Perhaps we are not entirely clear on the definition of "support":
to have a scenery supported by AES, support is required by BOTH parties, the developer must do the scenery in a certain way and give Oliver some source files, then Oliver has to work to create his own part.
When I've said "we have an agreement with Oliver what WE would support AES until we do FS9 version of our sceneries" I was obviously referring only to OUR part of the "support", and we informed Oliver a while back that, if we would release a scenery with no FS9 version, we would not support AES, because by that time we would probably have our own alternative solution in FSX, and he understood the point, so he knows very well what I meant.
Although it might seems strange that the availability of the FS9 version would affect the AES support, even in FSX, it DOES make sense because, since we don't have a solution for ground services in FS9, we need AES in FS9 so, the airport has to be made to be easily adaptable to AES ANYWAY, otherwise it would be difficult to port back in FS9.
But, if we decide to drop FS9, this means we'll not be bounded by doing the airport in a specific way because of AES in FS9, and it's even possible that, due to GSX, we'll have to design the FSX version instead differently, especially in case we'll get rid of the default jetways system to be replaced by our own.
In THAT case, a release of an FSX-only airport, GSX already released and with a new jetway animation method, it's very likely that we'll not support AES anymore, but that would be really obvious: what would be the point, considering that the scenery would have same (or better) features by default, without purchasing anything extra, since GSX will be free at our airports ?