Ok to answer the usual suspects where did I state that there should be repercussions for BOH and not the other businesses that have carried out similar tactics? Of course businesses try to sue each other but there is always an element where a vaguely legitimate argument can cling to. More often than not if tax payer money is being used to help a competitor or there have been underhand tactics to steel business or distort markets.
Regardless of who it is I absolutely do not think anyone can justify one business trying to stop another business from investing its own money in its own business and I would be astounded if anyone on this forum thought differently.
let’s not forget that we are not talking about a letter of objection at the planning stage, which indeed BOH lodged and are entitled to do so. This latest revelation is that they submitted a challenge in the highest court in the land which isn’t exactly a place where you raise matters of this nature. I also think civilisation wouldn’t have come this far if rivals could simply stop competitors from investing their own money in their own business out of jealously or insecurity like BOH’s points seem to come down to. I suppose all the numerous shops that have gone out of business should have sued Amazon for putting them out of business? So when I talk about repercussions I mean for wasting the high courts time and for anti-competitive behaviour which by the way airlines have been fined for as do people who waste the courts time.
I want to make it clear that even when the extension is built I see it having pretty much no affect on BOH as FR and TUI have no interest in having a large base south of London and oldies in BOH are their customer base down here. I wonder if it’s fair to say that passenger flights aren’t even a big part of BOHs business as it has a diverse revenue stream. SOU Will just be able to open routes to further destinations and generate a higher yield by having less payload restrictions.