Originally Posted by
G-FORZ
it would be reasonable to assume the CPO to include all within the boundary of the article 4 document. Airfield, Hangers, Car Park, Rail link site, ATC.
I would suspect the revenue from activity in all these areas would exceed the stated £8.4m for a similar passenger throughput to 2022.
if only 15% of PAX parked a car for a week @ £50/wk this would generate £7.2m - convinced this sits in the £8.4m? If so Peel must have been giving away almost everything else.
Under CPO rent from tenants in all aviation related areas , all ancillary activity income, and normal airport fees would come back into DSA revenue.
Interesting to note that at MME on the transition from Peel to new owners in 2019 accounts, the restated revenue for 2018 increased by 30% (PAX numbers were unchanged)
Not sure how you calculated the car parking revenue..? If half of the passengers who used the airport in the FY 22 paid £50 to park for a week I make that around £5million in revenue. Of course this is an optimistic figure.
So the land the CPO will acquire if successful is exactly the same land DavidJPowell alludes to being restrictive in its revenue potential?
Interestingly, though revenue increased with increases in passenger numbers, so too did costs and they widened the losses. So this is the complete opposite of what people seem to believe in that Peel priced themselves out of the market. Their commercial agreements were on the whole generous going by this and the other snippets of information released over the years.
I wouldn’t use MME as a benchmark for anything, Teesside Airport Foundation, anyone? Now that is one way to avoid scrutiny of the use of public money….