- Jan 16, 2009
- 2,759
- 233
- Moderator
- #2,441
It makes you wonder who’s adviser on these timescales. Seems they’re under pressure from the lease, anyone know why their lease costs have suddenly increased and whether there may be some performance related stipulations in there?There's also the CAA lead time to factor in for lots of audits and 'approvals' before an airfield license can be granted - and the CAA are notorious for their two speed approach - 'slow' and 'stop'.
Even if by some miracle they manage to achieve it by next Spring, it does seem highly unlikely that there will be any meaningful aircraft availability. They do seem to be on a hiding to nothing unfortunately for them - and the lease clock continues ticking!
It might well reduce lead time - although I suspect that there are not that many ATC guys - even at contractors - with capacity to spare. Still to recruit I would suspect and the costs of doing that are likely to increase. Of course your point is extremely valid - it's a brave contractor who would progress some of these things without a definite go ahead on the inadequate funding.
Regards the CAA, I’ve been a customer of theirs for over 15 years now. Although my experience is mainly in the licensing side of things I have also had reason to visit the Belgrano and their old city HQ professionally on a number of occasions. They are at best unpredictable, but what concerns me is the pressure that may be placed upon them by certain government ministers and MPs wanting to be seen to be doing something. They must not be swayed by a political pressure to see the airport reopened as soon as possible. Also I understand they can take a first come first served approach to things and I’m sure there are other ACP requirements that might take precedent over a failed airport that managed to secure far more airspace than was required the first time around.
Last edited: