Direct Flights to Ercan -> ROC government wont bet against it!

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
12/08/2010 00:12

A different perspective on this. Allegedly BAA (was British Airports Authority) went in to the tender to run the Larnaca airport, but pulled out when the ROC government did not agree to compensate them if direct flights started to Ercan.



This was in the Wikipedia entry for Larnaca. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larnaca_International_Airport



The last few lines from the History section: A consortium led by BAA and J&P construction quickly pulled out when it did not receive assurances from the Government of Cyprus that it would receive financial compensation in the event that direct flights were allowed between the Turkish occupied north of the island and the rest of the world. The contract was eventually hastily granted to the next best bidder, the French led 'Hermes' Consortium.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
12/08/2010 00:17

no surprise there then x

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/08/2010 11:20

Bear in mind WHEN these negations were taking place (leading up to Annan in 2004 ) and the accuracy of this Wiki article might be 'questionable' as WHY would the BAA / J&P consortium pull out, then sue if they weren't interested ... ? There were lots of claims and counter claims of corruption / insider info being used- there was a govt change during the advanced negotiation phase



A better article is here: http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/larnaca/



specifically Terminal construction..

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
12/08/2010 11:57

No concrete evidence, but it would not be too suprising for large companies to want to hedge their bets, especially in the run up to the Annan Referendum. Post Annan, Ercan could have been a competitor to Larnaka, and that could make a significant material impact on Larnaka profitability....



The more we discover, the more I'm not suprised by GCs voting no.. They are sole legal representatives of the entire Island, with the sole internationally recognised government, airport etc... Financially it is very lucrative for them.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/08/2010 21:07

Dear zcacmxi



whilst there is no doubt that there are those GCs who are happy to keep things as they are.. because of what THEY might lose - or unwillingness to mix with TCs you are not accurately reading the mind of most GC voter - at the time of Annan- I say this with some 'authority' as I was trying to persuade 'em to vote YES- sure of the fact that they'd never get a better deal...



They were sure that EU membership and President Lieatlotopoulos' promise of a 'fair settlement - based on EU norms' would be forth-coming and they couldn't believe that the intransigent days of Mr Denktash were over and that the TR govt ( not necessarily the Military ) was prepared to 'compromise'



The BIG issue was property - they believed in their right to live/ work where they liked on the whole of the island and that the EU would force TR to comply .

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
13/08/2010 00:27

mmmmmm,



Try as you may to convince the GCs to vote YES, looking back at the result, it must have been obvious to the powers that be; with all their intelligence (USA/UN/UK/EU), that they were going to vote NO.. It's not like it was even close... Their NO was 76%, overwhelming really. Especially as the penalty for voting no was to gain sole EU membership and keeps the TCs out.



I've only known one other vote to have such a clear outcome, and that was when the People of Gibraltar voted to remain a British Overseas Territory.



Personally I believe more interesting times lay ahead... Partition or Federation? EU or Taiwan? I feel some change is coming.