Originally Posted by
Tiger8
"Time PIK started to look elsewhere for buisness - it is out there!!"
CabinCrewe, where exactly in the above sentence does it state that they are easy pickings. Perhaps you should read the post properly before retorting. It would be interesting to hear how you are such a expert on all things Prestwick.
Skipness - you post a lot of good stuff, but on this occasion I have to disagree. I don`t believe it`s Ryanair or nothing for passengers. Yes it will be a hard slog, but I believe PIK can attract more passenger traffic.
Imagine I'm an airline (Westjet or Norwegian or whoever you like). PIK makes a pitch to me about a route, its catchment area, etc. As
nef points out, it's a publicly-owned airport so has some constraints on incentives, but it can still offer something.
Great.
Then GLA comes along and says "OK, we'll match or beat the incentives - we're privately owned so don't have State Aid constraints. Oh, and have you seen how big our 1-hour catchment is compared to PIK?"
Game over.
If I were GLA, I would be doing exactly that - systematically ensuring that I offered the best possible deal to any carrier considering PIK. That's business.
Ambition for an airport is great, but it has to be founded on
something. For passenger service, what advantages can PIK offer an airline compared to GLA? (Railway station doesn't count. "Lack of congestion" doesn't count. For an airline, it's about market size, revenue potential, and operating costs.)
That's a genuine, sincere question, by the way. I have a perception of PIK vs GLA based on having flown through both, but I wouldn't claim to be an expert. That probably makes me not dissimilar to the network planners in the airlines you mention. So what are the arguments which would cause Europe Airpost or Norwegian or Westjet or any other passenger carrier to choose PIK over GLA?