Originally Posted by
OzzyOzBorn
Is there no obligation on MAG to demonstrate that they're serious about rectifying this? If they wilfully leave the airport unequipped to handle the aircraft concerned, then they get their way by default. If the regulator needs to revisit this issue, someone might be inviting more than a 'knuckle rap' next time?
Cornish has gone now. The new hierarchy need to be on this and sorting it out.
Any link to this decision? To justify the investment I would have thought there would need to be evidence of regular demand for widebody freighter flights, not the possibility of the odd ad hoc charter.