Post by Buster the Bear on Jul 20, 2015 18:45:38 GMT
Gama Aviation (GMA, Farnborough) has announced it will phase out the Hangar8 and its subsidiary International Jetclub (Farnborough) brands with immediate effect. Gama completed a GBP130 million (USD201 million) merger with Hangar8 Management (Oxford Kidlington) in January this year to form Gama Aviation Plc.
The business aviation specialist said that effective last week, the brands would start to disappear from all non-regulatory items the first being the closure of the Hangar8 group websites and the rebranding of the new Group’s Oxford Kidlington Airport facilities.
Regulatory documentation and approvals (aviation & maintenance) will begin to transition over the coming months in line with the UK Civil Aviation Authority's (CAA) requirements.
“First of all, this change in no way effects the underlying legal entities that will continue to trade under the Gama Aviation brand; nor, in the short term, will changes be made to regulatory documentation without the Regulator’s full approval," Duncan Daines, Chief Marketing Officer, Gama Aviation Plc, commented. "Moving towards a single brand allows us to deliver a single, recognisable service standard across the world. Strategically this is important, as we believe the market requires scale, breadth and depth, driven through a singular focus that is unencumbered by managing multiple brands or service styles.”
Collectively, the amalgamated group operates a fleet of over 140 business jet aircraft comprising Beech (twin turboprop) King Airs, Hawker 1000 and Hawker 850XP/900s, Learjets, Falcon 900s, Cessna Citation 750s, BBJ1s, CRJ-200s, and ERJ Legacy 600s.
Come on you Hatters! http://www.flickr.com/people/busterthebear/
Have these proposals moved forward in the last 2 years?
For a start the report is inaccurate. The proposals were not made by Fairoaks Operations Ltd (FOL) who actually operate the airport, but by GAMA Engineering who operate aircraft maintenance facilities and Heli Air who operate a helicopter training operation. The land on which the proposed development lies is not owned by FOL but FOL have rights to use it for aircraft parking and taxying. Actual ownership of the land is the fly in the ointment and is why there has been no apparent progress on the development. There was also a later proposal to extend the runway by about 200m to allow larger aircraft in; I don't know who put this forward but it was not FOL. There were no details to this proposal so whether the intention was to extend to the west or to the east or both, no-one knows and as there are public rights of way at both ends, it would be extremely difficult! The licensed area of the airfield extends well to the east of the 24 threshold so presumably the intention was to extend there, the land being owned by the owners of the airport itself ie not FOL, they only operate the airport on behalf of the owners. OK now a tongue in cheek speculation; the taxiway south of 24 threshold extends to the airport boundary and just beyond this (about 100 yds) is the MacLaren factory. If this was extended, MacLarens could have their own aircraft flying in and parking at the factory. Jenson Button f'rinstance, often visits using a Be90 Kingair