Originally Posted by
TimmyW
Nothing has happened to the runway, the security x ray machines have been removed, but other than that only the retailers have removed their equipment from the terminal.
Having said that, it will take tens of millions worth if investment to reopen, but I'm pretty sure they'll cover that cost, after all the spend 50 million on shiny new council offices not long ago.
A lot of what is outlined in the document references the SOBC which is apparently not to be made public for commercial sensitivity reasons. Risk is mentioned a number of times, as you would expect of any new business venture, however
Paragraph 2.8 in the document states ‘Given the historical trading position of DSA and the significant operating costs of reopening the airport it is unlikely that external debt financing will be accessible to any private investor.’
Basically, if I’m interpreting that right, it’s a high risk investment. It’s relying solely on the conclusions made by Peel and DSAL in their assessment of the airports viability being inherently wrong. It also tells us that funding will need to come from a public body to provide costs of reopening and then subsidise the operation for a possibly undetermined period, I feel it’s a big ask to expect an private sector operator to shoulder the costs of the lease after 6-24 months. They’d probably run a mile! Most regional airports are not massive money spinners in isolation, even if the projected 2mppa is reached in year 10, that still isn’t likely to be enough to be profitable given the ongoing subsidies any airline operator will require. Freight would need significant capital investment on top of the re-opening costs to yield any scaleable results - as already discussed EMA is very close by and has those facilities in abundance.
It’s to be believed that CDC will be relying on SYMCA for funding towards the restart costs, there will be a requirement for ongoing subsidy as also covered in the briefing document. Of course this will get unanimous approval, it would be politically suicidal to vote against it, but it does nothing for the longevity of the business cos the money will dry up eventually depending on who is in the Mayoral position and how much is available to them at any given time. The long term funding required for this project will result in less money for other priorities, that appears to be accepted by CDC.