Originally Posted by
davidjohnson6
If a piece of land with a runway has neither passenger or cargo transport activity... would an ordinary person on the street really consider it as an airport... or is it really an industrial site with some very unusual usage of land ?
My point is that the further away MME gets from the ordinary commercial transport of people and goods... the further it gets from what non-aviation people associate with an airport, and the consequent implications for public support from local people.
If it ends up hosting thousands of high skill jobs, that's great and it will be recognised by the local populace... but if it becomes something closer to just a noisy factory paying minimum wage, then local people may start to wonder how the runway facility is useful to them and why it should consume tax subsidies which could be used for other purposes in the region
Where's this idea of no passenger activity come from? The Mayor has made it very clear from the outset of his campaign that the airport is about global connectivity and attracting inward investment - see his quote in my post 1289 above.
But to quote the recent comments coming out of the airport it's about "sweating the assetts" - using everything that is available, so not just relying on pax through the terminal - the point made by Onion above. So a business park with a runway in the middle is 'one of the aims' (as I said above), but this is additional to a bustling terminal
Have they got everything right? no. Are there questions about the way somethings have been done? yes. But the general direction of travel is positive.