Originally Posted by
PIK3141
It a source of employment to many people and a strategic asset. No different to public investment in many other things such as rail, the HIAL airports, the new Forth bridge, the Edinburgh trams, the A9 duelling, et all. It is an investment in the future.
I think you have to understand the difference between investment and subsidy. The two are quite different.
Investment, e.g. the A9 dualling, is a one off cost that (ideally) will deliver a permanent improvement with long term associated benefits – reduced journey times, fuel consumption, accident rates, that kind of thing.
Subsidy is an ongoing cost that props up an enterprise that would otherwise be commercially unviable. It’s benefits are normally temporary and short term since they cease to exist as and when the subsidy is withdrawn. Subsidy can be justified in some circumstances, but not when commercially viable alternatives are available.
Prestwick is not a “strategic asset”. If it shut down tomorrow the aviation industry would not collapse. I think the more objective amongst us recognise that the Scottish Government chose to prop up PIK for blatantly political rather than strategic reasons.