whether that would get through the politcal correctness council or the anti-discrimination brigade I don’t know.

I dunno either, but I’m sure Ryanair would be willing to fight it all the way in the courts to find out.

Nutiricius are http://www.nutriciusgroup.com/ They mention involvement with A1 on their projects page.

They are a marketing company, but they seem to be getting involved in assisting those wanting to set up airlines. They are the parent company of a company that owns the planes a lot of these new airlines intend/ed to use, including A1, ‘The Airline’ and SkyCommuter.

I presume the link between A1 and nutricius is / was a consultancy contract. The more confusing and less straight forward thing is the link between MH’s original business plan and booking engine and, well, everyone else really!

With regard to Nutricius’s ‘Airline and Transportation Consultancy Service’, “From route development for existing airline and ferry operations to startup airline licensing, funding and operational requirements, Nutricius Group can offer assistance on all fronts.”

If this is what MH used them for, it’s this part of their service that’s looking pretty spot on. :rolleyes:

He may instead have used Nutricius’s ‘Reservation & Inventory Control Technology’ section that “… has a strong background in travel technology and the sales and marketing of reservation and inventory control technology for accommodation operations and transportation operations.”.

Again, if it’s them that produce the booking engines that aren’t on a secure site, …

What they are however is first and foremost a marketing company, and given that so many people have heard, reported on and spoken about an airline that hardly exists, they’ve done an A1 job there (if you forgive the pun).

Think what they could have acheived if the airline had actually…

They really need to clear the ‘New’ routes that don’t run any more off their news. It’s hard enough trying to keep up as it is!

Certainly the spelling thing was a bit shoddy, as was the replace all on ‘BAL’ for something like ‘The Airline’. Cue ‘GloThe Airline’ instead of ‘Global’. I’d read a prospectus through before issuing it if I wanted to create a good impression, but that’s just me.

The most worrying thing for me though was that the apparent conflict of interest reached out and grabbed you, but they never really addressed it those terms.

I feel it would have been quite good if it was someone’s GCSE Business Studies project. I hope the people looking for funding didn’t pay too much for it.

We’ll probably never know the story, and it’s not our business anyway, but it would be interesting to know what’s happened here.

It seems a great coincidence that Nutricius appears to have acted for two seperate companies that appear to have formed totally identical business plans, with one even seemingly accidentally using the others terms and conditions.

As all the startup airlines Nutricius have advised would appear to have chosen at some point to use planes that appear to be owned by another Nutricius company, Nutricius themselves do appear to have stumbled upon some certain amount of good fortune though.

You must say though, if Nutricius are able to advise all these other people about wonderful and profitable uses for their own aircraft; surely in a weak moment they must be tempted to be a little greedy and run some of them themselves?

However, it’s been suggested to me that it would be interesting to see if the prospectus on above link meets the requirements that the FSA have for these documents. One area for particular interest would apparently be to look at areas such as whether the prospectus offers the opportunity to quadruple ones money without saying an awful lot about any possible potential risks.

I hope there isn’t anything amateurish about the advice they offer with regards to starting an airline, that would be most unfortunate and could lead to a lot of ehm, shall we say, false starts? :confused:

I think it’s variously seen flights to London (City?), Belfast, Dublin, Amsterdam and Brussels and ?Isle of Man?.

It won’t stay open as it’s not in the operators interest to make it profitable as an airport.

“5. What would it take for the airport to be retained?

According to the provisions of the lease, provided it can be demonstrated that the airport is sustaining a loss in 2007, the City Council is obliged to allow the transfer of the freehold of the land to Sheffield Business Park Ltd for £1 and allow redevelopment. This derives directly from the original Development Agreement signed by Sheffield Development Corporation in 1995, which transferred to the Council in 1997. That agreement recognised that the development of the airport by the private sector could only be financed if a reversion clause was in place allowing the airport to close and the land redeveloped, if profitable operations could not be attained by the end of a 10 year period. Without the ability to use the land as security, the development of the airport would not have been fundable because of the high risks involved. This process was overseen and expressly approved at the time by the District Valuer and Department for the Environment.

It appears inevitable that the operator will be able to demonstrate that it has been unable to operate the airport profitably by 2007. “

What would you rather have come 2007? A valuable bit of developement land for £1 or another shot at trying to run an airport that can’t take big planes a few miles down the road from DSA?

At a time when air travel in this country seems to be booming I’m sure they could try and attract a couple of small airlines that may or may not last long, so that they could make a 50p a year profit that would stop them from being able to get the land for £1 and make millions… :rolleyes:

Nice one for Prestwick!

Does anyone know if A1 have flown? The Edinburgh website showed a late landing time yesterday evening, so has at least one flight actually taken off?