Originally Posted by
davidjpowell
When I get a chance I'll try and get some shots of the airport's ownership. As ever there are layers of leases with different ownerships. Genuinely can't remember where the parking fell. However when Peel bought the site the access road did not exist, only the existing hangers Armstrong House and the building used by the private school. In the meantime Peel has been developing/selling/leasing commercial offices, sheds and residential housing. If an airport had done this it would have a thriving business to support it's airport business. However, you will find these developments are owned and developed by Peel and their subsidiaries and kept well away from the Airport Opco.
This would be one of the biggest challenges of a successful CPO. Restricted to the Article 4 land there is not much land to rely on without stealing from the airport. The same goes for a Lease really. Somehow Peel's surrounding land use needs linking to the success of the airport, but it's really not easy to do and Peel's expensive lawyers will be watching carefully.
I don’t buy this argument. Firstly the footprint of DSA as owned by the operating company is larger than other airports that are more successful. Secondly the airport simply wouldn’t exist where it not for Peel pushing for it, and you cannot support them in building it and then scrutinise their decision to buy by the acre and sell by the lot, as is always the way of a successful land and property developer. The issue I have is that people supported them to the hilt when they were promising to build the airport, it’s only when they take their ball home that everyone seems to be up in arms for them doing exactly what Peel are known for doing.
That said, the airport was not a success not for the lack of trying but for the lack of enough stakeholder buy in. Airlines did not really see it as a viable proposition from which to establish services, this also applies to freight operators. The airport relied on two airlines for the bulk of their passenger throughput, one of which was wavering in its commitment in the final year of operations. There was no scope for growth and any reduction in service levels from trying to reduce costs would have had a direct impact on the incumbent airline operations. You also cannot suggest that they didn’t explore all opportunities with airline and other aviation business as most of the major players flirted with the airport in some way during its history.
Truth is if there is not enough aviation related business to support the airport it is not thriving and never would be, instead it would be better put to other uses.