Originally Posted by pug
Well, I'd use pax numbers as a good first approximation of viability ... Put all into an econometric model, place in a warm computer and cook the figures until ready.
That is assuming that airports with perhaps limited passenger numbers (due to a small or less prosperous catchment for example) would not be viable without those passenger flights. I would bet that many of the airports listed as 'regional' and 'marginal' by s7s do not rely too much on revenue from passenger services, particularly those in the 'marginal' catagory. I suspect many are commercially viable even if they dont appear so on the CAA passenger statistics.
Agreed. Taking the demographic data and plugging it into the standard econometric model will only give you a standard answer, generally "more of the same". Part of the distortion I referred to above is connected to the obsession with "growth" and "passenger numbers". There is more to business (and profitability) than footfall.
Besides, those populations of high-earners may well be prepared to spend more on their flight, but how much of that feeds through to the airport? These are the same folk that are prepared to pay for a taxi to the terminal, fast-track security clearance and priority boarding. Why? So they don't have to hang around spending more money.
The regional airports destined to survive, even flourish, are the ones who stop trying to be like Heathrow, Stansted, Amsterdam, etc and offer a service adapted to their local population. Just because that population doesn't come up as "wealthy" in the stats doesn't mean they can't be more economically viable than a million bargain-hunting sun-seekers.