A rant about Knock Airport

monument

Originally posted by Eurorunner
you should note that looking at the bigger picture, €3.8 million is not a whole lot. Let me put this in perspective for ya..just today, it was reported that €100k/week in mileage money will be paid out to prison officers due to the closure of a couple of our prisons - requiring them to work at other prisons - OT i know, but you get my point i think?

No, I don't think he does.

ishmael whale

I take it this means that you don’t want to address the point that its not just the €3.8 million, but its also the flawed approach to regional development, which stops any one location developing necessary economies of scale.

Continuing the existing approach simply underwrites Dublin as the main growth centre, but I take it you’ve no appetite to discuss that either, any more than suggesting what government might do to promote balanced development that hasn’t already been tried and found wanting.

Eurorunner

Originally posted by monument
No, I don't think he does.

Wanted to highlight the fact that money just gets wasted in other areas - whereas i dont see this €3.8 million of national funds as a waste as such.

I take it this means that you don’t want to address the point that its not just the €3.8 million, but its also the flawed approach to regional development, which stops any one location developing necessary economies of scale.

huh? what makes you say that? Clearly, the approach to regional development has not been successful so we have reached consensus on this point.

Continuing the existing approach simply underwrites Dublin as the main growth centre, but I take it you’ve no appetite to discuss that either, any more than suggesting what government might do to promote balanced development that hasn’t already been tried and found wanting.

Well, i think keeping the emphasis on infrastructure throughout the country could never be seen as a bad thing. Oherwise, there are no easy answers. I put it to you in a previous post - what would you suggest would be the best way to further develop west of ireland.
i did this to a). help you to appreciate that it is a difficult problem and one that wont be solved by shutting down the little infrastructure that exists.
b). cos i genuinely want to here your (or anyone elses) suggests on the subject - i dont claim to have an 'easy-fix' solution.

ishmael whale

Eurorunner,

Firstly, remember my last post was more in response to Monument’s single line contribution.

We should try to put the question of ‘waste of money’ to rest. Others may waste a lot of money, but this does not mean that we can waste a lesser sum of money. “They’re getting away with it, why can’t I” is not a justification. For purposed of our debate I’m sure we can agree that if Knock is not a waste it should continue to be subsidised. I hope we can also agree that if it is a waste it should be stopped.

What makes me say that its not only the €3.8million, but the denial of necessary economies of scale, is the analysis that informed the national spatial strategy. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that scattering infrastructure throughout the country is a bad thing. This is the present approach, and you are advocating a continuation of the present approach so we are not in agreement that the current approach is not working. You are advocating the status quo, which inevitably leads to more development for Dublin by default.

Taking a broader perspective for a moment, developing the regions has been an objective of Government policy since at least DeValera. It has failed, despite investment of considerable resources. By the late sixties, Dublin’s share of the national population had increased from one quarter to one third. Faced with this failure the Buchanon report recommended that growth be concentrated in a small number of locations outside Dublin, so that the critical mass would be created to balance Dublin. The report was shelved because it was unpalatable to the areas not earmarked for development, and Dublin continued to grow. Now it accounts for 40% of population and heading for 45%.

The National Spatial Strategy analysis pretty much repeats the Buchanon analysis, pointing out that lack of a major centre elsewhere make Dublin’s growth inevitable. The Strategy, perhaps mindful of the fate of Buchanon, tries to find a balance between the need for a few centres with the political need to scatter. In my opinion they scatter too widely, and wider than their own analysis would suggest. However, even this has proven too much to achieve and, as we know, the proposed government decentralisation ignores the Spatial Strategy - most of the locations are towns not earmarked as centres - and repeats the same mistake.

The regional airports policy is a good example of what wrong with this approach and why it needs to be changed. When you say “it is a difficult problem and one that wont be solved by shutting down the little infrastructure that exists” you are actually mistaken. Part of the problem is having little bits of infrastructure scattered so thinly that they make no impact.

Apologies in advance for being blunt, but when you say you don’t have an 'easy-fix' solution I find myself asking have you any solution at all?

ishmael whale

There’s a report on the Dept of Transport website about regional airports, of interest to this old thread. Its more restrained than what I would say, but I still take comfort from it. Presumably they knew this was in the offing, which explains their recent huffing and puffing. The news item below is at:

http://www.mayonews.ie/current/news.tmpl$showpage?value1=32878342955973

I found the full report at:

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/4803-0.pdf

I particularly like the line "The benefits to tourism or to regional development have been stressed to us in interviews and submissions. However, no quantification of these benefits has been offered,"

Of course if the cornerstone of your airport is charter flights to Lanzarote its hard to put detail on the case that its contributing to your region’s tourism and development rather than the Canary Island’s tourism and development. They have a news item on their website saying they also have “charter flights to the leading European shrines of Lourdes, Medjugorje and Fatima”. I thought the original idea was the airport would bring the faithful to the Basilica. Are they even losing out in the apparitions market.

Mindful of the suggestion that Knock could not be expected to succeed without improvements to other infrastructure, the report notes that if other forms of transport improve it reduces the need for the airport rather than assists it.

Knock Airport to lose Dublin route?

by ELISHA COMMINS
elishacommins@mayonews.ie

THE death knell has been sounded for Knock airport’s daily Dublin service with the publication of the Department of Transport’s review of subsidised regional air services. The report reveals that in 2003 government subsidisation of the Knock-Dublin route was five times that of the Galway and Kerry services and over twice that of other regional airports.

"The position in Knock is striking. With by far the highest per passenger subsidy levels, it throws into sharp focus the cost implications of providing such a Public Service Obligation flight," the report states. Income from the service in 2002 (€660,000) was 52% of total flight income at Knock International.

"Although the airport survived prior to the introduction of the PSO service (in 2001), it may have built up a dependency on the increased income, which may be difficult to reverse," according to the review.

However, the report notes that Knock airport has a number of well-established routes to the UK and significant charter business, concluding that the airport "would likely survive the loss of the Essential Air Service Programme, unlike other airports."
This would appear to put Knock airport first in the firing line for subsidy cuts and given the high levels of subvention, it is unlikely that decentralisation of a government department will save the service, which has been dogged by delays and problems of reliability.

The government established Public Service Obligation air services in the 1990s on the basis that these services were considered vital for economic development of the regions. On foot of the PSOs, the Essential Air Services Programme was put in place. Knock Airport was the most recent addition to the programme in 2001.

Chief Executive of Knock International Airport, Liam Scollan, has said that the management are disappointed that the public service air route has not lived up to expectations, either for the airport or the State.

Given the performance of the Knock-Dublin flight, there is no doubt that the service will cease to exist without the subvention, the report indicates: "The planned improvements in road and rail connections will reinforce this."

While the PSO service represents only 5.3% of the airport’s passengers, the service is very significant financially for the airport. While the airport took in €660,000 in 2002 under the EASP programme, management say that wages in relation to the service amounted to €553,000, which would mean €107,000 lost per annum if service was cut, as well as unavoidable job losses.

With a €110 cap on fares, each return passenger on the Knock-Dublin flight is subsidised by the State to the tune of €560. In other words, the State pays 25 for every 21 paid by passengers on the Knock-Dublin route. "These subsidies are considerably in excess of those encountered in the other public transport modes," the report states.

Liam Scollan has pointed out that the PSO subsidy is paid directly to the airline operating the route, not the airport. "We would also query the report’s calculation of subsidies at €560 per return trip. Our own estimates indicate that the airline operator received a subsidy of €224 per passenger in 2003," he said. Out of this, the airport received €43 per passenger.

The report, prepared for the government by DKM Economic Consultants, acknowledged that Knock International was the busiest of the regional airports but also stated that its location was less attractive, situated between two competing airports at Galway and Sligo airports, and with no urban hinterland. "Any passengers wishing to use the airport must drive a distance to do so," it is stated.

"The benefits to tourism or to regional development have been stressed to us in interviews and submissions. However, no quantification of these benefits has been offered," the report states.

Airport Chief Executive, Liam Scollan, also stated that the flight currently leaves Dublin in the evening and returns in the early morning, thereby not allowing Dublin passengers the opportunity to depart Dublin in the morning and do daytime business in the Western region. "We believe that a Dublin to Knock morning rotation would greatly improve business," he said.

"Also, improved punctuality and marketing by route operator Aer Arann has led to increased passenger numbers on the flight in the last two months," he added.
The news has come as a blow to the airport which enjoyed its most successful year to date last year with over a quarter of a million passengers passing through the airport and a 30% increase in turnover. The airport recently added to new routes to the UK – Glasgow and a second Manchester flight.

monument

Originally posted by ishmael whale
"Although the airport survived prior to the introduction of the PSO service (in 2001), it may have built up a dependency on the increased income, which may be difficult to reverse," according to the review.

So what is wrong is the dependency on the PSO, and not the airport, do you agree?

ishmael whale

Indeed, let us be clear. If the airport can exist on its own without subsidy as a genuine private venture, then its future is its own. I only get worried if someone suggests there is a case for state funding on the basis that its allegedly contributing to regional development.

monument

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Indeed, let us be clear. If the airport can exist on its own without subsidy as a genuine private venture, then its future is its own. I only get worried if someone suggests there is a case for state funding on the basis that its allegedly contributing to regional development.

Agreed, but only if no other private airports were getting state funding.

Not including once off funding for expanding etc - if such expansions could be maintained without long term state funding.