Email a copy of 'Facts, or spin, about the runway' to a friend
Loading ...
Join the ScoopCitizen Community
20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but to keep Scoop thriving we need your support. We are building on our Wellington.Scoop and Scoop offering with thedig.nz our new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform. Now, more than ever sustainable financial support of the Scoop Foundation for Public Interest Journalism will help to keep these vital and participatory media services running.
Find out more and join us:
I daresay that handouts of these reports will be issued at the meetings? Frank Sinatra’s song “I did it my way” surely must be appropriate!
Hel, 28. November 2015, 21:30
Look forward to reading the “independent” peer review. Wouldn’t mind reading the Council peer review that shows the forecasts are overstated by 5 times, that is outrageous. Could you point me to where I can read it.
Hold on – Page 7 of the report states:
28. The peer review could not find any errors in assumptions or process that would materially impact on the findings of the InterVISTAS or EY Reports.
29.The key findings of the peer review are:
– Airbiz conducted the review of the InterVISTAS report and Airbiz are of the opinion that InterVISTAS has assessed and presented a reasonable and credible view of the airline and route prospects at case study level for new long haul services.
– PWC conducted the review of the EY report and are comfortable with the approach adopted by EY to assess potential economic benefits and cannot identify any errors in technique, logic or calculation.
What you are referring to is later in the report where a catchment number was quoted and the peer reviewers seeked clarification as to how the numbers were used. Clearly they were happy with how they were used. How can you take one excerpt from the report out of context when the findings say it was fit for purposed.
Esjay, 4. December 2015, 13:45
Paying for reports has to favour the company who commissions them. Where are the Terms of Reference? Have they been made public? Then and only then can the reports be judged as being independent, or not.
Loading ...
I daresay that handouts of these reports will be issued at the meetings? Frank Sinatra’s song “I did it my way” surely must be appropriate!
Look forward to reading the “independent” peer review. Wouldn’t mind reading the Council peer review that shows the forecasts are overstated by 5 times, that is outrageous. Could you point me to where I can read it.
It was nicely hidden and is never mentioned by the proponents, probably because you need to dig yourself through several hundred pages but both the Airbiz and PwC reviews caution the Council around the market catchment numbers used by InterVISTAS and EY: http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/your-council/meetings/Council/2014/12/supplementary-agenda.pdf
Hold on – Page 7 of the report states:
28. The peer review could not find any errors in assumptions or process that would materially impact on the findings of the InterVISTAS or EY Reports.
29.The key findings of the peer review are:
– Airbiz conducted the review of the InterVISTAS report and Airbiz are of the opinion that InterVISTAS has assessed and presented a reasonable and credible view of the airline and route prospects at case study level for new long haul services.
– PWC conducted the review of the EY report and are comfortable with the approach adopted by EY to assess potential economic benefits and cannot identify any errors in technique, logic or calculation.
What you are referring to is later in the report where a catchment number was quoted and the peer reviewers seeked clarification as to how the numbers were used. Clearly they were happy with how they were used. How can you take one excerpt from the report out of context when the findings say it was fit for purposed.
Paying for reports has to favour the company who commissions them. Where are the Terms of Reference? Have they been made public? Then and only then can the reports be judged as being independent, or not.
Highly recommend Patrick Smellie’s article in Thursday’s DomPost: “Runway extension fails the sniff test.”