I think the point is that the majority of UK HEMS operations can mark time and go back to an earlier point in time and still provide an adequate service if donations were to fall away.
The ability to sell the purchased aircraft asset, sell or mortgage the property purchased and do away with the double crew and yet still provide what we now see as an existing good service in times of trouble is an attractive win-win money burner for charities currently well placed.
The downside of that strategy is that it is more efficient and tends to reduce overall costs which creates more [surplus] funds. This then faces [some] charities with a future where they will need to build things like 'Centres of Excellence' and the such that are money spinners.....
This does not apply to some of the weaker UK HEMS like Great Western as their reserves are currently low. Also in particular Northern Ireland - that is entirely dependent on Libor money until the charity gets its act together and raises funds. It might be difficult for them as they are hitting the road running with more than enough Libor funds in the Stormont bank to operate for a long time. Most charities started with nothing and were 'hungry' to succeed and raise funds .... how do you recreate hunger with £4M in the bank?
The mystery in this case is why GNAA did not take the new aircraft route. Their AS365 fleet works pretty well but it is old and inefficient.
If they cannot afford a new fleet .... they only have £4M in the bank ... why go for bricks and mortar when the core business is promoted as flying?
All of the charities are different and you can make an unscientific judgement on which of them have the more efficient fundraising strategies by what they fly, what they own and what they have left in the bank.