Originally Posted by
Cyrano
Just a note on this business of "funding". These aren't PSO routes where the taxpayer is essentially footing most of the bill for operating the route. From section 2.3 (7) of the original
UK notification to the European Commission (PDF):
Airport charges will typically only account for maybe 10%-15% of total operating costs of a route (less if you take discounts into account). So this Regional Air Connectivity funding has the potential to subsidise 50% of this, or say 5%, of total operating costs. Yes, it is a small help to the route economics, but not a significant one.
IMHO it's very clear that airlines have applied for routes which were in any case candidates for operation in the next year or two, on the basis that if they can get a bit of a helping hand from the taxpayer they won't refuse it.
I cannot agree with your statement. Can you offer some proof or link to your 10-15% figure? The word 'typically' simply cannot be used for two reasons. There is an absolute plethora of airline/airport deals lasting varying amounts of time and involving all kinds of sliding scale variables. Then there is the creative accounting that lumps huge amounts of operating costs into the actual deal. You simply cannot compare the operating costs into Munich or Frankfurt with the operating costs into Oban, Derry, Carlisle or Norwich etc.
It is an absolute scandalous disgrace that the public's personal money is going to be given to Private well established airline and airport companies to pay for expensive operations that cannot stand on their own two feet. If something works it does not need a 'helping hand'. Routes either work or do not work at certain points in time for very good scientific reasons involving location, competition, demand and price etc. This is what the Govt. should be spending Joe Public's hard earned on! As for the body that decides the 'criteria' for these routes - what an absolute (bad) joke.