Firstly my posts as to DTV make no reference to "up the road" that is the domain of others & I too do not wish to see this thread reduced into an us vs them. Anyhow to pick up on a few of
Onion's points. It is the long term viability I was questioning, not stating that DTV was not currently viable...in the absence of financial data how would I know? It's obvious to all that low pax figures don't necessarily mean 'not viable',
if an airfield has low overheads and sufficient profits are generated to provide a return on capital employed then all well & good. However at DTV two specific factors are of note: a) it has a large infrastructure which has to be supported by a contribution from all activities whether pax dependent ie flights & retail, or freight, fire trainining or whatever. b) the majority shareholder, Peel who will be looking at the returns that are currently being generated on what is to them an investment as opposed to a responsibility to provide a public service. None of this is being negative or gloating it's fact. I'm sure there are many positives to be taken, but it is their significance in potential contribution to the overall 'pot' that is most important. GSM 'may be trying to maximise profits' yes! along with every other aviation related business.....
Their growth at DTV along with the introduction of further carriers & routes is clearly a very significant & current issue.