A and C - Let me just say that I know the journalist of this piece very well, and he has always tried to be as balanced in his reporting about CVT as possible. This GATCO claim was widely reported in other press, and at least this article gives plenty of space to the CAA to report back.
I normally get very irate when anyone who isn't a pilot or CAA spokesperson tries to go on about safety issues, but as 16 blades says, there may be some issues which need attention here at some stage, however small the risk may be (and I thought it was very wrong of GATCO to highlight the no frills airlines - presumably all those freight flights from CVT and MSE teleport themselves across uncontrolled airspace).
The Coventry Observer is one of the few papers to always quote both sides when a new issue is raised to do with CVT, and remember that they are the ones who rubbished CAECA when they tried to claim that infant mortality would rise 50% due to increased pollution.
Even sister paper the Rugby Observer let Andy King vent his spleen last week about how Thomsonfly "will probably fail", and how Coventry Airport shouldn't bother appealing over the terminal, as they "have no chance".
Next, King will be telling us that the government was serious about building Rugby Airport, that British Airways, Virgin and BMI were queuing up to relocate from Heathrow to Rugby, and that several consortia of banks had rushed forward to invest in the project.
And the next departure from runway 23 will be a pink farmyard animal.
If you want to see plenty of anti-CVT reporting, just read the Leamington Courier - see thread
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...readid=144401.