Where has XH558 thread gone?

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
Locked
User avatar
jalfrezi
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by jalfrezi »

If the trust are paying for the building, then they may only need to pay ground rent, or something similar to the airport owners.

The fact is we don't know, so speculation isn't particularly useful.

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

sooty655 wrote:...You can dress it up with spin any way you like. The bottom line is they couldn't compete with what a commercial user would pay, so Peel let someone else have it. If they couldn't pay enough then, they certainly can't now.


Do you have evidence that a 'commercial user' paid more for it? and that it was rental payments that drove the decision?

And even if it was, being uprooted via a 'break clause' ( a clause which can be avoided in future ) is a very different thing to being unable to pay an agreed rent.

User avatar
motormouser
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:48 pm
Location: Grantham,Lincolnshire.

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by motormouser »


User avatar
Ewart
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun 24 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Ewart »



Those dust spots on the photograph. :hide:

User avatar
sooty655
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon 23 Feb 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by sooty655 »

jalfrezi wrote:If the trust are paying for the building, then they may only need to pay ground rent, or something similar to the airport owners.

The fact is we don't know, so speculation isn't particularly useful.

The fact is we do know, in VttST's own words, for whatever they are worth.

VttST wrote:The Trust cannot afford to pay anything for the development of the new hangar; initial planning work is being performed pro bono by a number of firms, the costs of construction will be an investment by a developer, who will then lease it to the Trust.


VttST wrote:The Trust will ensure it has a long lease on the hangar, something that was not possible for Hangar 3 and Hangar 1.


Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to believe they will find a developer who will stump up £3million to build it and then give them a long lease unless they are prepared to pay a commercial rate.
Last edited by sooty655 on Wed 17 Jan 2018, 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jalfrezi
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by jalfrezi »

We know they're looking for private investors, but we don't know what lease terms are being looked at and over what period. I would imagine they are looking for a cheaper arrangement than they had before when they were leasing a hangar from the airport.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:
sooty655 wrote:...You can dress it up with spin any way you like. The bottom line is they couldn't compete with what a commercial user would pay, so Peel let someone else have it. If they couldn't pay enough then, they certainly can't now.


Do you have evidence that a 'commercial user' paid more for it? and that it was rental payments that drove the decision?

And even if it was, being uprooted via a 'break clause' ( a clause which can be avoided in future ) is a very different thing to being unable to pay an agreed rent.


Oh come on Microlightdriver that's just silly. Why would the airport evict one tenant for an alternative tenant who wanted to pay less?! If they could have afforded the going rate for Hangar 3 they would still be there. What we have heard from someone on this forum the airport was giving them a heavily discounted rent on Hangar 3. That was fine when nobody else wanted it, but when someone was prepared to pay a commercial rate the airport couldn't turn down the extra revenue, they are a business after all.

If they can persuade someone to build them a new Hangar, it might be cheaper than Hangar 3 as its is further back from the flight line, but the investor will need to recoup the build cost with interest. Obvously the last thing the VttST are going to admit was they couldnt pay the rent as that would put off any potential inventors, and the project would be dead before it began. They may actually think they can, they are always eternally optimistic that something will turn up, as it did during the flying years.

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

Xm657 wrote:
MicrolightDriver wrote:
sooty655 wrote:...You can dress it up with spin any way you like. The bottom line is they couldn't compete with what a commercial user would pay, so Peel let someone else have it. If they couldn't pay enough then, they certainly can't now.


Do you have evidence that a 'commercial user' paid more for it? and that it was rental payments that drove the decision?

And even if it was, being uprooted via a 'break clause' ( a clause which can be avoided in future ) is a very different thing to being unable to pay an agreed rent.


Oh come on Microlightdriver that's just silly. Why would the airport evict one tenant for an alternative tenant who wanted to pay less?! If they could have afforded the going rate for Hangar 3 they would still be there. What we have heard from someone on this forum the airport was giving them a heavily discounted rent on Hangar 3. That was fine when nobody else wanted it, but when someone was prepared to pay a commercial rate the airport couldn't turn down the extra revenue, they are a business after all.

If they can persuade someone to build them a new Hangar, it might be cheaper than Hangar 3 as its is further back from the flight line, but the investor will need to recoup the build cost with interest. Obvously the last thing the VttST are going to admit was they couldnt pay the rent as that would put off any potential inventors, and the project would be dead before it began. They may actually think they can, they are always eternally optimistic that something will turn up, as it did during the flying years.


Sorry, I don't think it is. I was asking whether the person making the statement had anything more than assumptions to work on. Appears not.

Fact remains, there's never been a serious assertion that they couldn't afford their agreed rent, or any real evidence that they won't be able to in the future.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:Sorry, I don't think it is. I was asking whether the person making the statement had anything more than assumptions to work on. Appears not.

Fact remains, there's never been a serious assertion that they couldn't afford their agreed rent, or any real evidence that they won't be able to in the future.


No, and no evidence that they could either! All we know for sure is that the visit the Vulcan events were very popular while they were running: whether they generated enough revenue at the time is only know to the VttST's management, and whether they will do so in the future nobody knows.

User avatar
beastman2377
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 26 Jan 2009, 11:34 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by beastman2377 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:
Sorry, I don't think it is. I was asking whether the person making the statement had anything more than assumptions to work on. Appears not.

Fact remains, there's never been a serious assertion that they couldn't afford their agreed rent, or any real evidence that they won't be able to in the future.



All depends on what you mean by 'their agreed rent', as I was under the impression that they had a special deal and were not paying full commercial rent? I could be, and probably am, wrong - but in the absence of detail being available, assumptions have to be made. I feel I deserve to be able scrutinize as much as I wish, as I was one of the thousands who invested money in VTTS over the years.

Either way, they evidence is there for all (but the blinkered) to see. If they could afford the rent, and the landlord was happy with the level of rent being paid, why is there a Vulcan (and friends) sat outside?

If the landlord exercised their option to terminate the occupation of their building by XH558 et al, that can only be because someone else was prepared to pay more (you could say, the commercial level of rent) or this plus the fact of a more assured future rent income, otherwise why would they do it? It would make no sense to lose the income??

But if we follow your train of thought MD, the landlord was perfectly happy with the level of rent being paid, VTTS could afford to keep paying this rent now and in the future, so that is why she is sat on some hardstanding outside........

......and you wonder why people question this??

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

beastman2377 wrote:..All depends on what you mean by 'their agreed rent'


I think very obviously, I mean 'the rent that they'd agreed with the landlord to pay, as per the lease they signed'. Never seen any genuine suggestion they weren't able to pay that.

Obviously there was a commercial decision taken, but we simply don't understand the full reasoning behind it - however many times people repeat what they consider the 'only' possibly reason. I very much doubt any 'accommodation' decision on an airport like Doncaster is as one dimensional as you make out.

Anyway, ancient debate, and whether Hangar 3 was affordable is now irrelevant. They were running a successful business, and I don't see any real reason to think they can't again.

It would be nice for XH558 if they can, as nobody else seems to have any better ideas.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:It would be nice for XH558 if they can, as nobody else seems to have any better ideas.


Well pretty much everyone has a better idea, but it involves Brunthingthorpe! As VttST couldn't be persuaded to let her go back there, it's Doncaster or bust. I can't think of anyone who would take on the challenge or be able to (either logistically or legally) of moving her. So let's hope for 558's sake your forecast of the financial prosperity of a one Vulcan musuem next to a sewage works in Doncaster is correct.

ghostrider1970
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat 28 Oct 2017, 2:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by ghostrider1970 »

When i take the kids to see a Vulcan, why would i want to drive up the A1 past a perfectly good Vulcan with other exhibits and more to see and do (NAM) to one that's sitting alone with little else for the kiddies to get involved with?

Even if i was coming from the North id travel the few extra miles to get to Newark

Trust me the kids dont and are unlikely to care about the tail numbers of either airframe, they just want to have a fun pack day out

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

Xm657 wrote:... So let's hope for 558's sake your forecast of the financial prosperity of a one Vulcan musuem next to a sewage works in Doncaster is correct.


And right there, another of these fallacies that's sadly thrown around to the point is becomes accepted - 'a one Vulcan museum'.

The operation at Doncaster was far from the conjured image of a stagnant 'single piece' museum. Activities ranging from coffee mornings, specialist guided tours, photoshoots, engine run experiences, to conferences and exhibitions, even weddings and the receptions all took place as part of the 'hangar business'. Well subscribed and successful.

Certainly XH558 was what made the venue special, but the 'offer' was never just about having a few enthusiasts shuffle in and look at a single 'dead and dusty' museum airframe.

Didn't someone say the remaining 'sewage works' are being closed down in the 'not too distant' as well?

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

As I said MLD, let's hope you're right for 558's sake. I'm sure any potential investors will carry out their own due dilligence on VTTST's earning potential and how they traded in the past as well as their own view on what funding might be available for an educational venue. They will make up their minds and put their money into the project or not regardless of whatever we speculate here. Investors may also be encouraged to fund the hangar on the basis that even if the Trust defaults on their rent further down the line, as the airport is growing there will be alternative tenants available. Nothing to do now but than wait and see.

Personally pinning my hopes on XL426 doing her first public run for over a decade in 2018. Sadly 655 is not allowed to hold her open day for at least another year and 558 it seems will be in hibernation save a handful of engines runs for the foreseeable future.

I don't recall any news on the sewage works closing, would be interesting if they are as opens up more land and improved access should the Vulcan hangar be built.

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

Anything new from the weekly news letters.?

User avatar
aviodromefriend
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by aviodromefriend »

vulcan558 wrote:Anything new from the weekly news letters.?
They are selling a lot of things, nothing new since a few newsletters.
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that

Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Brevet Cable »

They're having a discount sale of the discount sale of the discount sale stuff.....or something like that :biggrin:
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
Seahornet
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 1:55 pm
Location: Shropshire, Severn Valley

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Seahornet »

vulcan558 wrote:Anything new from the weekly news letters.?


If the thread's dead, just let it go; no point trying to kick some more life into it, just for its own sake... :sad:
And as the smart ship grew,
In stature, grace and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Brevet Cable »

Well, there's Martin Withers doing some talks at Cosford, and there's new merchandise for sale.
Does that count as news ?
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
jalfrezi
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by jalfrezi »

Image

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Brevet Cable »

It's not as if they can do anything else at the moment, though....having all their kit dumped outside in a remote corner kind of limits their options. :biggrin:
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

Big Eric
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2010, 6:15 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Big Eric »

jalfrezi wrote:Image


A perfect response, well done that man. :up:

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3299
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Spiny Norman »

jalfrezi wrote:Image


The thread or the project?

TYPHOON3
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed 19 May 2010, 4:38 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by TYPHOON3 »

Spiny Norman wrote:
jalfrezi wrote:Image


The thread or the project?

Both.

Locked