cf
The fines levied for night flying were charged to Planestation and not Infratil. Would I be correct in suggesting that if some non humanitarian night flights took place now that the council could not impose fines on Infratil?
I agree that a new agreement will be more stringent and will close some of the loopholes and shortcomings of the orignal agreement, therefore why on earth would Infratil want a new tighter agreement, when the current facilities and infrastructure could cope with say 600,000 pax per year.
Even the most optimistic posters are agreeing that this could take 2 years to achieve and the negative group say it will never happen! So if it will never happen why do you want a new agreement? It is not difficult to work out why Infratil dont need to re negotiate at the moment? By demanding this agreement it would suggest that the airport will finally be successful and some posters seem opposed to this.
Also Infratil are not knocking on the door of the local council with their begging bowl as Planestation were. Infratil do actually run airports and therefore have the experience to deal with local councils and will not be bullied by a minority opinion in return for some taxpayers money.
MDIS