Waterford Airport.

hardybuck

Masala wrote: »

But sure ... isn't it a great country all the same. Cork gets a cheque from head office at the end of the week to keep the place going. Ryanair now their best bud by sending all the Cork lads to the Sun. And Shannon is debt free and gets propped by the Group rental income. So ... what have they got to whinge about.??

DAA basically saved them all. And Shannon think they're too strong to compete against.

hardybuck

Bards wrote: »

Whats holding Ireland back is the beast that's is Dublin gobbling up all the resources of the Land.. Both money and Human....

That's definitely a great debate for another thread. It could be that Ireland needs and benefits from a strong capital like this, but it can also be a double edged sword.

Teebor15

hardybuck wrote: »

You should be aware that Dublin Airport Terminal Two received no state funding, nor will their new runway. They fund themselves.

I'm almost certain that Cork didn't either, they had to swallow €113m in debts inclurred by DAA when developing Cork. They've appealed for State funding that the likes of Kerry airports get and been told nothing is available for them.

Shannon and Cork seem to be struggling. The likes of Kerry and Knock get PSO funding, and Cork and Shannon whinge that they don't.

Sligo Airport were whinging recently that Waterford gets much more funding than they do, despite having similar levels of services: https://www.independent.ie/regionals/sligochampion/news/fears-expressed-on-rescue-service-37993131.html

So the implication is that none of these airports, except Dublin are able to stand on their own two feet, and are not viable without life support from Government funding.

You'd have to wonder if we'd be better off with a smaller number of airports in easier to access locations.

Your narrow mindness show no sign of abating...you're obsession with the finances of the countries airports with zero acknowledgment of the benefits they bring is staggering!

It appears you want to shut down all the airports in country with the exception of Dublin if they make a financial loss. No regard for the thousands of jobs they support directly and indirectly, through business and tourism.

You know what, you're right shut them all down, have Dublin the only entry point to the country, that will definitely help stop Dublin overheating and help the regions to grow. While we are at it why don't we stop building roads and bridges...they never return a cent to the exchequer..complete waste of money!

hardybuck

Teebor15 wrote: »

Your narrow mindness show no sign of abating...you're obsession with the finances of the countries airports with zero acknowledgment of the benefits they bring is staggering!

It appears you want to shut down all the airports in country with the exception of Dublin if they make a financial loss. No regard for the thousands of jobs they support directly and indirectly, through business and tourism.

You know what, you're right shut them all down, have Dublin the only entry point to the country, that will definitely help stop Dublin overheating and help the regions to grow. While we are at it why don't we stop building roads and bridges...they never return a cent to the exchequer..complete waste of money!

What I'm challenging is a state of mind that this airport is absolutely necessary, whatever the cost. I'd be very open to considering that it is vital and a good use of public money, but I have a feeling that if it was such a good idea it would already have happened ages ago. You've also got to bear in mind that the current ask may be the thin end of the wedge, as they may well need more money to keep a bigger airport open.

What is very clear is that the majority of the airports aren't successful businesses. The regional ones like Kerry, Sligo, Donegal and Waterford wouldn't be in existence without State Funding. It appears that the second and third are just about hanging in there, and one airport is hoovering up the vast majority of business.

Dublin Airport definitely needs to be as strong as it is to continue to attract routes that would be lost if the critical mass was more evenly spread. The new runway will be key to getting more routes to long haul destinations in Asia in particular.

The next dilemma is how much public money should be set aside to keep these struggling airports open. How many of the passengers are business people, and how many of them are Irish tourists spending their money overseas for example? I'm sure there is plenty of research out there on that.

So therefore I will take your criticism of narrow mindness and return it back to you. I'm willing to question whether this is a good idea, but it appears most here are not.

curmudgeonly

hardybuck wrote: »

What I'm challenging is a state of mind that this airport is absolutely necessary, whatever the cost. I'd be very open to considering that it is vital and a good use of public money, but I have a feeling that if it was such a good idea it would already have happened ages ago. You've also got to bear in mind that the current ask may be the thin end of the wedge, as they may well need more money to keep a bigger airport open.

What is very clear is that the majority of the airports aren't successful businesses. The regional ones like Kerry, Sligo, Donegal and Waterford wouldn't be in existence without State Funding. It appears that the second and third are just about hanging in there, and one airport is hoovering up the vast majority of business.

Dublin Airport definitely needs to be as strong as it is to continue to attract routes that would be lost if the critical mass was more evenly spread. The new runway will be key to getting more routes to long haul destinations in Asia in particular.

The next dilemma is how much public money should be set aside to keep these struggling airports open. How many of the passengers are business people, and how many of them are Irish tourists spending their money overseas for example? I'm sure there is plenty of research out there on that.

So therefore I will take your criticism of narrow mindness and return it back to you. I'm willing to question whether this is a good idea, but it appears most here are not.

You have just described Iarnrod Eireann , Córas Iomparr Eireann and Expressway, all state transport services, should the same logic apply? No subsidies for essential services , unless it wash'es it's face shut it down?

hardybuck

curmudgeonly wrote: »

You have just described Iarnrod Eireann , Córas Iomparr Eireann and Expressway, all state transport services, should the same logic apply? No subsidies for essential services , unless it wash'es it's face shut it down?

I don't want to get too off topic, but yes - where appropriate.

One of the reasons those companies are doing so poorly is that their unions have them over a barrel.

Teebor15

hardybuck wrote: »

I don't want to get too off topic, but yes - where appropriate.

One of the reasons those companies are doing so poorly is that their unions have them over a barrel.

I'm really starting to warm to this line of thinking. In fact I wouldn't just stop at transport, think of the money we'd save if instead of spending money on health care for senior citizens we just let them die, I mean most are retired anyway so no longer financially viable and will just be a burden on the exchequer!

hardybuck

Teebor15 wrote: »

I'm really starting to warm to this line of thinking. In fact I wouldn't just stop at transport, think of the money we'd save if instead of spending money on health care for senior citizens we just let them die, I mean most are retired anyway so no longer financially viable and will just be a burden on the exchequer!

Well, the thing with the pensioners is that health insurance doesn't really work as an insurance, as the cost isn't calculated in line with risk. As everyone pays the same based on the level of cover the want, it's more of a social fund. Hence why the newer players on the market have to pay risk equalisation to VHI who have a mainly older client base.

But there are definitely times when resources aren't available to fund certain treatments or drugs that could save lives - and someone has to make that call based on evidence.

However, if you were to say that we should privatise the health service - that would be a really interesting discussion for another thread.

Bards

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2015/0707/713260-ryanairs-first-flight/

Teebor15

hardybuck wrote: »

What I'm challenging is a state of mind that this airport is absolutely necessary, whatever the cost. I'd be very open to considering that it is vital and a good use of public money, but I have a feeling that if it was such a good idea it would already have happened ages ago. You've also got to bear in mind that the current ask may be the thin end of the wedge, as they may well need more money to keep a bigger airport open.

What is very clear is that the majority of the airports aren't successful businesses. The regional ones like Kerry, Sligo, Donegal and Waterford wouldn't be in existence without State Funding. It appears that the second and third are just about hanging in there, and one airport is hoovering up the vast majority of business.

Dublin Airport definitely needs to be as strong as it is to continue to attract routes that would be lost if the critical mass was more evenly spread. The new runway will be key to getting more routes to long haul destinations in Asia in particular.

The next dilemma is how much public money should be set aside to keep these struggling airports open. How many of the passengers are business people, and how many of them are Irish tourists spending their money overseas for example? I'm sure there is plenty of research out there on that.

So therefore I will take your criticism of narrow mindness and return it back to you. I'm willing to question whether this is a good idea, but it appears most here are not.

What do you mean whatever the cost? They're not going to build it with melted down gold bars! Its a measly 5m required from the state..same price as a few kilometres of public road.

The airport was always told it needed to fund the runway themselves and they needed buy-in from the counties it intends to serve. They have gone a long way in that regard with both Waterford, Wexford and Kilkenny Councils all committing 2m towards the project. It has always be pointed out how poor the counties of the South East are at pulling together but even Wexford and Kilkenny can see the benefit of a regional airport that they are willing to commit funding towards even if its not based in their county.

Your entire post is again focused on the measly few quid it MIGHT need to remain operational bar a line at the start based on a feeling "Shur if was any good they would have done it years ago!" The Aviation world was very different back then..the small aircraft operator are almost extinct now. It WAS meant to be built years ago...22.5m state funding was approved back in 2007 but then the crash came and the money was pulled!

Yes it might need more money to keep it open or it may not. But a bigger airport serving 500,000 passengers a year, many of them tourists choosing the southeast to visit and spend their money, or new FDI choosing to set up in the south east again because it has direct air access will negate what ever minuscule sum of state support it may need. The M9 motorway cost millions to build yet doesn't earn a cent, should we stop spending money maintaining it as it doesn't pay its own way?

Then there is the investors, putting 5m of their own money into a regional airport is pretty rare. They obviously see an opportunity here.

hardybuck

Teebor15 wrote: »

What do you mean whatever the cost? They're not going to build it with melted down gold bars! Its a measly 5m required from the state..same price as a few kilometres of public road.

The airport was always told it needed to fund the runway themselves and they needed buy-in from the counties it intends to serve. They have gone a long way in that regard with both Waterford, Wexford and Kilkenny Councils all committing 2m towards the project. It has always be pointed out how poor the counties of the South East are at pulling together but even Wexford and Kilkenny can see the benefit of a regional airport that they are willing to commit funding towards even if its not based in their county.

Your entire post is again focused on the measly few quid it MIGHT need to remain operational bar a line at the start based on a feeling "Shur if was any good they would have done it years ago!" The Aviation world was very different back then..the small aircraft operator are almost extinct now. It WAS meant to be built years ago...22.5m state funding was approved back in 2007 but then the crash came and the money was pulled!

Yes it might need more money to keep it open or it may not. But a bigger airport serving 500,000 passengers a year, many of them tourists choosing the southeast to visit and spend their money, or new FDI choosing to set up in the south east again because it has direct air access will negate what ever minuscule sum of state support it may need. The M9 motorway cost millions to build yet doesn't earn a cent, should we stop spending money maintaining it as it doesn't pay its own way?

Then there is the investors, putting 5m of their own money into a regional airport is pretty rare. They obviously see an opportunity here.

M9 involves over 5m trips a year, and involved a bypass of Waterford, Carlow, Knocktopher, Ballyhale, Mullinavat, Thomastown, Gowran, Kilkenny, Paulstown, Castledermot etc., linked up a lot of the national roads in between and helped to link up two ports to a motorway. Poor comparison.

Your 500k passengers figure would be amazing, but is seriously ambitious. That would involve a 247% increase on the busiest year the airport has ever had. It would also be 49% more than Kerry who would still have a slightly longer runway but a broadly similar one.

As I've pointed out before, if you were an investor and you somehow got the State to pay for about 60% of the capital investment you needed to pursue your project, and they agreed to pay an annual grant to keep the lights on and doors open, and you don't have to release any equity - yes that would be a really great opportunity for you.

I am happy to hear that this is being scrutinised properly. However, I am unhappy to hear that this might involve a political stroke. My gut instinct here is that the numbers mightn't add up, that this mightn't make financial sense, but it might be something which is poor value for the taxpayer and is needed for votes.

I have not drunk the kool-aid - but once again I'll happily cheer this if it turns out to be a value for money proposal.

Teebor15

hardybuck wrote: »

M9 involves over 5m trips a year, and involved a bypass of Waterford, Carlow, Knocktopher, Ballyhale, Mullinavat, Thomastown, Gowran, Kilkenny, Paulstown, Castledermot etc., linked up a lot of the national roads in between and helped to link up two ports to a motorway. Poor comparison.

Your 500k passengers figure would be amazing, but is seriously ambitious. That would involve a 247% increase on the busiest year the airport has ever had. It would also be 49% more than Kerry who would still have a slightly longer runway but a broadly similar one.

As I've pointed out before, if you were an investor and you somehow got the State to pay for about 60% of the capital investment you needed to pursue your project, and they agreed to pay an annual grant to keep the lights on and doors open, and you don't have to release any equity - yes that would be a really great opportunity for you.

I am happy to hear that this is being scrutinised properly. However, I am unhappy to hear that this might involve a political stroke. My gut instinct here is that the numbers mightn't add up, that this mightn't make financial sense, but it might be something which is poor value for the taxpayer and is needed for votes.

I have not drunk the kool-aid - but once again I'll happily cheer this if it turns out to be a value for money proposal.

You've completely missed the point. The amount of trips or roads connected is not it. The M9 or any road for that matter does not generate revenue in itself (unless its tolled) it facilitates the movement of people which aids business and tourism...just like an airport.

500,000 is not that ambitious at all. The busiest year the airport had was 150,000 on small aircraft with relatively high fares. The extended runway will allow much larger aircraft with lower fares carry a lot more passengers who were before travelling to Dublin and Cork to avail of the lower fares. Like a supermarket versus a corner shop.

Kerry is edging in on 400,000 passengers for this year even though its squeezed in between Cork and Shannon. Knock is heading for 800,000 with a similar catchment area to Waterford. So 500,000 is not seriously ambitious, it might even be under ambitious depending on how favorable Waterford may become for the people further afield looking to avoid the increasingly congested road network and airport itself in Dublin. Wont happen overnight but give it time.

Don't the state pay for lots of infrastructure to facilitate private projects, look at the North Quays for example. It makes good business sense, just like the airport. Maybe the investors will bring a lot of jobs to the area..we will have to wait and see!

By the way Waterford's runway will be longer than Kerry's when done, not the other way around.

hardybuck

Teebor15 wrote: »

You've completely missed the point. The amount of trips or roads connected is not it. The M9 or any road for that matter does not generate revenue in itself (unless its tolled) it facilitates the movement of people which aids business and tourism...just like an airport.

500,000 is not that ambitious at all. The busiest year the airport had was 150,000 on small aircraft with relatively high fares. The extended runway will allow much larger aircraft with lower fares carry a lot more passengers who were before travelling to Dublin and Cork to avail of the lower fares. Like a supermarket versus a corner shop.

Kerry is edging in on 400,000 passengers for this year even though its squeezed in between Cork and Shannon. Knock is heading for 800,000 with a similar catchment area to Waterford. So 500,000 is not seriously ambitious, it might even be under ambitious depending on how favorable Waterford may become for the people further afield looking to avoid the increasingly congested road network and airport itself in Dublin. Wont happen overnight but give it time.

Don't the state pay for lots of infrastructure to facilitate private projects, look at the North Quays for example. It makes good business sense, just like the airport. Maybe the investors will bring a lot of jobs to the area..we will have to wait and see!

By the way Waterford's runway will be longer than Kerry's when done, not the other way around.

I haven't missed the point at all. In my opinion your example is a poor one as something which is a massively bigger piece of infastructure and used far more frequently in a larger geographic area is not a good comparator.

A better comparator would be another airport, like Galway for example - here is an article from a couple of years back where they're (another airport) whinging about the support Waterford got, and accusing it as political favouritism. These airports really seem to be political footballs: https://connachttribune.ie/political-favouritism-as-galway-airport-snubbed/

In the north quays example, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that state investment in infastructure in and around the project, i.e. the roads and bridges leading into it? If you're using that as a comparator, then you might also include the cost of roads and utilities in and around Waterford airport in the overall cost of this project.

By the way, while again I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Waterford's runway is 1,433m long and it would go to 1,903m with the extension. Kerry's is 2,000m.

Again, we could go back and forth forever on this, but to reiterate I'd just be happy to see a decision being made, one way or the other, with a significant body of supporting evidence informing it. I'm suspicious that another political stroke is coming, and we don't need those.

Teebor15

hardybuck wrote: »

I haven't missed the point at all. In my opinion your example is a poor one as something which is a massively bigger piece of infastructure and used far more frequently in a larger geographic area is not a good comparator.

A better comparator would be another airport, like Galway for example - here is an article from a couple of years back where they're (another airport) whinging about the support Waterford got, and accusing it as political favouritism. These airports really seem to be political footballs: https://connachttribune.ie/political-favouritism-as-galway-airport-snubbed/

In the north quays example, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that state investment in infastructure in and around the project, i.e. the roads and bridges leading into it? If you're using that as a comparator, then you might also include the cost of roads and utilities in and around Waterford airport in the overall cost of this project.

By the way, while again I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Waterford's runway is 1,433m long and it would go to 1,903m with the extension. Kerry's is 2,000m.

Again, we could go back and forth forever on this, but to reiterate I'd just be happy to see a decision being made, one way or the other, with a significant body of supporting evidence informing it. I'm suspicious that another political stroke is coming, and we don't need those.

You are still missing the point. I'll give it one last shot. It doesn't matter how massive the infrastructure is or how many people it serves. The point is it's infrastructure that in itself does not return a cent to the exchequer. The runway will serve a fraction of the people the M9 serves but will also only cost a fraction.

Again your not getting the point at all..Galway is just another airport...my point is airports versus other transport infrastructure and how they need to be viewed in terms of facitating other commercial business and not businesses in themselves.

Yes of course you would include the cost of the road and utilities leading to the airport, but not the entire cost as it also serves many other people and business..like the business park next to the airport for example.

2285m was the figure qouted in the intended planning application posted in the local papers last July. Curious to know where you got 1903m..never heard that figure before.

Political strokes can go both ways. The proposal has to get through cabinet and you can be sure Cork airport will have Coveney and other's tipped to knock it on the head even if it the figures add up!

hardybuck

Teebor15 wrote: »

You are still missing the point. I'll give it one last shot. It doesn't matter how massive the infrastructure is or how many people it serves. The point is it's infrastructure that in itself does not return a cent to the exchequer. The runway will serve a fraction of the people the M9 serves but will also only cost a fraction.

Again your not getting the point at all..Galway is just another airport...my point is airports versus other transport infrastructure and how they need to be viewed in terms of facitating other commercial business and not businesses in themselves.

Yes of course you would include the cost of the road and utilities leading to the airport, but not the entire cost as it also serves many other people and business..like the business park next to the airport for example.

2285m was the figure qouted in the intended planning application posted in the local papers last July. Curious to know where you got 1903m..never heard that figure before.

Political strokes can go both ways. The proposal has to get through cabinet and you can be sure Cork airport will have Coveney and other's tipped to knock it on the head even if it the figures add up!

Please don't be patronising. I absolutely get the points you're making, I just don't think you're coming forward with good examples and good comparators.

Runway figures were pulled from this articule: https://fora.ie/waterford-airport-runway-extension-4178181-Aug2018/

Looking forward to seeing the actual evidence and reports being published.

Bards

It's only 5m FFS which is thrown around like confetti in Dubland

Teebor15

Apologies, it was not my intention to patronise, but your responses indicate you are not getting the point I'm making. The examples are fine your just not getting it, but ill say no more about it.

Interesting link in the Fora article, not sure where they got that figure from.

Teebor15

Bards wrote: »

It's only 5m FFS which is thrown around like confetti in Dubland

That's a very valid point but its still taxpayer's money and should be invested sensibly.

invara

Darren Skelton and Mary Butler tweeted today that Shane Ross briefed Waterford and Kilkenny Oireachtas members that Airport decision due in July....

I wonder if this being slowed down to fit an election cycle.

notharrypotter

invara wrote: »

I wonder if this being slowed down to fit an election cycle.

Heaven forbid😱

hardybuck

invara wrote: »

Darren Skelton and Mary Butler tweeted today that Shane Ross briefed Waterford and Kilkenny Oireachtas members that Airport decision due in July....

I wonder if this being slowed down to fit an election cycle.

It's unlikely that €7m is lying around this year without a home for it. If a positive decision was made it'd be 2020 money.

Squidvicious

Bards wrote: »

It's only 5m FFS which is thrown around like confetti in Dubland

Without wishing to ramp up the pressure, but if the airport doesn't get €5 million, it's an absolute kick in the back side for Waterford. You'd spend that on widening a fairly short section of B Road. Surely it's worth that as a one off? After all, they've got other investors prepared to put in that amount and more.

Masala

Squidvicious wrote: »

Without wishing to ramp up the pressure, but if the airport doesn't get €5 million, it's an absolute kick in the back side for Waterford. You'd spend that on widening a fairly short section of B Road. Surely it's worth that as a one off? After all, they've got other investors prepared to put in that amount and more.

I don't think the €5m is the problem..... it's how to turn the tap off over the coming years is what the govt is worried about. There is a ball of CAPEX expenditure needed to bring WAT to a functioning Ryanair airport.... and where is that money coming from. The concept of 'build it and they will come' is not realistic and I reckon projections by EY show that money will need to be pumped in every year to keep it going. And that is the crux of the problem.

Harry Palmr

So then, private money to match, three counties backing the development, and yet they challenge Waterfords proposal on the ground of not having secured a contract. Could it be due to the lack of a jet-friendly runway?

Cosmo Kramer

As Masala says, if it was just a one off €5 million it would not be a problem. The issue is that you are looking at probably a few million a year on top of that to subsidise services. Without that subsidy the airport will fail. City of Derry Airport, for example, needs €2.5 million from the public purse a year to survive.

A few posters using Knock as an example to follow. Would everyone be happy enough paying a €10 departure fee per passenger at the gate to help keep the airport in operation?

Jamie2k9

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

As Masala says, if it was just a one off €5 million it would not be a problem. The issue is that you are looking at probably a few million a year on top of that to subsidise services. Without that subsidy the airport will fail. City of Derry Airport, for example, needs €2.5 million from the public purse a year to survive.

A few posters using Knock as an example to follow. Would everyone be happy enough paying a €10 departure fee per passenger at the gate to help keep the airport in operation?

Airlines charged 7 euro airport fee when it had services. Only difference is airlines collected it in the tickets unlike Knock.

invara

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

Would everyone be happy enough paying a €10 departure fee per passenger at the gate to help keep the airport in operation?

When WAT was operating there was a departure charge, not sure people are happy with paying it, but they certainly did pay it.

fricatus

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

A few posters using Knock as an example to follow. Would everyone be happy enough paying a €10 departure fee per passenger at the gate to help keep the airport in operation?

Considering I waste four hours or more, plus upwards of €30 in travel costs every time I travel to London via Dublin, yes!

Teebor15

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

As Masala says, if it was just a one off €5 million it would not be a problem. The issue is that you are looking at probably a few million a year on top of that to subsidise services. Without that subsidy the airport will fail. City of Derry Airport, for example, needs €2.5 million from the public purse a year to survive.

A few posters using Knock as an example to follow. Would everyone be happy enough paying a €10 departure fee per passenger at the gate to help keep the airport in operation?

Big difference between Waterford and Derry. Derry has nothing but passengers services and the odd business aircraft. Waterford has the SAR heli which is a big revenue stream, a lot more aircraft using the airport even now. Derry movements (landing & take offs) for last year were about 6,000, Waterford for this year probably over 20,000. Plus whatever the investors have planned might be another revenue stream and I've heard of a couple of other potential opportunities in the pipeline if this goes ahead.

I would say whatever operational support IF required would be fairly minimal and well worth the payback.

Teebor15

Masala wrote: »

I don't think the €5m is the problem..... it's how to turn the tap off over the coming years is what the govt is worried about. There is a ball of CAPEX expenditure needed to bring WAT to a functioning Ryanair airport.... and where is that money coming from. The concept of 'build it and they will come' is not realistic and I reckon projections by EY show that money will need to be pumped in every year to keep it going. And that is the crux of the problem.

This money IS to bring the airport to a "Ryanair airport". This money is not just for the actual runway it for the ancillary parts as well, like the widening the taxiway, a second car park, etc.. A lot of work has been done over the last number of years around the runway, buying land, grading, fencing, etc.

No airline is going to sign a deal with an airport based on a runway that MIGHT be built. They will say "Come back to us when its done and we'll talk". But I agree with you the gov will not hand over the funding unless there is genuine interest from airline, so there must be someone lined up in principal, my guess would be Ryanair but maybe its someone else.