Originally Posted by
OzzyOzBorn
I think that most of us on this forum recognise that an airport is a much bigger deal than a passenger terminal alone. DSA's issue is that it is a persistent loss-maker even taking full account of the range of ancillary activities across the site. The main fixed costs associated with running an airport do not relate to the terminal building. In order to maintain its status as a licensed airfield, runways, taxiways and navaids must be maintained to exacting standards, specialist staff must be employed to make this happen; an Airport Fire Service must be maintained - a very well equipped one if you're thinking B747 freighters; ATC provision must be maintained, robust site security is essential. Spare parts (eg. replacement runway lights) manufactured to aviation standards cost a fortune. High-spec equipment must be constantly checked and calibrated. Grassland must be maintained, bird activity controlled, wildlife kept away from runways etc. Regular inspections of runways and taxiways must happen on an approved schedule. All of this is so expensive that if you're going to keep it going, switching on the lights in your (existing) passenger terminal is the least of your worries. You might as well keep it open. The big cost savings arise from NOT having to maintain licensed airport infrastructure, and from NOT having to employ highly-qualified airport ops, ATC, security and AFS personnel.
What Peel need to assess is whether continuing to carry those high fixed costs makes financial sense. And they need to offset the opportunity cost of NOT redeveloping the site as a high-yield industrial estate against the financial burden represented by the ongoing licensed airfield commitment (set against income from aviation-related activity). Based upon their recent statements, the maths in this respect don't make for happy reading.
Peel have made on paper a great deal of money having an agreed plan, based on the airport allowing the change of use on hundreds of acres of land from agricultural land to commercial and residential uses and offsets the losses in running a passenger terminal.
Now that they have the Gateway east plan in place perhaps they feel they can unlink that plan from the airport use. Time will tell how successful that is (my guess is very).