Originally Posted by
tws123
That is true, but although the fees maybe quite high, when it comes to attracting new airlines and routes they can set the prices to a lower level in order to gain the business, like what they did to gain the EasyJet base for example.
As does every airport through new route incentives.
However I think the original post was querying the fairness of paying a subsidy to an operator that also owns the two airports it intends flying between. The answer to that is that if it is in the public interest the route will gain a subsidy.
Ask yourself however why Stobart told the planning officer (and subsequent Court hearings) that a CAX - SEN route was economically viable? Didn't the local farmer point out that the route wasn't economically viable and hence planning for CAX should be refused? Stobart argues the opposite and have now applied for a subsidy... It's a strange old world!
On a commercial point it seems a bit daft for Stobarts to be applying for this subsidy because it tells the competition and customers alike that not even Stobart management have faith in their own airports and in-house carrier.