Copy of minute meetings & attendance lists for Airport Shadow board me

Authority	Department of Infrastructure
Date received	2024-09-26
Outcome	Not required to fulfill request
Outcome date	2025-04-09
Case ID	4153586

Summary

A request was made for minutes and attendance lists of the Airport Shadow Board meetings from late 2023 to mid-2024, to which the Department of Infrastructure responded by providing redacted copies of the documents despite an initial outcome classification of 'Not required to fulfill request'.

Key Facts

The Department of Infrastructure provided 13 redacted documents covering 65 pages in response to the request.
Mr Anthony Charnley announced his resignation as Chair of the Airport Board during the 31 January 2024 meeting.
The Board currently lacks decision-making powers, which remain with the Minister.
Staffing issues within the DOI finance team and Treasury are hindering the creation of a total picture of airport revenue and costs.
The CAA dashboard project is delayed, and the key indicators dashboard requires further work on data population.

Data Disclosed

31 July 2024
29 May 2024
27 March 2024
31 January 2024
29 November 2023
27 September 2023
25 August 2023
28 June 2023
27 April 2023
6 April 2023
19 January 2023
8 December 2023
251023
0830
65 pages
13 documents
HBS3
Targit

Original Request

Please supply copies of Airport shadow board meeting minutes and attendees for the following dates. If the nominated post holder has not attended, please include who has attended as their representative. 31 July 2024, 29 May 2024, 27 March 2024, 31 January 2024, 29 November 2023, 27 September 2023, 25 August 2023, 28 June 2023, 27 April 2023, 6 April 2023, 19 January 2023, 8 December 2023.

Data Tables (22)

Action	Owner
Sub Committee	GC/EC
Governance	GC/EC
Sharing of Masterplan presentation	GC
Masterplan half day meeting	JT

1.	Apologies and Declaration of interest or conflict Minister Thomas, DOI Mr Glover MHK, Department Member, DOI Miss Clare Gelder, OHR Business Partner, Cabinet Office Ms Elizabeth Smith, Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Chambers Noted no conflicts of interest.
2.	Notes of the meeting held 6 April 2023 Errors noted in relation to some attendees. To be rectified to reflect correct attendance. In relation to Section 4 on car parking charges, it was noted that the wording in relation to the response of business to the proposed changes read as a definitive statement,(‘not significant issue for businesses’) and whilst the sentiment remains true and minimal feedback has been received from the business community, this may change. There was a discussion on meeting notes and how these can be made public going forward.

Apologies and Declaration of interest or conflict Minister Thomas, DOI Mr Glover MHK, Department Member, DOI Miss Clare Gelder, OHR Business Partner, Cabinet Office Ms Elizabeth Smith, Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Chambers Noted no conflicts of interest.

Notes of the meeting held 6 April 2023 Errors noted in relation to some attendees. To be rectified to reflect correct attendance. In relation to Section 4 on car parking charges, it was noted that the wording in relation to the response of business to the proposed changes read as a definitive statement,(‘not significant issue for businesses’) and whilst the sentiment remains true and minimal feedback has been received from the business community, this may change. There was a discussion on meeting notes and how these can be made public going forward.


3.	Tynwald Outcome and project update The sitting of Tynwald (25 April) and the debate on the report IOM Airport Function Future and Form was discussed, and what actions could be taken as the project moves forward to address some of the concerns expressed by some Tynwald members during the debate. It was noted that it may be useful to change the narrative around the Airport, and to begin to describe it as an economic enabler as well as an important resident travel facility, in order to demonstrate its wider value; and in relation to the level of subvention received, it was this agreed that this is not unusual in an airport in a smaller jurisdiction. It was proposed that future reports may be better presented as a whole ‘jigsaw’, rather than piecemeal, in order to illustrate the vision and complete plan, and it was acknowledged that the Airport Masterplan will address this. Confirmation was given that a number of actions detailed in the report would now be progressed, and in the first instance work would commence on advertising for and recruiting additional specialist advisors to the board.
4.	Car Parking – Trial The response to the car parking consultation was summarised, with confirmation that response numbers were very low at 52. A new proposal was outlined in relation to 2 separate car parking products, with different applicable tariffs depending on location, excluding disabled car parking spaces which would remain unchanged. It was determined there will be a further 14 day consultation, on which the language would be amended to ensure inclusivity and encourage responses. A discussion followed to clarify the correct stages of governance in relation to a new Order, prior to it being put before Tynwald.
5.	Masterplan presentation A presentation of the proposed Masterplan content was provided with an overview of the following:  expectation and current funded reality  Passenger experience: Terminal redevelopment, security improvements, gate lounge  PRM contract and related issues  ATCO headcount and recruitment  Options for ATC, the associated impacts and issues  Airspace: impact of ILS categories and solutions  Revenue: car parks, concessionaires  Commercial growth: land, general aviation and hangarage, other opportunities  Asset management: cost of maintenance, cost of improvements  Strategic: Jurby safeguarding, airline resilience, climate change

	A general discussion followed in relation to the fleet size of certain airlines, the airport regulatory position and the availability of capital. Clarification was given that the implementation of any or all of the proposals contained in the Masterplan would be a conscious choice, in recognition of limited budget availability. It was suggested that it would be useful for the Airport to detail how any costs in relation to the Masterplan could be mitigated. Action – the presentation would be shared and a further half day meeting would be scheduled for more detailed examination before the Masterplan is publicised, recognising that public engagement is required as soon as practicable.
6.	Any Other Business A summary of the current levels of staffing available to provide security lines was given, and the existing exercise in relation to procurement and finding was discussed.
	Meeting concluded 12.10

A general discussion followed in relation to the fleet size of certain airlines, the airport regulatory position and the availability of capital. Clarification was given that the implementation of any or all of the proposals contained in the Masterplan would be a conscious choice, in recognition of limited budget availability. It was suggested that it would be useful for the Airport to detail how any costs in relation to the Masterplan could be mitigated. Action – the presentation would be shared and a further half day meeting would be scheduled for more detailed examination before the Masterplan is publicised, recognising that public engagement is required as soon as practicable.

Any Other Business A summary of the current levels of staffing available to provide security lines was given, and the existing exercise in relation to procurement and finding was discussed.

Meeting concluded 12.10

No			Section of
			the FOI
			Act
1	Information is qualified exempt information if exemption from section 8(1) (right of access	28
	to information held by public authorities) is required to safeguard national security
2	Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to,	30
	prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the public authority holding it
3	Information is qualified exempt information if the information relates to the formulation or	34
	development of government policy
4	Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to	35
	prejudice the effective conduct of public business
5	Information is qualified exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the	39
	applicant is not the data subject
6	Information is qualified exempt information if it is held with a view to its being published, by	41
	a public authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not)
7	Information is absolutely exempt information if its disclosure by the public authority holding	27
	it is prohibited by or under any statutory provision

Action	Owner
Sub Committee and Governance
Masterplan to be circulated to Board	GC

1.	Apologies and Declaration of interest or conflict Apologies : Mr Paul Sayle, Interim Chief Accountant, Treasury Mr Andrew Stewart, Director of Policy and Strategy, DFE Mrs Liz Smith, HM Solicitor General, AG Chambers Mrs Clare Gelder, HR Business Partner Conflict: Stu Peters identified as being Chairman of IOM Post.
2.	Notes of the meeting held 27 April 2023 Actions from previous meeting: Sub Committee and Governance : to be resolved in a policy and strategy meeting with the Minister. Need to identify if decisions are able to be made from Board meetings, and look at how to establish the Board in Law, within the DOI, with CO to identify what can be delegated – might be worth getting a “these are the decisions that need to be made” etc. Need to map out some decisions and seek clear view from AGs as to how far delegations can be made. Transfer of Functions to be looked into. Sub delegations mentioned by Minister. Timeframe: P&S meeting date to be identified – pre work required ahead of meeting and may need to get AG advice or invite to

Apologies and Declaration of interest or conflict Apologies : Mr Paul Sayle, Interim Chief Accountant, Treasury Mr Andrew Stewart, Director of Policy and Strategy, DFE Mrs Liz Smith, HM Solicitor General, AG Chambers Mrs Clare Gelder, HR Business Partner Conflict: Stu Peters identified as being Chairman of IOM Post.

Notes of the meeting held 27 April 2023 Actions from previous meeting: Sub Committee and Governance : to be resolved in a policy and strategy meeting with the Minister. Need to identify if decisions are able to be made from Board meetings, and look at how to establish the Board in Law, within the DOI, with CO to identify what can be delegated – might be worth getting a “these are the decisions that need to be made” etc. Need to map out some decisions and seek clear view from AGs as to how far delegations can be made. Transfer of Functions to be looked into. Sub delegations mentioned by Minister. Timeframe: P&S meeting date to be identified – pre work required ahead of meeting and may need to get AG advice or invite to

	meeting. Minister confirmed he wants Board to whom to delegate Authority, with decision making framework. Model that could be considered is that there is a senior politician in the group which gives appointed delegation to bring political view and ownership to conversation. Airport Statutory Board Bill discussed. Sharing of Masterplan presentation and Masterplan half day meeting: Masterplan circulated to CO and half day meeting was held with members of Board to go through. CO asked for this to be progressed. Masterplan to be shared with Board. Decision to be made as to if Department or Tynwald to sign off. Board need to look at if there are any other ways to fund the Masterplan as Treasury have advised they have no money. Noted EOI has gone out in respect of Airport land. APD to be looked into. Investment requirements for next 10 years outlined. Minister/Chair/CO to meet with Treasury.
3.	Current issues and presentation to COMIN Director ran through presentation on screen. ATC update : it was noted that IOM ATCOs require 3 ratings, and 14 ATCOs are required for viable roster. On-Island CAA approved medical examiner being looked into. Chair questioned service provider/outsourcing, and noted that this was a long process if outsourcing and is high risk. 15 minute divert time mentioned. Information withheld No 2 Runway issue : noted no disabled aircraft recovery kit, with work to be done with ground handler as they could not handle the aircraft.
4.	Progress against report Meeting held with DFE and Treasury to try to improve working relationships. Treasury conversation was useful and they are happy to work with the Airport to work around issues and could draw up SLA. Way forward sourced. Board recruitment is ready to go out, however CO identified that the correct sort of Commercial expertise is required, to include Finance. Other issues contained in report is a case of working and monitoring if we decide to take next step.
5.	Any Other Business Business cases to be submitted: simulator and training; aircraft recovery; holding lounge improvements (£400k). Information withheld No /patient transfer: meeting held with Treasury and due to meet with Information withheld No on 6 July. Manx Care being liaised with re the costs. Income issue in the accounts. Review to be done.
	Meeting concluded 1220

Action	Owner
Contact with Transport Scotland or the Shannon Airport Group GC will look to speak to Shannon Airport Group AC queried if there are any research benchmarking on airports globally. Noted OAG do airport economics plus others however there may be a cost implication. GC agreed to speak with Jersey. GC to contact the AOA and British Aviation for advice if necessary.	GC
AC requested an action to review the York Report. To ensure all aspects of the report are known and accounted.	JT
VISION – the better world to be further developed for the next meeting	JT
Risk Register to all to inform JT of any risks that needs to be included. To Add to the Airport Board to the Risk Register and discuss this risk with Transport Scotland.	ALL JT
Executive Summary of the minutes to go out to staff via mail. GC agreed to include in his weekly comms to staff.	GC
Additional Support - It was agreed JT provide EC with a specification of what is required and consideration will be given to see what is available.	JT
Communications - SP advised looking at the previous minutes offered to work through some comms working with JT	SP/JT

	AC opened the meeting with attendees to introduce themselves around the table and on teams. Noted no conflicts of interest.
2.	Minutes of the meeting held 8 December 2022 The Minutes held on 8 December 2022 were agreed. The meeting discussed the distribution of these minutes, noting, in the old format, the notes would have escalated up to the Department. It was also noted that COMIN may wish to see a copy. Concerns were expressed on the detail of contents with potential FOI requests. During discussion it was recommended that we should take a pro-active stance and circulate an Executive Summary to the staff, public (via website or other media). GC agreed to put together an Executive Summary. AC stressed on the importance to keep everyone informed.
3.	WHY – Defining the problem and the case for change Presentation slide called - WHY? Defining the case for change - was displayed to the Meeting. GC referring to the vision statement and highlighted some of the negatives that currently is working against the Airport: a) the lack of ability to move quickly to negotiate deals with airlines and/or suppliers; also having the agility to change our funding focus, currently do not have the speed to keep up with commercial developments. b) budget constraints with difficulties in planning; often having to compromise with priorities elsewhere that can lead to poor customer experience; c) Levels of subvention – deals with airlines with sub-venting routes difficult to establish who is accountable for that and what is best interest for the Island; d) Challenges around IOMG GTS and IT services that doesn’t fit the airport needs. Looking at the headers, EC advised that we could change a lot using this vision and whilst making technical decisions with people not involved in the aviation industry, suggested there needs to be a mechanism in place that can challenge those decisions. It was strongly recommended that the Airport Board should have members who have a commercial aviation background together with health and safety etc., who would be able to challenge (including the Airport Director) if necessary. Noted COMIN are looking for reassurances. EC advised on the need to articulate why the Board structure will make a difference, noting that IOM Post and Manx care have their individual mandates. ES referred to the Manx Development Corporation who have been successful having less control by Financial Regulations and the ability to borrow. GC advised there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate why the airport needs to change ie audit findings, press articles etc. Whilst noting that the York Report could be brought up in debates, AC requested an action to review the Report to ensure everything is accountable. TG advised on the airport experience here like most other airports is a transit experience and it would be nicer if we can make the airside more attractive. GC informed on proposed Terminal redevelopments being progressed and currently working with the catering concessionaire to improve their facilities however this will have to go to Treasury and again take time. KQ agreed Treasury do not take these points of view on a commercial basis, Information wit , and that the commercial element can be very delicate. It was

AC opened the meeting with attendees to introduce themselves around the table and on teams. Noted no conflicts of interest.

Minutes of the meeting held 8 December 2022 The Minutes held on 8 December 2022 were agreed. The meeting discussed the distribution of these minutes, noting, in the old format, the notes would have escalated up to the Department. It was also noted that COMIN may wish to see a copy. Concerns were expressed on the detail of contents with potential FOI requests. During discussion it was recommended that we should take a pro-active stance and circulate an Executive Summary to the staff, public (via website or other media). GC agreed to put together an Executive Summary. AC stressed on the importance to keep everyone informed.

WHY – Defining the problem and the case for change Presentation slide called - WHY? Defining the case for change - was displayed to the Meeting. GC referring to the vision statement and highlighted some of the negatives that currently is working against the Airport: a) the lack of ability to move quickly to negotiate deals with airlines and/or suppliers; also having the agility to change our funding focus, currently do not have the speed to keep up with commercial developments. b) budget constraints with difficulties in planning; often having to compromise with priorities elsewhere that can lead to poor customer experience; c) Levels of subvention – deals with airlines with sub-venting routes difficult to establish who is accountable for that and what is best interest for the Island; d) Challenges around IOMG GTS and IT services that doesn’t fit the airport needs. Looking at the headers, EC advised that we could change a lot using this vision and whilst making technical decisions with people not involved in the aviation industry, suggested there needs to be a mechanism in place that can challenge those decisions. It was strongly recommended that the Airport Board should have members who have a commercial aviation background together with health and safety etc., who would be able to challenge (including the Airport Director) if necessary. Noted COMIN are looking for reassurances. EC advised on the need to articulate why the Board structure will make a difference, noting that IOM Post and Manx care have their individual mandates. ES referred to the Manx Development Corporation who have been successful having less control by Financial Regulations and the ability to borrow. GC advised there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate why the airport needs to change ie audit findings, press articles etc. Whilst noting that the York Report could be brought up in debates, AC requested an action to review the Report to ensure everything is accountable. TG advised on the airport experience here like most other airports is a transit experience and it would be nicer if we can make the airside more attractive. GC informed on proposed Terminal redevelopments being progressed and currently working with the catering concessionaire to improve their facilities however this will have to go to Treasury and again take time. KQ agreed Treasury do not take these points of view on a commercial basis, Information wit , and that the commercial element can be very delicate. It was

	noted current funding International arrivals has been pushed back to 2023/24 and could hamper progress, unfortunately, this cannot be changed. AC welcomed overall thoughts and reflections to develop a competent body. GC advised there will have to be a full commitment when going to Tynwald and not letting it get lost in Treasury. EC advised that one of the reasons under the checks and balances is to build up trust from the politicians and from the public. We need to demonstrate how we build trust back into the Airport to enable us to make these decisions and how we become accountable. AC need be open and honest from the outset. ES advised that there is no reason why the Airport could not put together their own framework agreements. Treasury waivers restrictions were discussed. ES added on the spending of public money needs to be understood acted upon reasonably. TG trust issues can be a hindrance with social media however, he felt there is evidence that the public are starting to defend the DoI in some areas. AC advised having now discussed mostly the rational around WHY going back to Tynwald and COMIN, queried stakeholders, customers and staff. GC advised staff is split into two parts with the majority understanding the constraints of Treasury with some having concerns for their Terms and Conditions of employment. Feedback on the WHY suggests it is going to be a great place to work for staff and for the passenger experience. Reference was made to recent positive press issues. AC informed on building on this story to the staff and customers taking account of themes and developing further with sound bites around the organisation which the staff/public would appreciate.
4.	VISION – the better world Vision the Better World - slide was displayed to the meeting. GC explained these represent the opposite of the statements (WHY? Defining the case for change). AC queried could we put numbers against these processes for example a score card. EC noted health and safety compliance needs to be included. GC confirmed he was happy to add and build on and welcome feedback. AC queried the position on safety and compliance to the staff. GC explained aviation safety is approached differently from other industry as it is heavily defined with high levels of requirements and cultures. AC noted the shareholders would be interested in the safety of passengers so we must take a strong interest in that albeit controls in place. GC advised bringing in all aspects of airport operations that could be challenging. AC suggested under each title, there should be meanings and sound bites. It was suggested to present this vision to COMIN to demonstrate vulnerabilities especially when negotiating with airlines for getting best deals for the Island. ES queried would this vision require any form of sub-vention. GC informed that to stand on your own the Airport would need 2m to 3m passenger throughput each year so we will always require some form of subvention. Reference was made to number UK airports who receive subventions. ES queried would the Airport have to have some sort of financial regulations adherence. GC advised that the airport would prefer the ability to tailor the regulations. AC advised it would be interesting to hear COMINs thoughts and interpretations. GC advised he can get statistics and accounts on passenger numbers and profits however it will be difficult to ascertain in real terms/money. AC requested this to be further developed for the next meeting.
5.	Key milestones – key tasks for the next 6 months a) JT met the Minister to discuss building on the milestones. It was noted a motion will be going to Tynwald April 2023 - with a business plan (not an

noted current funding International arrivals has been pushed back to 2023/24 and could hamper progress, unfortunately, this cannot be changed. AC welcomed overall thoughts and reflections to develop a competent body. GC advised there will have to be a full commitment when going to Tynwald and not letting it get lost in Treasury. EC advised that one of the reasons under the checks and balances is to build up trust from the politicians and from the public. We need to demonstrate how we build trust back into the Airport to enable us to make these decisions and how we become accountable. AC need be open and honest from the outset. ES advised that there is no reason why the Airport could not put together their own framework agreements. Treasury waivers restrictions were discussed. ES added on the spending of public money needs to be understood acted upon reasonably. TG trust issues can be a hindrance with social media however, he felt there is evidence that the public are starting to defend the DoI in some areas. AC advised having now discussed mostly the rational around WHY going back to Tynwald and COMIN, queried stakeholders, customers and staff. GC advised staff is split into two parts with the majority understanding the constraints of Treasury with some having concerns for their Terms and Conditions of employment. Feedback on the WHY suggests it is going to be a great place to work for staff and for the passenger experience. Reference was made to recent positive press issues. AC informed on building on this story to the staff and customers taking account of themes and developing further with sound bites around the organisation which the staff/public would appreciate.

VISION – the better world Vision the Better World - slide was displayed to the meeting. GC explained these represent the opposite of the statements (WHY? Defining the case for change). AC queried could we put numbers against these processes for example a score card. EC noted health and safety compliance needs to be included. GC confirmed he was happy to add and build on and welcome feedback. AC queried the position on safety and compliance to the staff. GC explained aviation safety is approached differently from other industry as it is heavily defined with high levels of requirements and cultures. AC noted the shareholders would be interested in the safety of passengers so we must take a strong interest in that albeit controls in place. GC advised bringing in all aspects of airport operations that could be challenging. AC suggested under each title, there should be meanings and sound bites. It was suggested to present this vision to COMIN to demonstrate vulnerabilities especially when negotiating with airlines for getting best deals for the Island. ES queried would this vision require any form of sub-vention. GC informed that to stand on your own the Airport would need 2m to 3m passenger throughput each year so we will always require some form of subvention. Reference was made to number UK airports who receive subventions. ES queried would the Airport have to have some sort of financial regulations adherence. GC advised that the airport would prefer the ability to tailor the regulations. AC advised it would be interesting to hear COMINs thoughts and interpretations. GC advised he can get statistics and accounts on passenger numbers and profits however it will be difficult to ascertain in real terms/money. AC requested this to be further developed for the next meeting.

Key milestones – key tasks for the next 6 months a) JT met the Minister to discuss building on the milestones. It was noted a motion will be going to Tynwald April 2023 - with a business plan (not an

	operating model) with wording still to be put together along the lines that we can come back with an operating model. EC informed on the need to work on who is going to make the decision to corporatise. ES reminded that the airport could create companies and issue shares etc. Noted without a funding model this may be hindered. EC referred to a paper to Treasury, COMIN and ultimately Tynwald. Separately a report to be done in the next few weeks to COMIN which will give time to go through the finances. It was noted that the entities must decide on a recommendation and how to proceed. b) It was noted that a second report will be prepared to go to Treasury and COMIN for the December 2023 Tynwald which will seek endorsements to go ahead with new board structure to be in place by April 2024. ES referred to Information witheld No 5 paper that previously set out options for consideration and that had gone to COMIN giving details on what land could be transferred. ES referred to setting up of a Statutory Board which could be a compromise and advised that there are about 10 Statutory Boards on the Island, all with differing mandates. AC thanked all for their input and that JT would be putting together options. ES to get in touch with Post Office for advice. c) Additional Resource – GC reminded that there is a quite a bit of work to do before April 2023 and is looking to approach the Department for an additional resource. It was agreed JT provide EC with a specification of what is required and consideration will be given to see what is available. JT added also any help would be welcome with other projects so they don’t lose momentum or having to be put on hold.
6.	Risk Register Previously circulated. It was accepted that the register will become more meaningful after April once we have a direction in place. JT asked to let her know if there are any other risks that need to be included. It was noted the only two red risks are based around the political landscape which feeds into the discussion on promoting the message to the politicians. EC queried on the need to insert the risk on these meetings on the register. AC was pleased to note staff communications are included. EC advised that this topic has been discussed with staff and their concerns have reduced a little, however the general feeling is that when it actually happens, the staff may take a view. TG added that when this was debated in Tynwald, staff concerns were expressed. JT informed on looking through Hansard at the time the motion when through with 3 MHKs voting against it who had concerns this was the first steps to privatisation. ES informed if you corporatise, it is important to ensure it is the right option. MS stressed on the importance to ensure the business plans work, and ultimately it will come down to political appetite. Generally it was felt that the question is, what we have now – is the airport acceptable, if not then we need to do something different. EC advised we have enough visibility from what doesn’t work. EC also stressed the Airport needs an effective Board with the right people in place otherwise we could end up in a worse position. It was agreed that this risk needs to be added and is something to ask Transport Scotland about. GC outlined expectation of Board members that would include non-aviation and an airline pilot for example. CQ queried working through communications about this meeting as staff maybe curious. EC referred to the Executive Summary of the minutes which is intended to go out to staff via mail. GC agreed to include in his weekly comms to staff. AC noted the risk register to be continually updated and discussed at every meeting.

operating model) with wording still to be put together along the lines that we can come back with an operating model. EC informed on the need to work on who is going to make the decision to corporatise. ES reminded that the airport could create companies and issue shares etc. Noted without a funding model this may be hindered. EC referred to a paper to Treasury, COMIN and ultimately Tynwald. Separately a report to be done in the next few weeks to COMIN which will give time to go through the finances. It was noted that the entities must decide on a recommendation and how to proceed. b) It was noted that a second report will be prepared to go to Treasury and COMIN for the December 2023 Tynwald which will seek endorsements to go ahead with new board structure to be in place by April 2024. ES referred to Information witheld No 5 paper that previously set out options for consideration and that had gone to COMIN giving details on what land could be transferred. ES referred to setting up of a Statutory Board which could be a compromise and advised that there are about 10 Statutory Boards on the Island, all with differing mandates. AC thanked all for their input and that JT would be putting together options. ES to get in touch with Post Office for advice. c) Additional Resource – GC reminded that there is a quite a bit of work to do before April 2023 and is looking to approach the Department for an additional resource. It was agreed JT provide EC with a specification of what is required and consideration will be given to see what is available. JT added also any help would be welcome with other projects so they don’t lose momentum or having to be put on hold.

Risk Register Previously circulated. It was accepted that the register will become more meaningful after April once we have a direction in place. JT asked to let her know if there are any other risks that need to be included. It was noted the only two red risks are based around the political landscape which feeds into the discussion on promoting the message to the politicians. EC queried on the need to insert the risk on these meetings on the register. AC was pleased to note staff communications are included. EC advised that this topic has been discussed with staff and their concerns have reduced a little, however the general feeling is that when it actually happens, the staff may take a view. TG added that when this was debated in Tynwald, staff concerns were expressed. JT informed on looking through Hansard at the time the motion when through with 3 MHKs voting against it who had concerns this was the first steps to privatisation. ES informed if you corporatise, it is important to ensure it is the right option. MS stressed on the importance to ensure the business plans work, and ultimately it will come down to political appetite. Generally it was felt that the question is, what we have now – is the airport acceptable, if not then we need to do something different. EC advised we have enough visibility from what doesn’t work. EC also stressed the Airport needs an effective Board with the right people in place otherwise we could end up in a worse position. It was agreed that this risk needs to be added and is something to ask Transport Scotland about. GC outlined expectation of Board members that would include non-aviation and an airline pilot for example. CQ queried working through communications about this meeting as staff maybe curious. EC referred to the Executive Summary of the minutes which is intended to go out to staff via mail. GC agreed to include in his weekly comms to staff. AC noted the risk register to be continually updated and discussed at every meeting.


7.	Review of actions Action Owner a) Create a one page vision document and establish GC baseline data CLOSED Noted this matter is on the Agenda. b) Establish benchmark examples –Cardiff, Jersey, Teeside EC, JT, GC GC spoke to Transport Scotland who have agreed to C L O S E D visit 27 – 28 February 2023 to discuss their framework agreement and share their experiences.
8.	Any Other Business (a) Attendees – GC advised on bringing in more of the Airport Management Team (as appropriate) to these meetings to give them an understanding and expectation on what is going to be expected. Agreed. (b) Airport Operational Meetings – GC outlined the proposal to create this meeting to be held on the same day as the Airport Project Steering Board which would include MS, Commercial Director Hannah LoBao, Head of Safety & Compliance, Melissa Rundle together with the Airfield Operations Manager, Tony Woods. This was agreed. (c) Communications – SP advised looking at the previous minutes offered to work through some comms working with JT. This was agreed. (d) Terms of Reference – JT advised with the Minister for sign-off.
	Meeting concluded 1630hrs

Action	Owner
a) Create a one page vision document and establish baseline data Noted this matter is on the Agenda.	GC CLOSED
b) Establish benchmark examples –Cardiff, Jersey, Teeside GC spoke to Transport Scotland who have agreed to visit 27 – 28 February 2023 to discuss their framework agreement and share their experiences.	EC, JT, GC C L O S E D

Action	Owner
Sub Committee	GC/EC
Governance	GC/EC

1.	Apologies and Declaration of interest or conflict No apologies. No declarations of interest recorded.
2.	Minutes of the meeting held 19 January 2023 The Minutes held on 19 January 2023 were agreed.

3.	Approval of Terms of Reference The meeting discussed the whether there as a requirement now for the Board to move away from only covering issues relating to transition and to discuss and make decisions around more operational issues. It was agreed that this needed further consideration especially in relation to decision making and delegations. Action for GC/EC to discuss further and to set out how this could be reflected in the evolving Terms of Reference.
4.	Car Parking Charges The meeting was advised that the Car Parking Order had been issued for a period of statutory consultation. It was noted that if this Order is made it would reduce the free parking period to 15minutes as well as see an increase in car parking charges across the airport. It was reported that the reduction of the free parking period was attracting much of the attention and that there may be a need to review this ahead of the Order coming into operation. The meeting noted that the proposal was for a trial period and it was agreed that there would be a need for the Board to be sighted on the methodology of that trial. This should include looking at the impact on business and neighbouring areas. Action for GC to prepare a methodology for the trial period.
5.	ILS Project – how do we review the project and apply lessons learned going forward An update on the ILS project implementation was provided. This clarified that the project had commenced in November but due to high winds had to be rescheduled. March had been determined as being the favourable month based on analysis of meteorological records and forecasted passenger movements. It was noted that the project was completed on time and had been signed off by the IOM CAA. It was explained that this was a project which only needed to be undertaken every 15-20 years and the impact could have been mitigated to an extent by investment in additional technologies. However there were a number of issues which had been conflated during the project which resulted in confusion as to why there was disruption at the airport. It was accepted and agreed that there could have been better and wider communication before and during the project to explain what was happening although it was noted that the airlines had all been informed of the need to undertake the work well in advance.
6.	Masterplan An overview of the Masterplan was provided explaining that the document would look at both remedial and strategic action focusing on customer experience (including gate and lounge facilities, overall terminal redevelopment and passengers with reduced mobility) resilience (including ATC and adverse weather requirements) and commercial opportunities (including General Aviation and hangarage). It was

	Governance Reporting : Airport have series of meetings to conduct, including Safety Review Board, Airport Safety Group, Local Runway Safety Team, Wildlife Management Habitat and Emergency Planning Committee. Regulatory Status : Airport remains on notice. Regulatory oversight upcoming to check progress and review status is as follows: 25th Sept – Written update on Action plan to IOMCAA 10-12th October – On site review of corrective action plan. 10-12th Oct – On site review of ATS 31st Dec – Written update on action plan to IOM CAA May 2024 – On site review of corrective action plan and SMS phase 2 evaluation. Airport could remain on special attention until corrective plan in May 2024. Worth collectively thinking about background pack for new Board members and suggest in depth briefing about where we are. Noted plan was submitted to IOMCAA. One page overview giving status available.
2.	Operational Performance Report update ATC overview – mandated fatigue breaks reduced to 2 a day (from 5) 08:30-09:05 and 11:00- 11:35. Equipment – PSR – Serviceable MLAT – Serviceable (degraded) ILS – Serviceable (see projects) NDB - Serviceable DME – Serviceable (see projects) Comms – Serviceable Airfield Ops : down to 3.5 staff – should be up to 9 members of staff and is therefore challenging (budget constraints). Winter Ops is critical with runway conditions in inclement weather are heavily regulated. Airport to have winter ops preparedness calls with the airlines in September, and at the moment would need to report RED. JEGS issue is being resolved. DOI have suggested Airport come to Department with full recruitment plan. Extra funding is being requested from Treasury next financial year. If jobs are safety critical in favour of other roles then AC feels wrong. AP advised that each Division can prioritise expenditure with critical need and does have

Governance Reporting : Airport have series of meetings to conduct, including Safety Review Board, Airport Safety Group, Local Runway Safety Team, Wildlife Management Habitat and Emergency Planning Committee. Regulatory Status : Airport remains on notice. Regulatory oversight upcoming to check progress and review status is as follows: 25th Sept – Written update on Action plan to IOMCAA 10-12th October – On site review of corrective action plan. 10-12th Oct – On site review of ATS 31st Dec – Written update on action plan to IOM CAA May 2024 – On site review of corrective action plan and SMS phase 2 evaluation. Airport could remain on special attention until corrective plan in May 2024. Worth collectively thinking about background pack for new Board members and suggest in depth briefing about where we are. Noted plan was submitted to IOMCAA. One page overview giving status available.

Operational Performance Report update ATC overview – mandated fatigue breaks reduced to 2 a day (from 5) 08:30-09:05 and 11:00- 11:35. Equipment – PSR – Serviceable MLAT – Serviceable (degraded) ILS – Serviceable (see projects) NDB - Serviceable DME – Serviceable (see projects) Comms – Serviceable Airfield Ops : down to 3.5 staff – should be up to 9 members of staff and is therefore challenging (budget constraints). Winter Ops is critical with runway conditions in inclement weather are heavily regulated. Airport to have winter ops preparedness calls with the airlines in September, and at the moment would need to report RED. JEGS issue is being resolved. DOI have suggested Airport come to Department with full recruitment plan. Extra funding is being requested from Treasury next financial year. If jobs are safety critical in favour of other roles then AC feels wrong. AP advised that each Division can prioritise expenditure with critical need and does have

	ability to redirect resources within the Department. EC hopes Board can give true and accurate portrayal of what is a true and accurate safety critical role. Passenger Operations : ASDM headcount of 4, Information withheld No 5 . The ASDMs look after terminal operations and Airport runs the risk of emergency planning if role is not covered. Security Compliance Officer role approved yesterday. Recent security audit was excellent Information withheld No 1 Airport Fire Service – Section have three watches with a new recruit who is currently in training. Burning ground and condition of Fire station still of concern, with business cases being prepared for the Project Development Fund. Information withheld No 5 AC noted a lot of things have moved forward. It was noted that the pay award across government has been rejected and working to rule would impact the operation.
3.	Commercial update Highlighted exercise on re forecasting. Information withheld No 2 Patient transfer figures are down on predicted. Still up year on year. Predicted by 2025 will get back to 2019 figures. Information withheld No 2 Commercial Focus Route Profitability : Airport now have APEX. Noted load factors are lower than prior to covid. Need to understand how London City breaks down. Enterprise and Chamber of Commerce to be liaised with. Noted that Airport have a quarterly meeting with travel agent.

ability to redirect resources within the Department. EC hopes Board can give true and accurate portrayal of what is a true and accurate safety critical role. Passenger Operations : ASDM headcount of 4, Information withheld No 5 . The ASDMs look after terminal operations and Airport runs the risk of emergency planning if role is not covered. Security Compliance Officer role approved yesterday. Recent security audit was excellent Information withheld No 1 Airport Fire Service – Section have three watches with a new recruit who is currently in training. Burning ground and condition of Fire station still of concern, with business cases being prepared for the Project Development Fund. Information withheld No 5 AC noted a lot of things have moved forward. It was noted that the pay award across government has been rejected and working to rule would impact the operation.

Commercial update Highlighted exercise on re forecasting. Information withheld No 2 Patient transfer figures are down on predicted. Still up year on year. Predicted by 2025 will get back to 2019 figures. Information withheld No 2 Commercial Focus Route Profitability : Airport now have APEX. Noted load factors are lower than prior to covid. Need to understand how London City breaks down. Enterprise and Chamber of Commerce to be liaised with. Noted that Airport have a quarterly meeting with travel agent.

4.	Finance update AC spoke about aspiration that airport is self funded with the need for a clear picture of what the business looks like and what it would take to progress to a point of funding. How will it be looked at? Who can do that on behalf of the airport going forward? GC stated that the general rule of thumb if for Airport’s with less than 2.5M pax there will always be a loss. Market position – could make money through land. Airport are offering discounts that serve the IOM but do not serve the Airport. How will the Airport do that and put in place within reasonable timeframe – GC advised would be dependent on financial rules placed on Airport. It was queried whether Department could establish a small team to look at this going forward? EC said there currently isn’t a team but would need to be resourced – also ongoing piece of work about future of Department is ongoing – staged approach being looked at and explore direction of travel – outcome of review unknown. What is missing around table that is needed going forward? Subvention and direct. Noted Board will have to manage budget for the Airport. AC told of a piece of work required to understand situation – look at costs and make a plan and understand/brainstorm opportunities equivalent of a 5-10 year business plan. EC said of the need to clearly articulate what the ask is – what is the skill set required? Financial model by consultancy firm was discussed. EC stated that the future scope of the Department will reset future pathway for the Airport. Transformation Fund queried? Need to pull together the ask and clear terms of reference/brief and come up with business case. AP advised that there are reserve funds. AP advised YTD figures and forecasts are tracked, however are seeing problems with income forecasting. £1.7million forecasted overspend by year end - this has been raised with Treasury so that they are aware of the possibility of additional funding being required. Debt management needs to continue especially in relation to existing contractors and supporting the need to keep Island business running.
5.	HR update Has been covered earlier in the meeting and where there are vacancies they are being looked at. Information withheld No 5 Update given to the current state of ATC numbers and what is the optimum number. Training pipeline is full at the moment rather than the recruitment being an issue. Information withheld No 4 Head of Air Traffic Services should not be an ATCO (non-operational). Looking at the supervisory team. Direct line management responsibilities to be changed. Head of ATS to move to the office to no longer deal with the day to day operations. Can we ensure that staff are aware of how they can raise concerns if they need to. GC to look at this. Information withheld No 4

Finance update AC spoke about aspiration that airport is self funded with the need for a clear picture of what the business looks like and what it would take to progress to a point of funding. How will it be looked at? Who can do that on behalf of the airport going forward? GC stated that the general rule of thumb if for Airport’s with less than 2.5M pax there will always be a loss. Market position – could make money through land. Airport are offering discounts that serve the IOM but do not serve the Airport. How will the Airport do that and put in place within reasonable timeframe – GC advised would be dependent on financial rules placed on Airport. It was queried whether Department could establish a small team to look at this going forward? EC said there currently isn’t a team but would need to be resourced – also ongoing piece of work about future of Department is ongoing – staged approach being looked at and explore direction of travel – outcome of review unknown. What is missing around table that is needed going forward? Subvention and direct. Noted Board will have to manage budget for the Airport. AC told of a piece of work required to understand situation – look at costs and make a plan and understand/brainstorm opportunities equivalent of a 5-10 year business plan. EC said of the need to clearly articulate what the ask is – what is the skill set required? Financial model by consultancy firm was discussed. EC stated that the future scope of the Department will reset future pathway for the Airport. Transformation Fund queried? Need to pull together the ask and clear terms of reference/brief and come up with business case. AP advised that there are reserve funds. AP advised YTD figures and forecasts are tracked, however are seeing problems with income forecasting. £1.7million forecasted overspend by year end - this has been raised with Treasury so that they are aware of the possibility of additional funding being required. Debt management needs to continue especially in relation to existing contractors and supporting the need to keep Island business running.

HR update Has been covered earlier in the meeting and where there are vacancies they are being looked at. Information withheld No 5 Update given to the current state of ATC numbers and what is the optimum number. Training pipeline is full at the moment rather than the recruitment being an issue. Information withheld No 4 Head of Air Traffic Services should not be an ATCO (non-operational). Looking at the supervisory team. Direct line management responsibilities to be changed. Head of ATS to move to the office to no longer deal with the day to day operations. Can we ensure that staff are aware of how they can raise concerns if they need to. GC to look at this. Information withheld No 4

Full Response Text

From: Lee.Johnson@gov.im To: Lee.Johnson@gov.im Sent: Wed Apr 09 2025 14:33:38 BST Subject: Airport Redacted Minutes

(Attachments:) 280623 Airport Board Meeting notes_Redacted.pdf, 270423 Airport Board Minutes redacted.pdf, 310124 Airport Board Meeting minutes2_Redacted.pdf, 291123 Airport Board Meeting minutes_Redacted.pdf, 270324 Airport Board Meeting minutes1_Redacted.pdf, 250823 Board Meeting notes_Redacted.pdf, 060423 Airport Board Meeting_Redacted.pdf, 190123 Airport Project Steering Group_Redacted.pdf, 290524 Airport Board Meeting minutes_Redacted.pdf, 251023 Airport Board Meeting minutes.3docx_Redacted.pdf, 270923 Airport Board Meeting minutes_Redacted.pdf

P Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AIRPORT BOARD HELD AT 0830 ON
31 JANUARY 2024 IN THE AIRPORT MEETING ROOM AND VIA MS TEAMS ONLINE

Present:

Mr Anthony Charnley, Non-executive Director, DOI - Chair Mrs Lorna Jack-Hooijenga, Non-executive Director Mr John McGlynn, Non-executive Director Mr Chris Holliday, Non-executive Director Mr Gary Cobb, Airport Director, DOI
Mr Tim Crookall MHK, Minister DOI Mrs Emily Curphey, Chief Officer, DOI
Mr Paul Sayle, Interim Chief Accountant, Treasury Mrs Melissa Rundle, HOSC&QA, DOI
Mr Matt Shaw, Operations Director, DOI
Mrs Joanne Taylor, Project Manager, DOI
Mr Stephen Parry, Corporate Communications, Cabinet Office Mr Andrew Stewart, Director of Policy & Strategy, DfE via teams Mr Andrew Patrick, Finance Director, Financial Advisory Service, DOI via teams PA to Airport Director (notetaker TL)

APOLOGIES

Mr Stu Peters MHK, DOI Member
Mr Geoff Pugh, HOATS, DOI Mrs Liz Smith, MH Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Chambers
Miss Clare Gelder, HR Business Partner
Mrs Hannah Lo Bao, Commercial Director, DOI

Mr Charnley advised of stepping down from the Board and that this would be his last meeting.

NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

The notes from the meeting held on 29 November 2023 were agreed upon.

2 MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 29 NOVEMBER 2023

Action 05 – passenger information message – meeting recently held with ITV, and bi-monthly meetings will be held with the media.

Action 06 – CAA dashboard – IOM CAA working on – delayed.

Action 07 – key indicators dashboard – issue with populating and getting hold of data. Have mock- up; however, more work needs to be done.

Now have a project manager. Await the tender document. Noted most airports are using Targit.

Action 09 – Board governance – Mrs Curphey will look at governance and see how the board and department relationship will work, as at the moment, the board has no decision-making powers, with decision-making currently sitting with the Minister.

Action 10 – Queue time data – new Security Compliance Officer now in post who will arrange.
Ongoing.

Action 11 – IOMCAA re investigations – ongoing.

Action 12 – HR issues – ongoing.

Action 16 – Finance – Mr Charnley said of the need to create a total picture of all airport revenue and costs; however, Mr Cobb told of staffing issues within the DOI finance team. Mrs Curphey stated it could be a stand-alone project with Mr Cobb to pull together specifications to bring to Treasury. Mr Sayle said there is also a resource issue across Treasury. Mrs Curphey said she might be able to put something through the transformation fund to do the piece of work. Mrs Jack said of the need to know the starting point as need to know total turnover and total cost, and how it is split between capital and revenue. Mr Charnley stressed the need for this information as a matter of urgency. Mrs Curphey advised of the need to start the paper and the need for a clear delineation of the red line of the airport. Mr McGlynn said the starting point is discussing the master plan and operating model and that the wider the net is cast, the easier it will be to achieve what is wanted. Noted to start with hard cash and then map.

FEEDBACK ON DAILY/MONTHLY BOARD REPORTS

Referring to the daily reports, Mrs Jack stated it is interesting to see where delays/cancellations are and where there are challenges, etc; however, she cannot see a trend, and a weekly summary would be helpful – Mr Shaw will look into producing this. Mr McGlynn said daily reports give good insight.
Mr Holliday said regular baggage belt problems struck him, and Mr Cobb advised that some work has been done and that the HBS3 has issues due to continual stop/start of the system, with work being done on maintenance contracts. PRM contract discussed, and board noted is not mandated by CAA on IOM. Mr Charnley stated that the reports highlight many issues that need fixing and starts to lay the reasoning for business cases and that trends are key. Mr Cobb spoke about minor capital pot.

Information withheld No 2 Information withheld No 2

3 OPERATING MODEL OPTIONS PAPERS

Mr Cobb said Mrs Taylor produced a paper on options available to the airport, similar to what was produced for Tynwald last year. Does the Airport stay within the government, create a statutory board, or a limited company?

Mrs Curphey explained about being committed to going back to COMIN with an update, and the view was that when the paper went to Tynwald last year, it would go back in March/April. The paper that has been drafted has a section at the back with the board position, which would then go to the Minister with a recommendation with a clear understanding of what the board's position is and will be taken into consideration by the Minister and will be formed into a paper. In the past, articulating clearly has been difficult, with the need to understand how to determine.

Mr McGlynn said he sees no benefit in the statutory board with the need to get to a non-subsidy, break-even position and needs a management team who are empowered to do the job and not have to fill out paperwork. Mr McGlynn believes it would have to be a company. Mrs Jack said of the need to determine how the company is set up to enable deals to be done rather than going up a chain, and it is worth exploring the differences between statutory boards and companies. Mrs Curphey said there are differences in the statutory boards on the island, with different operating parameters, and of the need to explore what is needed, and the different ways to achieve it. Mrs Jack said the airport industry needs pace. Mr McGlynn said of looking at statutory boards/limited companies and focusing on issues, with the need for absolute accountability. Mr Stewart said that a long-term plan/strategy/policy is more important than an operating model, with the need to speak to other statutory boards about the approval process with the need to understand the long-term plan which needs to be thrown into the mix and needs to be locked into a policy, although believes will still be challenging no matter what the structure is. The plan is more important than the operating model.
Mr Charnley said that, after submittal of plans to Treasury, then Treasury will choose the ones they think should be implemented, even though the board of the organisation may have a different view, and believes should submit 5-10 year programme which the board supports and go to Treasury for approval of the total funds. Mrs Curphey said there is a need for a plan that says how the airport currently operates and what hinders availability to achieve, with the need also for a financial master plan. Mr McGlynn said the need to understand the numbers and the potential capital investment that can be made is, over a set timescale, with the need to remove the red tape but still have accountability and believes a limited company is the best option. Mr Patrick said there is much work to be done to understand finances, and additional funding has been provided for the next financial year.

Mr Charnley asked for reflection on the importance of political influence in the Board. The Minister personally said need to be brave and the Board meet with Treasury and COMIN to outline plans. Mrs Jack queried if anything prevents the Minister from being the Director on a private company and Mr Sayle said as soon as you have a political member, it is not arm's length. Mrs Curphey said there is nothing at the department's centre that could look at this and that something needs to happen centrally to look at how the relationship is managed. Mr Charnley suggested employing persons to work for the board and liaising with different bodies within government to progress. Mrs Curphey said of the need to identify gaps and has already identified a gap in the financial plan and gap in understanding models, and asked for questions to be sent through for answers.

Mrs Jack asked about Manx Development Corporation and asked about delegated authority and regulations and noted the shareholder agreement is online. Mr Stewart said that having an experienced board does provide comfort when going through the process. Mrs Curphey queried if Treasury have a list of all different statutory boards – Mr Sayle will provide the list and key contacts.

Mr McGlynn said that no matter the legal entity, the management team needs freedom to get on with the job. Mrs Curphey said the pertinent point is about trust and people's trust in the board. Mr McGlynn said if politicians accepted the need for a 5-year master plan and have to have almost complete delegated authority, what checks and balances would they need as politicians that money

4 is not being wasted? Minister said the politicians/Treasury would want to know that they can trust the Board with a budget. Minister spoke about the Steam Packet model, and Mr McGlynn said he would not advocate the Steam Packet model and recommended a limited company with Minister as Chair. Mr Cobb spoke about Steam Packet and political issues. Mr Charnley said Manx Utilities have a political overlay for what is right for the Island. Mrs Curphey said of the need to look at the Post Office model as they have defined financial regulations, and focus on what is wanted to be achieved and then work out if there is a way, and what the model looks like before giving it a name. Mr Charnley said of the need for someone quickly to work this out, and Mr Sayle said sometimes it does go back to the funding model, and all are different in how much they rely on central funding. Mrs Jack queried if the goal is to eliminate subvention, and Mrs Curphey said of the need to go to COMIN to outline the goals. Mr Cobb said part of what Treasury tries to stop is market power abuse as the airport is a monopoly and Treasury has rules in place. Mr Shaw asked about trust and what the challenges are, and Mrs Curphey said it is a legacy issue and the perception is that the airport had a process of drip-feeding business cases to Treasury and had overreliance on requirements being able to meet regulation, which was not substantiated and therefore needs full transparency. Mr Sayle stated that Treasury have limited funds and having the ability to plan and forecast can make decisions early on. Mr Charnley said the board will only submit once it is scrutinised. Mr McGlynn said the guidance from Council will be critical. Mr Stewart referred to subventions and does not know if that is the goal, with the need to present a long term strategy.

Mr Charnley asked how this would be worked on to prepare for a conversation with COMIN and what needed to be done. The Minister said it would be easier face-to-face with COMIN. Mr McGlynn suggested that the Minister sit with politicians to see what is desired before COMIN meeting. Mr Holliday said that the need for a clear vision of discussion around air services and links, physical airport infrastructure and the building, but they have to have an airport of a suitable standard to deliver.

Mr Cobb spoke about the subvention of the core routes against more passenger numbers. Mrs Curphey said a paper has been submitted to COMIN, which essentially says that the policy concerning routes and core routes should sit with DFE, not DOI. Mrs Jack said the pricing should stay with the board/company. Mr McGlynn said of the need to capture the wider economic impact of increased passengers. Mr Stewart explained it was not just the fact between double daily LHR it was presented, and the decision had to be made, and there was no analysis and no dialogue with the business community, and therefore Council stayed with the current. A plan is needed, and Mrs Curphey said of the need for flexibility within the plan. Mr Stewart advised that the DFE position is that it needs to consider the impact on other London routes and the need for some form of assessment/model. It will not be a DFE policy on air services; it will be the Council's nationally agreed policy around air connectivity. Mrs Curphey stated the nationally agreed policy needs to consider the direction given to the board.

To summarise, Mr Charnley said of the need for a conversation with COMIN, a paper to prepare for that and work to look at options around the operating model. Mrs Curphey advised of a PowerPoint presentation to prepare for COMIN and will look for a slot.

Mrs Jack mentioned that, regarding trust, it is important to have a governance write-up that clarifies who the board is accountable to, who hires/fires and what the code of conduct is. Minister said it is not the trust in the board; it is the system.

Mr Charnley confirmed the need for a meeting, preparation for the meeting and work to design the model. Mrs Curphey said that in terms of what the board wants from that meeting is clear direction from the Council of Ministers of what the board can achieve to start developing the framework.

5 MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION

Mr Cobb explained having a draft master plan, the idea being for the next steps and how we want to publish/consult. Airport Master plans are defined documents. The document was produced in 2016, and the current document is a big change, which is split into two: remediation (customer experience, operational resilience) and looking at strategic risks and asset planning/management/strategy and where commercial growth is. The master plan looks at the size the airport can get to, and the Island catchment is relatively saturated. Mr Cobb believes the Island maximum will be £1.5M passengers. There is a disconnect between the public and the airport between expectation versus r

[Response truncated — full text is 128,553 characters]