Can't pick any faults at all with the argument and explanation.
OK - I'll have go then!
now second tier airports such as Newcastle and Leeds etc have nothing to fear as they can lose money hand over fist and rack up almost as much debt as they like (and often do - as their accounts available free online often show), because no local authority or incumbent UK government is going to allow such a facility to enter liquidation, they'll always be able to secure re-financing from somewhere.
This is a novel argument which I'm not sure I follow - LBA is privately owned and NCL 50% privately owned, but local/national government won't let them fail? How is debt a problem if you can service it?
so when the likes of Thomson (who don't forget axed three routes of their own accord before DTVA axed them) are only willing to offer a couple of weekly rotations for six months, and are having to heavily discount the seats in order to sell them, it's just not worth it.
Hadn't Thomson had just doubled the number of flights and BGH had also just re-introduced flights before being told to do one mid-season. Bit of an abrupt change of direction from DTVA. Also, I've still not seen how a B.738 in the middle of the week to Palma loses money but an EMB to Jersey in the middle of a Saturday afternoon is OK?
This is where diversification comes into play, in our case, Peel looked to sweat the assets to achieve an increase in rental income, something which they have excelled at as office space, hangars and GA parking aprons are all now full, and we have at least four firms that are screaming out for their own new-build hangars, some may have already signed on the dotted line, but here is the problem, Peel will not and rarely ever have dipped into their own pocket (maybe because they are only asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich?), so in order to raise the necessary funds, they've looked at what the Government is currently looking for, the answer is houses, which is ideal as that's their trade (but does no favours for the lingering and now-boring conspiracy theories).
More than happy with the diversification strategy, but never been happy with this "asset-rich and not necessarily cash-rich" argument. From Wiki - "Peel is one of the largest property investment companies in the United Kingdom" and "The Group is currently focused on the £50 billion Ocean Gateway development" but they can't build a couple hangars that customers are screaming out for? Really? And are Peel big in housing?
but by and large, we will be pretty much the same airport in ten, twenty, thirty years time,
So the south side development, which is supposed to be just for aviation related use, is going to have no impact on the operation of the airport?