Originally Posted by Based
While undoubtedly at the higher end of the scale, 1 job per 1000 passengers, whether direct or indirect, is as good an estimation as any really.
But why is it "as good as any"? Why not 1 per 100 or 1 per 10000? I'm not aware of Ryanair ever providing a justification for their passengers/jobs "exchange rate".
I'd suggest there are two sorts of jobs created by air services: the direct ones (check-in staff, airport handlers, etc.), and the indirect ones (companies being able to win more international business because they can reach their customers more easily, so they hire more staff; or jobs in tourism thanks to an increase in the number of tourists).
It should be pretty obvious that a new route opening up an underdeveloped tourist area, or dramatically improving business connectivity, will have a different employment impact to a "more of the same" service in competition with existing routes.
It's not as though NRW is an area underserved with transport links, and I suspect most of the passengers are originating from NRN rather than inbound to the area, so the Ryanair network there is unlikely to be contributing much indirectly to the local economy. Indeed, if it's facilitating local people travelling abroad (which of course they have every right to do
) you could argue that it's helping to take money out of the local economy. But that's globalisation and the single market.
Bottom line: I give as much credence to Ryanair's one-size-fits-all jobs/passengers exchange rate as I do to the official Zimbabwe dollar exchange rate...