SWBKCB - A pretty factual summarization I'd say.
My point is to question, even before any construction takes place, then does the plan actually make financial sense?, given the ongoing lack of progress ref bullet point #2 re the development of civil aviation.
I certainly can see no (
aviation related) logic in the premature scaling back of pax services i.e. IT's etc. when there was no pipeline to replace these services, & no "short term plan" other than a reduction of the ground handling services / costs.
At this point then I see nothing positive out that this action other than a small contribution by cost reductions to ongoing losses at best.
What it does not appear to address is the necessary improvements in DTV's "commercial product" to present a convincing argument that increases in short range regional flights are anything more than fantasy.
In summarizing I see that a plan which promotes the development of DTV in any civil aviation (i.e. pax related) as nothing more than a big con. The only reason that it can be portrayed as anything other than nonsense is that the KL service contract has remained in place.
Unfortunately as & when this is up for renewal then as I see it then DTV’s position as an active civil airport will (conveniently for some) be past the point of no return.
Finally I am surprised that some posters (DTVAirport take note!) do not study the fate of Sheffield airport in more depth. There are lessons to be learnt, however then it has always been unclear to me as to what side of the fence these posters interests actually lie
