Thus in stating a 'jobs created' figure, one could choose a set of assumptions under which the job creation figure looks best
And I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the ERAA did! Clearly each party is going to make claims that is in their best interest, using acceptable estimation techniques and assumptions to do so is what is important when the true figures cannot viably be obtained. This should have been part of the European Commission's observer role, and is something I have to assume given that they are widely regarded as a credible source and that I cannot verify every piece of information provided to me.
Think how good it would look for MOL if he could back up his claims on job creation from a neutral body whenever the EU investigates Govt-owned airports paying FR substantial marketing fees - just claim it as a valid job creation measure !
What are you talking about here? This research was observed by the European Commission, these are the people who are investigating these airport deals. Not that it would be an important input but surely using something the European Commission has put it's name to is even better than a neutral body!
To get back on topic my only reason for linking to the ERAA document was to point out that Ryanair's estimation of job losses is not completely off the wall and is as valid as any. Some may feel it's overstated, the ERAA may feel the opposite but it's not something that's likely ever to be validated with real data. To get back even further on topic, jobs (exactly how many, who knows!) are at threat here due to a court decision to restrict the hours of operation at Weeze airport at one weeks notice, now that is off the wall!