View Single Post
Old 19th May 2014, 19:54
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 311

Re Thomson:

The problem when you have 1 or 2 weekly flights every week, you then have to staff up permanently for them and carry these costs such as security and terminal services. But crucially, as these 2 flights a week push the fire category up by 1 or 2 bands, then you need additional firemen and that starts to cost big money (plus additional fire kit for the larger aircraft has to be maintained etc)

All of this costs significant money for 1 or 2 flights a week (which are probably paying very little in landing fees and so there is little hope of the airport making their money back)

There's no doubt that the airport loses money. If there was a realistic possibility of a new based 737 operator then you would (business sense) suffer the losses but the radically changed aviation industry over the past few years, and unfortunate demise of the bmi group which was the lifeblood of MME, it is unlikely that MME will make inroads into the LBA / NCL stronghold.

So, on balance, I personally see why they did what they did with charters, and although it's a shame and the public don't understand the reasons, it makes good business sense.

Now, for a one off charter such as the Lourdes, you can charge a higher fee to the operator and also cover the costs with a bit of overtime so it can be done and at least the airport break even. You can't use overtime when it's a regular thing as people end up with no time off .
cumbrianboy is offline