- Jan 16, 2009
- 2,837
- 233
- Moderator
- #1,821
Creative accounting OR aggressive fixed cost savings owing to the ownership model? It is possible that due to the public ownership things like rates relief can be applied. This will form part of the SAU investigation which I’ve no doubt will be waved through because any consultants commissioned will have already considered this as part of their business plan. I would not be surprised to see the operator forming part of the airport ownership (holding company?) even if they have no initial financial obligations, another factor that I imagine will be subject to SAU review. Still not clear whether there is a private sector backer, this would help to mitigate the risk to the public. So far the involvement of an asset management company and financial backer os only subject to rumour, the FBC makes no mention of this and may allude to this being a target to attract after a period of probing commercial viability.Doubt it -CDC are so far in that they will find it just about impossible to pull out. Reading between the lines from the change of narrative (and of course my interpretation may be incorrect) the original concept of 'shared risk' is out the window - or at least watered down and it seems that at start up the Council will be simply paying the 'operator' to operate - thus much more public subsidy than envisaged. If the input (if finally agreed with the 'bidder') is considered too much of a drain on public resources then of course SYMCA can veto the release of public funds but again unlikely to be brave enough. Unfortunately there does seem to be a lack of transparency hiding behind 'commercial sensitivity but eventually all will have to be revealed. It seems it probably will open with eventually a few holiday flights to placate the locals but as has been alluded to many times that potential business will not sustain the airport. Some creative accounting will be required??
Like you’ve said, this is all being done behind closed doors In the name of commercial sensitivity and there is no transparency that would usually be expected in such a venture, it may be that they are protecting the interests of investors, but really I think they’re doing it to avoid too much public scrutiny because failure to reopen the airport could potentially be unrecoverable politically. Not such a problem for Ros Jones who will admit herself is at the end of her political career, but definitely for Oliver Coppard.