BLDBOS - That ten year number relates to the projected timescale from the start of construction through to completion of the terminals transformation project. That was the issue under discussion in my reply to an earlier post.
Now, you may feel that terminal redevelopment should have started ten years earlier, but that is a different argument altogether. You can't just quote my answer and pretend that it was posted in response to an entirely different question.
Meanwhile, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Who would have forecast the return of $45 oil and the lift it has given to airline expansion? Were you posting that forecast ahead of time? Did you forecast the fundamental change of strategy at carriers such as EZY and RYR which has driven a significant proportion of growth at MAN in recent times? Did you post to advise MAN to anticipate the relocation of aircraft from other bases which had previously appeared untouchable? And of course, back in Autumn 2008 when the banking crisis hit and the credit markets seized up ... what were you posting then? If MAN had been committed to a crippled major investment back then, you'd no doubt have posted a barbed 'benefit of hindsight' comment in the manner of the one above.
We can all be experts on what should have been done after history has happened!
Now, allow me to speculate on the matter of the next ten years rather than posturing disapprovingly about the past with hindsight on my side. It is human nature to project current conditions far into the future when planning ahead. If growth is present, our instinctive inclination is to project that rate of growth forward indefinitely. But experts know that real life isn't like that. Markets ebb and flow. My own projection is that we will face another financial crisis at some point over the next ten years (probably much sooner) and it will probably emerge from the overheated credit markets. There is way too much debt out there, massive amounts of capital have been misallocated during the era of low interest rates and QE. Many corporate bonds will default going forward and that will cause contagion throughout the global economy. Airline growth will suffer in line with other sectors of the economy, and major airports will endure another period of contraction before growth can restart from a lower base post-recession. In the meantime, some familiar names will disappear as we saw in the past with likes of Swissair, Sabena and XL. And Transaero just days ago.
Meanwhile, oil prices will not stay low indefinitely. Production will fall to meet demand as higher-cost producers are driven out of the market. That clearout process has already begun, though there will be a time-lag before it filters through to end-user pricing. The airlines are flying in sunshine for now.
If I am right - and of course I may be quite wrong (hope so) - then MAG's plan to build in modules and not overstretch themselves based on a best-case scenario will look like genius. The next planned module can be paused if necessary until economic conditions recover. And MAG will be less exposed to the risk which comes with an enormous debt-financed project through a challenging period of declining traffic.
MAG cannot plan for a 'Goldilocks scenario' alone as you would have them do. But if that does come to pass, they'll do fine. Just keep building full-speed-ahead.