Hmmm
I think the first thing to say is Peel could have at any point since circa 2010 claimed the airport was no longer economically viable and closed it and they are repeatedly choosing not too, couple this with the fact that the land would lose substantial value without the airport on it and they have little incentive to close it.
Also good to see Peel finally making clear that the keeping the airport open until 2021 thing is five years longer than their counterparts at other third tier airports are promising:
Originally Posted by Peel
“In recent years we have made a further commitment to the local authorities to maintain airport operations.
“This is very different from the approach taken by many other private companies who have withdrawn from regional airport operations in recent years, with the resulting closure of a number of airports and others, notably Prestwick and Cardiff, surviving only through effective ‘nationalisation’ by the Scottish and Welsh Governments.”
Originally Posted by Gazette
In a second document, titled ‘The best and final offer of Peel’, the operator told the councils that future passenger projections were “conservative” and that it would plan “for even greater numbers”.
This is the case with the figures quoted in the Masterplan, which are merely Government projections.
Originally Posted by Beafer
Wonder if thats why they kicked the large airline out to make the figures worse?
Once again, as mentioned just the other day...Peel had a based leisure airline ready and waiting to come in next summer (also not something you would pursue if you had aspirations to close the place!!), and judging by the timing of TUIs announcement of their summer 19 programme, it must have been them and they are about the only candidate, so not only does this line of argument no longer hold any weight whatsoever, it's downright stupid!
Now I don't want to lower myself to the antagonists level by always having an answer to everything so I will end on a footnote conceding that generally speaking this whole thing is bad; the clause to close the airport is very bad (even if largely meaningless and probably standard business practice when buying a large high risk facility of any kind) and the lack of promised south-side [aviation] development thus far is bad, Peels response today came across with an element of fear about it (or perhaps just frustration at interference from individuals whose business it is none of) and ultimately there are things that need to change.