Originally Posted by
runway30
If you don’t believe these ten year deals are enforceable, can I point you in the direction of Durham Tees Valley Ltd. v. Bmibaby Ltd.
Have you read the decision? It is not about whether or not such deals are enforceable, it is about whether the wording of the contract in question constituted a right to operate or a duty to operate. If Flybe has learned anything from that decision, it will have the correct wording in place.
That aside, the interesting questions are:
1) Did bmibaby operate until 2014 out of DTV because of that contract?
2) Did DTV recuperate the monies paid to bmibaby?
3) Has DTV been able to lure lots of new airlines to its shores after having sued bmibaby as a matter of principle?
Long story short, if Flybe needs to dump CWL or DSA in order to survive, they will happily do so and suggest the airports to sue them and find out if Flybe will be around long enough to see the end of court proceedings and debt collection - and if so, if that will or will not be the final straw for BE. In the meantime, no more flights from the only remaining regional airline in the UK from anywhere to these airports. It is really not so much a legal as a practical issue for all parties involved.
I would've thought a consolidation of poor performing routes over base closures would be better. BE could be making good money off some routes which may not be able to be operated if a base closes completely.
Base closures do not necessarily mean the end of operations at the airport in question.