So do the economics of running an airport depend solely on how many aircraft are flying in and out - or is that simply the yardstick used by spotters?
Your right, maximising site use is how revenue is made. Hence Peel building a golf course, houses, business park and hotel on site. Thats why they will be pushing for the link road, they are good at getting cheap land, like that which came from Finningley Estate and in particular Tinsley Park for a quid, once a link road to the motorway network is in place i would assume land value would go up considerably?
I am not suggesting Peel are not in it for the long-haul but they are a property tycoon first, if an airport was losing money for longer than expected how long woulkd they keep it running?
I belive in the future there will be less of that kind of flight made anyhow
The low-cost boom is over now, this looks to be the exact reason Peel got into airports after LPL success....
What about London City?
What about Shefield City? Would that not have been an excellent location for business flights? That was closed down as soon as they got the opportunity.
Anyone remember Stansted in the 80's? - a couple of CAA 748s, the odd bizjet, the few ad-hoc freight charters from companies which would not be allowed to fly in the EU nowadays, and an MRO base? - no probably not, otherwise they wouldn't be posting.
How can that compare to the modern day airports? Could we not argue that the boom has happened and the potential for a large number of airports has peaked? That the established ones will be the fittest? That airports cannot survive on seasonal leisure flights and a few maintainence companies in the hangers?
Some posters on here have been aimed more at patronising 'spotters'. I suggest some come down from those ivory towers and come back to the original topic.