Highwideandugly
Figures therefore will stay around the same 150K ish or maybe a slight drop(no holiday flights)
More controversy over the Peel master plan.
Seems to me there is a significant drift off topic, relevant as the continued operation of the police helicopter may be, it seems to me to be a complete sideshow.
Surely the main issue has to to be as to whether the operation of DTV as an active airport can remain viable is the fundamental issue.
Now I have seen all this "propaganda" put out by Peel as to the master plan, but what one isn't shown is the BUSINESS PLAN to support this viability. This should be a pretty simple task for Peel, after all the variance in the likely no. of flights & pax for the future YoY is somewhere "arround Nil" based on current 150k pax p.a. level. Thus as regards future revenue then this is likely to be fairly fixed, as airport charges are known & future overheads & staffing presumably also now identifiable.
Thus leaving out the finance costs (incl Peel Group overhead charges
), then Peel should be able to put out a commercial case to support their stated interest in keeping the airport in operation as a viable entity in itself. Indeeed it is they who continue to state that this is the purpose of downsizeing.
My guess is that the figures don't add up & in reality there is a substantial subsidy required to eliminate an obvious operating loss.
Which goes right back to the beginning to
the question "Why would an aggressively commercial organisation such as Peel throw any subsidy into a loss making activity?, if there are
other options
open to them.