italianjon wrote:
but continue to subsidise the loss makers
Or close them?
But closing 16 airports would further affect the internal infrastructure and restrict movement. That does have an economic impact as communications between areas and business are affected. Therefore further depressing the problem. Surely?
italianjon wrote:
But closing 16 airports would further affect the internal infrastructure and restrict movement.
Does it really? Obviously they are not used very much, otherwise there would be not such a big loss.
I am not sure a statement can be made about the size of the loss. I haven’t seen individual accounts for the airports. So can not comment if the losses are large or small. I am only arguing from the point of view that the message from “Europe” is one of ‘we are here to help you balance your books, but you have to give us all of your profitable assets’.
I once passed through Narsarsuaq. I can’t imagine that makes a profit, but is essential to the community. Why does everything come down to money. If the local airport is close to an airport, and someone dies because an organ can’t be delivered on time, is that worth the costs? (I mention that because I saw a plane deliver an organ in Essen a few weeks ago, an airport under threat). Airports are valuable assets to the community in many ways.
For me, this sums it up the whole current F-up quite well.
Obviously they are not used very much, otherwise there would be not such a big loss.
It’s a case of whether they are regarded as essential to the transport infractructure. A lot of stuff in life doesn’t make a profit for somebody. The road passing through the village where I live could not be privatised.
I once passed through Narsarsuaq. I can’t imagine that makes a profit, but is essential to the community. Why does everything come down to money. If the local airport is close to an airport, and someone dies because an organ can’t be delivered on time, is that worth the costs? (I mention that because I saw a plane deliver an organ in Essen a few weeks ago, an airport under threat). Airports are valuable assets to the community in many ways.
Exactly!
Also it is not at all clear they are making big losses. They certainly aren’t making money. But probably not losing more than a few M a year each, and if that money was not spent at the little island airport it would be drawn by a load of locals with no work and on social security (which is what happens in N Europe).
Most of the smaller airports serve the islands, and are used both by tourists and by the locals who live there. The only alternative is the ferry which is very cheap but takes for ever – it usually travels extremely slowly. This is the typical scene – Kalymnos
Most of the Greek assets thus far marked-off for sale (to Germany, mostly, I guess) will be sold off for money which is absolutely trivial on the scale of the Greek debt landscape.
IMHO, Greece should have just defaulted on the €300BN and printed a load of Drachmas. It would teach a lesson to the moneylending sharks to not be so greedy and cynical next time. But then maybe the German airport owners will perform a miracle and set up avgas at a load of new locations 
Next fly-in will be in Greece!
I once passed through Narsarsuaq. I can’t imagine that makes a profit, but is essential to the community.
During most of the year there is no other way to Narsarsuaq than by aeroplane. So there is a good reason why it is subsidised. (And, if I remember well, the landing fees were way above average there as well).
If the local airport is close to an airport, and someone dies because an organ can’t be delivered on time, is that worth the costs?
There are rescue helicopters for that which can land everywhere.
Why does everything come down to money.
Not everything. But Greece has no money left and more important tasks on hand than keeping small airports/airfields running. First things first.
Airports are valuable assets to the community in many ways.
As long as the community can afford them. When they cost more to run than they contribute to the well being of the community than closing them might not be the worst option.
The idea of privatization is to get investments. That is the core of the deal with Fraport and btw, it’s a time limited concession, not a sale of property (i.e. the land the airport is on). The Greek government is neither in a position to invest nor does have the qualification to manage those assets in a good way. Thus the hope to get private organizations bring both money and expertise. It can work, it can go wrong.
Remember when phone companies were government agencies? Do you think governments did wrong by privatizing them? Would we be better off with government employees managing our telecommunication?
The much bigger deal is the harbor of Pireaus with China.
The Greek government is neither in a position to invest nor does have the qualification to manage those assets in a good way
Actually one does wonder why Greece could not turn e.g. Corfu airport into a duty free shopping place. Obviously it would be too late and irrelevant in the current scenario but clearly Greece does know how to set up a shop! So what prevented them?
Olympic Handling have become a model of efficiency and customer service, when they got privatised a few years ago. A huge difference from 2004 when I first went there (LGKR). So they do know how to do it…
Unfortunately everything “economic” works against GA facilities because they almost never make money. In the countries where GA activity is low, GA can only ever live on the back of an infrastructure paid for by airline business or the taxpayer.
In the countries where GA activity is low, GA can only ever live on the back of an infrastructure paid for by airline business or the taxpayer.
And what countries have so much G/A activity that they do produce economically viable “G/A only” aerodromes? Egelsbach might be one, and Biggin Hill, and a handful more in Europe, but I can’t imagine there’s more than a handful. That is not really the point, though. As has been rightly pointed out, transportation infrastructure need not be economically viable. Who demands railways or canals to be self-supporting? The main point is, aerodromes with no airline service are generally considered playgrounds for the rich. I am afraid the average G/A trip report, here and elsewhere, does nothing to amend that misconception.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
And what countries have so much G/A activity that they do produce economically viable “G/A only” aerodromes? Egelsbach might be one, and Biggin Hill, and a handful more in Europe, but I can’t imagine there’s more than a handful.
There are a lot, my little airfield EDTH is one of them. OK, the Bundesland adds some money, basically pays a part of the AFIS salary but it’s them who insist on having an AFIS, not the pilots. The airfield itself is paid for by fuel, landings fees and hangarage and quite well so that a new fuel stations, new runway and new hangars can be paid for (with bank loans). There are many airfields like that.
Let’s do simple maths for a small airfield:
Provide hangarage to 50 airplanes at 200 € each and you have 120 000 € a year. Sell 100 000l of fuel a year at with .30€ margin per liter and you have you have another 30 000 €. Collect 5000 times 10 € landing fee (14 landings a day) and you have another 50 000 €. Together that’s 200 000 € which is not too bad.
