From a couple of other threads
One which will most probably go away right soon is Lugano, LSZA. The company running it has declared bancruptcy and if nobody will take over, then that airport is history. Bern is also close to bancruptcy due to the Corona virus thing.
It appears that LSZA, Lugano, has gone bancrupt as a consequence (not the only though). It may well stop operating soon if no investor is found. Would be quite worrisome to loose that airport.
Why can’t they mothball it? Furlough the staff and have just one security guard?
However, a liquidation doesn’t mean it is finished. Somebody can (prob99 will) buy the assets from the liquidator, dump the liabilities (how many times have I seen one of my customers do this 
) and sit on it until things pick up. Unless it is a property shark in which case they will turn it into houses.
Let’s start with getting rid of the mandatory handling agents
Peter wrote:
However, a liquidation doesn’t mean it is finished. Somebody can (prob99 will) buy the assets from the liquidator, dump the liabilities (how many times have I seen one of my customers do this ) and sit on it until things pick up. Unless it is a property shark in which case they will turn it into houses.
In a liquidation, the assets are purchased and the liabilities do not transfer. So there is no dumping of liabilities by the new owner, they are just left behind. I assume the problem here is that there are very large compliance and maintenance costs in keeping an airfield even if not operating. Added to that a large employee force that can’t be easily reduced in size without paying a lot for a social plan.
Without revenues, it is difficult to see who the buyer would be. Sadly, property developers are the most likely.
Looking at the location, it looks like an irresistible business opportunity for the property developers. Obviously sad to see this happening.
However, I also completely missed the news that Adria Airways went under not so long ago.
Once again a case in point for treating airports as infrastructure rather than business. Infrastructure does not have to generate revenue, rather it facilitates the generation of revenue in the surrounding economy. Switzerland as a country is certainly rich enough to finance an airport with tax money which would otherwise not be financially viable.
Switzerland as a country is certainly rich enough to finance an airport with tax money which would otherwise not be financially viable.
This is a political question. Why should the state finance airports? In Norway it’s a political decision to keep the country habited. Doing nothing, and people will gradually flock to 3-4 larger cities, leaving everything else void of people. That is why we have all these small airports along the coast, none of which are profitable on their own.
The way it is done in practice is the larger international (and highly profitable) airports finance the smaller ones. This would never happen unless a political decision is made to make it happen.
Widerøe is the main operator on these smaller airports. Today, the largest airline in business in Europe 
You are 100% correct, LeSving, it is a political decision. My personal political philosophy is apparently the same as you just described for Norway: Airports which are located away from the “main” cities are vital infrastructure for rural areas / “lesser” cities, same as road and rail links to such regions. This makes them worth subsidising in my view.
As a pilot, I am of course happy for every single airport to exist: It gives me more options. The existence of an airport in an area makes it more likely to visit that area, generating income for the locals through fees and more importantly through services I might use (restaurants, hotels etc.) For businesspeople the presence of an airport makes it easier to conduct business with local firms.
So while a city or other state entity that subsidizes an airport might make a “loss” that way, the indirect income generated through additional tax income is harder to measure and rarely offset with the cost of the subsidy.
In this particular case, I am especially surprised because the area around Lugano is rather wealthy and should attract a sizeable number of tourists and visiting businessmen. The last time I was there (by car), is 20 years ago though, so I might be mistaken.
LeSving wrote:
This is a political question. Why should the state finance airports? In Norway it’s a political decision to keep the country habited. Doing nothing, and people will gradually flock to 3-4 larger cities, leaving everything else void of people. That is why we have all these small airports along the coast, none of which are profitable on their own.The way it is done in practice is the larger international (and highly profitable) airports finance the smaller ones. This would never happen unless a political decision is made to make it happen.
Indeed, this is an area where Norway really shines and I would wish that Sweden had a similar policy.
It used to be the case in Sweden that the largest airports (in practise Stockholm/Arlanda) subsidised smaller airports — which was reasonable as smaller airports creates traffic that help make the larger ones profitable. This came to an end with Sweden’s EU membership as such subsidies were not permitted by the EU. How has Norway managed to circumvent that regulation?
