Wellington Scoop
Network

E-Mail 'Facts, or spin, about the runway' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Facts, or spin, about the runway' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

6 comments:

  1. Esjay, 28. November 2015, 16:18

    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!

     
  2. 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.

     
  3. Dr Sea Rotmann, 30. November 2015, 17:00

    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

     
  4. Build it now!, 1. December 2015, 11:53

    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.

     
  5. 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.

     
  6. Nora, 4. December 2015, 15:08

    Highly recommend Patrick Smellie’s article in Thursday’s DomPost: “Runway extension fails the sniff test.”