Originally Posted by
stewyb
No doubt there were numerous break clauses in contract!
The Stobart Group prospectus that was published a few weeks back to support the shareholder fund raise, explicitly stated that none of the based airlines are contractually obliged to keep a minimum number of aircraft at the airport. Given the millions that the airport has spent on route development fees ( aka airline incentives) I was surprised that none of the airlines are obliged to stick around. I cautioned against these sweetheart deals from the beginning. Yes, I know route development incentives are common place but if you truly believe you are the owners of a London airport that provides additional capacity in a squeezed marketplace, why pay the airlines to turn up? And if you do pay them, write into the deal that they stay, at least long enough to show the airport a positive return on investment.