Lively board...
Wow – this must be one of the most populated and used threads on this site. Just goes to show the amount of emotion our little airport stirs up.
I want to add something on the “deliberately run into the ground” theory. I see three possibilities and likely outcomes:
1) The airport is being deliberately run into the ground and the owners are simply going the long way around to close it.
2) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, however the consequences of their actions last week mean it will be very difficult to expedite as confidence ebbs away from the core business (customers and airlines).
3) The owners have what they believe is a credible plan, and, because the plan could be focussing more and more on non-passenger revenue, there is a chance that any consequences could be limited and it could work.
If I was a betting man, I’d suggest outcome 2 is probably the most likely, with scenarios 1 and 3 having even weight.
However, another dimension to consider; who is the management? My gut feel is that the local management; i.e. the ones we hear and see on the TV; the ones who come up with the plans; the ones who interact with the community/FODTVA are actually a bunch of folks with the best of intentions; trying hard to make the airport a success. However, if there is to be some question marks about “intent” and “ambition”, maybe that should be directed at the ultimate owners; those who we don’t see and who, potentially, could find a more lucrative way to earn off the land should the airport not remain.
As for FODTVA; I think some of the comments are unfair. An enthusiastic group of people who want to help; coupled with local management who need as much community help and support as they can get. I don’t see any wrong in that. Are they being taken advantage of? Well, I suspect they are big enough to look after themselves. Is it morally right? Well, both parties are consenting so who are we to dispute?
I also don’t think another RGF bid is necessary. That ship has sailed. RGF success requires solid business plans which promise growth and local jobs. RGF is also supposed to be a “catalyst” – i.e. the business plan should state that without RGF support, the business plan wouldn’t work – with RGF, it would – it isn’t meant to be just ‘free money’. This in theory ensures the money goes to plans where the government believes the money would catalyse success. (i.e. transform). This is a big requirement and the fact that they’ve been turned down twice tells you something.
As for the constant questions about Peel, special handshakes, council deals etc… these questions have been posted countless times now and we must be running out of new ways to ask the same question. So, for those interested in finding out the answers; why not investigate yourselves; take it to the local media or the local council. I’m struggling to understand what asking the same question time and time again here adds?