Interesting figures.....
Despite my perpetual mantra to always want more and accentuate the negative they ARE clearly doing something right !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we have a detailed spilt of the pure trading / revenues/ profit /loss per airport AND prior to consolidation of the group figures without any distortion by one off dividends ?
I find the wording odd.
Underlying pre-tax profits at MAG grew by a huge 80.2 per cent, from £93.4m in 2012 to £168.3m, with 63.5 per cent of that down to the impact of Stansted.
Impact of Stansted, is an interesting phrase.
Does that mean that in effect that "proportionately" STN made a larger contribution to profit per passenger than MAG as a whole -> ie MAN, EMA, BOH OR is there a bit of spin re figures relating to the sale ?
One off gains/losses are usually highlighted and taken out to reflect a true trading picture ?
It would make more sense to say earnings for the group as a whole were
MAN up 5.1%
EMA x%
BOH x%
and of course STN "hopefully up" x %
So were they up Or Not, stripping out one offs is STN viable going forward ?
If the MAN return was 5.1% what is STN.
Are the actual costs associated with processing a passenger at STN similar to Manchester , I would have thought they would be ?
And yet what of revenue comparisons, you would think MAN would have a much better return on these based on the mix of airlines serving MAN versus STN dominated as it is by RYR.
Plus MAN traffic throughput/footfall is 30odd % higher ?
Basically I am saying the STN figure MUST be much lower but is buried under an avalanche of good news re dividends !
In effect that headline suggests pre tax profits of "MAG The Group" were £168m BUT a massive 63.5% relates purely to the STN operation !
That cannot possibly be right, it must include revenue relating to the purchase so what contribution is STN making to the group !
Can anybody decipher
