Is there any comparator of other airports that lack based aircraft but are financially stable. What kind of flight numbers and/or passenger numbers may be needed to sustain operations?

1 million pax per year seems to be a number often quoted as a rough benchmark for a financially viable "full service" airport. In 2019, SEN saw over 2m pax

Sounds about right as during the runway extension application at SOU, it was suggested that between 1m-1.2m was break even for a viable future. Of course SOU doesn’t have any substantial ancillary income from other aviation services on site!

I think you missed the humour in AirportPlanner1's post. There's certainly a long way to go!

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/237...ght-ownership/


Clearly not enough potential to stop Esken selling it
​​​​​​​

An interesting RNS update from Esken this morning; it would appear Carlyle Global Infrastructure Fund are taking legal action against LSA...



Full statement: https://tools.eurolandir.com/tools/P...wpf&v=redesign

UPDATE (to include link to media source): https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk...e-1027677.html

I see that the matter is described as a 'technical breach' rather than 'a material breach' of contract. The former is usually something of a relatively minor nature so I wonder if there may be more to this move than is immediately apparent.

Aviation bits from the statement

A breach by the borrower will lead to a minimum of £193,750,00 (less any interest that has already been paid on the loan) becoming immediately payable to the lender.
Although the lender has defined the current breach as technical in nature, a breach of the contract is just that - a breach. The penalty for the breach is not something Esken can pay.
All of Esken's assets including the airport are pledged to the lender in support of the loan. I'm guessing a change of ownership in favour of the lender will be the end result.
The only question remaining is what does Carlyle want to do with the airport site? Underperforming, cash draining airport, or lucrative housing?

Something wrong with that figure, commas in the right place?

Would the council really give permission for a significant change of use ?

Or maybe Gatwick could pay £250m to Carlyle, and then persuade the PM that if they get full permission to operate twin runways, they will shut Southend down, and HM Govt can say that the number of active runways in the south east hasn't changed so the green crowd needn't worry ?

£193.75m

I thought the loan was only £125m https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk...rt-954065.html

I was thinking the same, as I have never seen a figure of £193 million mentioned before.

So what exactly is a technical breach? Examples please. Either they are paying their loans off or they are not. Have they borrowed more money to pay the interest payments or have the loan repayments been deferred by arrangement?

So you seem to be saying that if Esken default on the loan a sum of £193,750,00 would be payable. I accept that your calculation may be correct in that event. However, this legal case relates to "technical breaches by LSA with respect to the convertible loan agreement ". Do you have additional information that leads you to the conclusion that this is tantamount to Esken defaulting? I'm not suggesting your conclusions are wrong just that I cannot find any evidence to support them.

Not necessary a default, but what are the 'other circumstances' other than a default?

"Indeed, according to MS Aviation, Luton now has three Fixed Base Operators (FBO)" NetJets I assume included as they have hangar of their own but do they have a terminal- Signature 2? Sorry, not a Southend question but always thought keeping FBO in house at Southend rather getting one of the big boys in is holding them back.