTS to leave Hangar 3 or b) whether they were really operating at a profit at that time, all we know for sure is that VTTS were asked to vacate the premises. Whether or not they were 'covering the rent', whatever the agreement was, clearly someone else was willing to pay more for that hangar.
The operation may well have been 'lucrative' but if their cost base was being heavily subsidised through a short term, discounted rent agreement then I would suggest that it would be misleading to think that the operation was inherently profitable.

As you rightly point out, much is unknown. There was no suggestion at the time that they weren't able to pay their agreed rent - just that they were outbid, or actually that the airport simply had wider priorities. All very unfortunate and clearly not what was planned, but either risk can be mitigated for the future with some new tenancy terms in a new hangar facility.

Peel wanted £450,000 a year, 2excel we're willing to pay it, VTTS couldnt.. the rest is history. Many extortionate consultancy fee's and expense claims later we arrive at where we are today.

[MicrolightDriver]

..Peel wanted £450,000 a year, 2excel we're willing to pay it, VTTS couldnt.. the rest is history..

True or not, it really doesn't matter - it's a risk that can clearly be mitigated for the future.

[HeyfordDave111]

i wonder if its possible that now VTTS has gotten planning permission for a building on land they dont even own, and will never own, that DRHA might just build a hangar there for themselves and their own expansion plans as the donkey work has already been done for them?

[HeyfordDave111]

Anyone here go to RIAT over last weekend?
I didn't check before hand or see them, but did VTTS have a stand at the show?

[DeltaPapa]

Yes they did according to some posts I've read on other fora.

[HeyfordDave111]

Yes they did according to some posts I've read on other fora.

cheers mate

[IgnatiusJReilly]

i wonder if its possible that now VTTS has gotten planning permission for a building on land they dont even own, and will never own, that DRHA might just build a hangar there for themselves and their own expansion plans as the donkey work has already been done for them?

Above all else, I am frankly gobsmacked that the trust didn't secure an option on owning this piece of land BEFORE they ever made the final decision to go to Doncaster. It was clearly available - for the airport to be able to buy it from the water board. Even if the plan was only to make this a temporary home before eventually building ETNA, owning this land would have given the trust a secure fall-back position.
Presumably the protracted legal negotiations now relate to the trust trying to contractually secure their tenancy long term and the airports lawyers will be trying to insert as many 'exit clauses' as possible. The Airport is a business and will be looking for the best return possible on their investment.
Remembering that the airport has made an investment in buying that land, it's not a gift to the trust!
If a higher bidder for that accommodation comes along in 6 months time, they will absolutely look to capitalise on the opportunity.
Just like they did with hangar 3.

[MicrolightDriver]

Well I suppose we can all hope for different things...

[Xm657]

OK, so suddenly less certain about the 'nothing going towards the aircraft's future', and back to the old buzzwords.

Just one question though - Is the bit about the sustainability of this tiny 'aircraft museum' just something that people write so as to deliberately misunderstand the future hangar 'offer' or do people really think that's all it's intended to be?

I'm sure it is intended to be as many things as possible, it'll need to be to pay the rent! I'm struggling to see what it can be though apart from that, at least in any capacity to make noticable revenue. The location next to the sewage works probably doesnt help it being a wedding venue, or place for social gatherings or dinners. But even ignoring the poo-factor, its only large enough to contain the three airframes and a couple of office/meeting rooms. There isnt even any workshops or places to store parts or tools. Sorry, no misunderstanding, just a healthy dose of common sense, something that appears to be lacking in the VTST.

I dont see any evidence that anything has gone to the aircraft's future, no, or at least anything so far that has had any benefit. She's outside, with no parking space of her own and no public access, facing an uncertain future. Unless the [expensive] efforts of the VTST do deliver the highly lucrative hangar business that is sustainable for decades, how can you argue that all the money the public has contributed since 2015 has not been completely wasted? I believe her earning potential decreases with each year that passes, and the grandiose plans since 2015 are wasting money that could be better spent on something simpler. Bruntingthorpe was passed over for the ill fated vintage flying aircraft business/Etna, and buying a bit of land has been missed chasing a rented "hangar business", that will either not happen at all or wont be profitable long term.

However, I still cling to some hope that the airport and the fine people of Yorkshire, wont let 558 die, just as the people in Southend and Wellesbourne came to the rescue of other distressed Vulcans. Nothing is going to stop VTST persuing their dreams, so lets hope they succeed, for the sake of the aircraft.

[Xm657]

..Peel wanted £450,000 a year, 2excel we're willing to pay it, VTTS couldnt.. the rest is history..

True or not, it really doesn't matter - it's a risk that can clearly be mitigated for the future.

Is that a typo? Sure you mean can't be mitigated. How on earn can you guarantee a level of income that is always going to be higher than the rent demanded? For all we know everyone may have forgotten about 558 by the time the hangar opens for business and nobody turns up. There is no certainty, just hope that it can work, someone.

[MicrolightDriver]

..Peel wanted £450,000 a year, 2excel we're willing to pay it, VTTS couldnt.. the rest is history..

True or not, it really doesn't matter - it's a risk that can clearly be mitigated for the future.

Is that a typo? Sure you mean can't be mitigated. How on earn can you guarantee a level of income that is always going to be higher than the rent demanded? For all we know everyone may have forgotten about 558 by the time the hangar opens for business and nobody turns up. There is no certainty, just hope that it can work, someone.

No, not a typo, and it's quite correct that the terms of a contract can mitigate the scenario that was being discussed ( that being the concept of being outbid or displaced by changing priorities during an agreed tenancy period ).

I don't really think people have forgotten about XH558? Do you?

[Domvickery]

I don't really think people have forgotten about XH558?

We can hope

[Mooshie1956]

I don't really think people have forgotten about XH558? Do you?

They haven't forgot about it but I can't repeat what I was told by some people from Donny on Saturday at Duxford or I would be banned from the forum. Lets just say the VTTS don't have a very good name within this hobby with people from Doncaster.

[XR219]

Lets just say the VTTS don't have a very good name within this hobby with people from Doncaster.

I'm from Doncaster. They seem alright to me.

It does explain all those people chasing me with pitchforks though....

[Dan O'Hagan]

Lets just say the VTTS don't have a very good name within this hobby with people from Doncaster.

I'm from Doncaster. They seem alright to me.

It does explain all those people chasing me with pitchforks though....

So you can find time for a smart-arse reply, but not the time to find answers to the questions that were posted three weeks ago?

[MicrolightDriver]

I don't really think people have forgotten about XH558? Do you?

They haven't forgot about it but I can't repeat what I was told by some people from Donny on Saturday at Duxford or I would be banned from the forum. Lets just say the VTTS don't have a very good name within this hobby with people from Doncaster.

What's the chances eh?

I'm not sure that the ire of Donny's hobbyists is particularly relevant to my question over the collective memory for XH558. Personally, I think it's quite apparent that wider support is still there, especially with major news potentially very close.

[Victor 23]

I think the Vulcan will always be a favourite with people, from growing up near RAF Scampton & RAF Waddington during the 70's and seeing them daily and going to the Waddington Airshow in 76. Seeing the Vulcan scrambles it's an aircraft that won't be replaced.