Originally Posted by
SWBKCB
Is it just me, but surely at this early stage then all that can happen is that in changing owners, then a specified liability passes from one entity to another for a considerable capital sum of £x million or whatever. Irrespective as to this cost, then in theory, "the asset" DTV carry's the burden of a necessity to provide a sound and realistic chance of providing a return on capital invested to the regional councils.
Is it not simply that the backstop to all of this is that the "insurance / security" in structuring such a deal, is that if all else fails then some form of recovery of capital will necessarily need to be derived? & that can only be from the future sale of the only real asset i.e the existing land !
i.e. that for a bottom line, then all that has changed is that the organisation in charge of the land disposal would be the local authorities as opposed to a more commercial conglomerate "Peel Holdings".
One has to accept that if the transfer goes ahead, then in the short term at least, then there will perhaps be a completely different attitude as to what profile of operations is envisaged. No doubt it is seen that the way forward is to turn back around operations and attract new operators operating flights all across Europe, if not even further afield..... But here is the problem, the amount of "further" investment to take this on & drive the airport forward into a position that it can compete with it's competitors is immense.
The buildings & infrastructure are stuck in the 1980's, & the current facilities are not set up for volume. The airport is going to suck up further tens of £million's of investment just to bring it up to standard. Where does this money come from ?
However perhaps the greatest issue is that Teesside has over the past 40 years lost a vast amount of it's major industry, and taking in the general economic conditions it must be doubtful that there is a significantly large enough demand to support any DTV resurrection over the next 5 years at least. Additionally it would be naive to assume that the competition would sit back and allow any further competition attack their market without a fight, thus restricting margins obtainable on any new route development.
In all of this the sentiment is commendable, but in reality have any of the current players really got a clue, let alone the depth of experience and resource financial or otherwise to carry this through ??