SHH behaved appropriately
GIVEN Maddi Bridgman's concerns you reported, I wonder if considering the following points might assist one and all.
Firstly, SHH purchased the airport lease, they are not renting tenants.
As with buying a house leasehold, they made a large payment and received a lease well beyond their lifetime-with a house, 99 years is the usual minimum term and the peppercorn rent retains the lessor's ownership rights.
Secondly, SHH fulfilled their lessee's obligation to use their best endeavours to run an airline for a minimum period, something the council's lawyers would doubtless have flagged up on the closure application had that not been the case. I assume in this that SHH had to acquire planes, landing slots and put down deposits for and pay for publicity and marketing of new routes, rather than receiving any of that for free.
Come and have a look at the extensive range of tiles we have in stock at our Drake Mill, Estover showroom. Most items in stock to take away or delivery option available.
Terms: Showromm open Monday to Thursday 9am - 5pm and Friday 9am - 3pm.
Contact: 01752 421047
Valid until: Saturday, June 15 2013
Thirdly, a court would only consider reviewing it out of time if it considered there was strong evidence either party had knowingly concealed anything from or laid false information before the other party. Could either side in 2001 have realistically foreseen the worst recession for 60 years, Icelandic volcanic disruptions or two successive winters with Plymouth icebound for three weeks running. Equally, neither side back then could have anticipated the rug being pulled by Gatwick and other airports taking away landing slots the moment the going got tough?
Who's to say if PCC and SHH, one, both or neither, have made mistakes in the process? However, it seems they have always acted in an appropriate manner regarding the airport.
STEVE MARKETIS
Woolwell
Comments
by Magrathea2011
Monday, October 22 2012, 11:29AM
“Mr Marketis, you suggest that your article 'helps'. To me it leaves more questions unanswered than before you wrote it!
Can you help me a little further?
1 How much was the 'purchase' price of the lease?
2 You refer to running an airline (presumably Air South West). Can you tell me why running the airport (one company) should bale out the losses of another ( the airline) ?
If the airline made losses, then get rid of the airline, not use the money from the airport to keep it going and vice versa. In this regard, I believe SHG have not acted in the best interests of the airport..
May I also point out one thing. Economic fortunes ebb and flow. So as you say, the aviation industry suffered recently. However it is NOT a reason for just closing down and erasing the ability to continue sometime later on (ie the airport). Other airlines should have been encouraged by the extension of the runway - another way that SHG did not act in the best interests of the airport.
That is also why it is advocated another (willing) Operator such as Viable should now be able to take over the lease (or the facility mothballed until an upturn in the economy permits flying from the airport again) now, unencumbered with the Council's 5 criteria. If it was a purely commercial reason why the airport closed, then why has Mr Evans suddenly imposed them?”
by Dunthiel
Monday, October 22 2012, 8:00AM
“This strikes me as sounding like a letter issued by SHH's own boardroom! I'm afraid I can't see any substance to your points either;
1 - What you describe as a 'large payment' was in reality no such thing. For the asset and terms gained it was less than peanuts. More importantly, when was the last time you saw a leasehold on a house with the option of selling it and taking 25% of the proceeds if you could no longer afford to live there? That was the 'Armageddon' situation SHH enjoyed to the tune of millions, at the expense of every council tax payer in Plymouth. Not that it would have affected you, Steve, living in Woolwell, in the South Hams...
2 - Unless you work for PCC or SHH you have absolutely no way of knowing this, and we are talking about an airport here, not an airline. They might not have received things for free, but any historic losses made through promoting the airport, airline, acquiring slots and operating its routes were entitled to be claimed back from the money raised by selling surplus land for housing, aimed at securing the airport's future. That is not conducive to running a profitable business.
3 - Both PCC and SHH were repeatedly cautioned by professional consultants that the airport's long term future was in doubt unless the runway was extended. In fact it was because of one such consultant report advising that a runway extension was essential that they were allowed to sell off the public land, belonging to us tax payers, for housing. Yet, with many millions of pounds in hand, they did nothing. It's clear they could foresee the closure happening and that the potential impact of other events had already been anticipated for them, so I think you have to demonstrate serious naivety if you can't honestly see what has happened here.
If you really think the blatant mistakes and the loss of such an important asset is appropriate, then I have a bridge to sell you...”