Revenue per passenger pretty much matched EMA, there are no accounting gymnastics going on with their stated revenue unless you are suggesting that this is an industry wide practice?
The EMA accounts provide a beak down where DSAL did not which is helpful because their accounts suggest that they make around £7.00 per passenger on car parking and retail. When you look at the historic accounts for DSAL it’s pretty much the same - of course allowing for the fact that aviation revenue at EMA (which matches car parking if using a per passenger measure) is much higher probably due to the sheer number of freight movements.
Problem for DSA was that they were throwing money at airlines trying to get them to use it as they had weak bargaining power, and you must know that every time an airline fails to be a success the airport becomes a greater risk which weakens their bargaining power even further to the point where Wizzair U.K. were seen as the final roll of the dice. With weak bargaining power comes lower potential revenue from landing and handling fees cos they have to keep them low to be competitive. We do know that when Wizz moved to LBA they were paying more to do so, so aviation revenues at DSA were probably fairly low.
Based on that, if you still want to accuse them of fraud that’s on you, as is the burden of proof. I’m far from Peels biggest fan, but I think they’re bang to rights on this one.
so you have £10,456,000 for car parking and retail
passengers were 1.1m
How did you calculate £7 for car park and retail?