If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is
I think it's in the public interest that this report is more widely available, so you can now view it
here.
A few thoughts - I can't help but think they've got some numbers wrong... for instance, tucked away is a cheeky plan for an entirely new taxpayer-funded route to Cherbourg, which the report projects will carry 152 passengers in February over 8 block hours in total. Assuming just under 1.5 hours per return flight, that's a 100% load factor on a 19 seater aircraft (or 200% if they're only talking about one-way pax)... and that is definitely not right. If it could do that, then Aurigny would still run it (it was tried, several times, when about twice as many people flew into ACI as they do now). So either way the numbers need serious scrutiny. Same for the proposed Jersey route.
Likewise, why should their passenger tax bill be nearly £150k higher (£669k compared to GR's £525k) if they expect to carry only 1000 more pax? They similarly expect their Eurocontrol/nav bill to be more than doubled (up £68k) despite only increasing movements by 1.6%pa?
They expect to be able to charge higher average fares (thanks to ancillary charges for baggage and booking changes of an avg of £6 per passenger) without affecting passenger numbers at all - and project a slight increase. Straightforward economics of price elasticity of demand, coupled with Alderney's very own experience of increasing air fares, would suggest this is optimistic at least.
More widely, the notion that you can fly a dedicated 19 seater turboprop on a 45 minute hop across the Channel, with massive seasonal variations in demand and incredibly poor airframe utilisation for five months of the year, 365 days a year, with higher fares than at present and expect to make a profit of £10,755 on the route seems bizarre. I don't know of any other airline in the world which can run such an operation profitable with the projected cost base, but it begs the question as to why it requires a subsidy.
A 26% utilisation rate is projected for the month of April. The fact that it's down on Feb, when their projected demand is up 32%, sums up the extent to which these 'costings' need serious scrutiny.
We had a report last year saying the Dorniers might bring the service into profit - just possibly. But here you've got a load of funky numbers and a minimum charge to the States of Alderney for £240k/pa, with projected load factors down substantially on the existing operation. Bearing in mind that this report compares the proposed Citywing operation with the current Trislander operation, and not of the future (cost-saving) Dornier regime, I don't really see what they're getting at. Coupled with the removal of the onus to provide air services on the States of Guernsey, the commercial risks of contracting a third party with annual subsidy levels capped on lower bounds rather than at a maximum, it all looks like it needs a lot of work.