Yes, you are correct in what you say, but the reason that the States Of Guernsey bought AUR in the first place was to protect the Gatwick slots. They could decide to sell the airline- if anyone would buy it - or they could close it down. But that would mean that the slots were vulnerable, or lost. There is no guarantee that EZY would protect the slots for them. They would also be writing off over £20m that they have invested in the airline’s losses over the years. They have also guaranteed over £60m which AUR have borrowed to finance the purchase their new ATRs. It would be a very bold decision to pull the plug on AUR, with no surety of a secure Gatwick service from whoever would then provide it.
The other part of what you suggest, although possible, is not as easy as you think. Over the years there has been a loss of many hotel beds. I fear that the remaining bed stock is far from the level required to support the sort of activity that you recommend. Some very important, & complex decisions need to be made. For my part, I think that the States will take the path of least resistance & continue to support AUR financially, fail to extend the runway & generally meander on along the same old path. Why ? Because the Channel Islands are no longer “ money machines “, & cannot throw it around as they did in the past. Nor can they take the risk of spending tens of millions on the airport , losing AUR (because it cannot compete with EZY, for example), & then losing EZY (& the slots) if that airline were to decide that those slots were better value if used on more lucrative routes.