PRESTWICK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S1E. Why can't you just say 'Well done Prestwick, Good News' ? Instead you just go off again......
Huge terminal needs 1M+ passenger throughput to break even is subsidided by taxpayer when a commercially viable operation exists under 40 minutes away. Meanwhile a scrapper moves into town which will not put so much as a dent in the losses in passenger handling and you think "Yayy well done"??? More like well done them for being subsidised my the taxpayer (!)
What's at HMS Gannet nowadays btw?
They need to decide what market they're in, any profits from cargo, military and transit stops are just falling into an ocean of losses keeping that ancient terminal building open.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't tell me I'm not understanding how this works. Maybe you should understand that the Scottish Government is clearly perfectly willing to subsidise Prestwick Airport for whatever reason, presumably present and future employment prospects over a wide range of activity, with the ROI the said to be around £64M per annum to the local economy. Even the Prestwick Air Show with public subsidy is said to return £8M over that weekend. I've told you before, it's not just Ryanair.
Today 6 Hawks and 6 Falcons if you must know.
Today 6 Hawks and 6 Falcons if you must know.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Usually in a bar!
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Scottish Government shouldn't be propping this up if it's doing so well. A few Hawk aircraft etc isn't going to make it work! There are clearly parts of it that can offer employment and potential profit but a shagged old terminal for a limited number of passengers is a waste of money.
£8 million from an airshow??
£8 million from an airshow??
Cant see why it matters much that the terminal is "shagged and old" when in reality it is usually substantially more pleasant to use than the comparable GLA terminal.
It would, however, be nice if they could manage to use the same luggage trolleys for the airport and the rail station. It really makes you wonder about the management when you see such stupidity as having two separate trolley systems.
It would, however, be nice if they could manage to use the same luggage trolleys for the airport and the rail station. It really makes you wonder about the management when you see such stupidity as having two separate trolley systems.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Prestwick
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to keep a strategic viewpoint on Prestwick's position within the Central Scotland airports. Both Glasgow and Edinburgh are, at times, close to capacity with very few stands available for the early morning departures. Also, if we can remember the plans produced before the economy nosedived - both Edinburgh and Glasgow believed that they would require second runways! Would that be a good use of resources given Prestwick's proximity? I doubt if the local population at either airport would be overjoyed!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When early morning stands become an issue, they build more.
If that's not possible, the route is served by non based aircraft.
Additional runways are only a necessity once you're busier than Gatwick.
None of these scenarios is a plus for PIK.
Btw the terminal at GLA has a load of natural light and gatespace airside. PIK's airside is actually UNDERGROUND (!)
If that's not possible, the route is served by non based aircraft.
Additional runways are only a necessity once you're busier than Gatwick.
None of these scenarios is a plus for PIK.
Btw the terminal at GLA has a load of natural light and gatespace airside. PIK's airside is actually UNDERGROUND (!)
Join Date: May 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making a statement that PIK is a more pleasant experience than GLA makes me seriously question if you've ever flown from either airport.
You may as well say Lagos is a better passenger experience than Dubai.
PS GLA is currently building more stands for for based aircraft so that's a other one of your arguments quashed.
You may as well say Lagos is a better passenger experience than Dubai.
PS GLA is currently building more stands for for based aircraft so that's a other one of your arguments quashed.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Largs
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callum everyone is entitled to their opinions and it is really not up to you to judge someone just because they prefer an airport that doesn't happen to be your favourite. Your hatred of Prestwick Airport is blatantly obvious. Oh and please keep politics out of this thread. I realise you have an intense dilike for everything SNP and Nicola Sturgeon but remember this thread is about Prestwick Airport not Scottish politics!!
Given that I have already been through both PIK and GLA this month maybe you should be examining your own predjudices.
GLA sometimes seems like an airport that cannot cope with its existing flights, and it is not clear that there is much sense in building new capacity there when there is a perfectly adequate underemployed airport just down the road.
GLA sometimes seems like an airport that cannot cope with its existing flights, and it is not clear that there is much sense in building new capacity there when there is a perfectly adequate underemployed airport just down the road.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that perfectly adequate airport recently took diversions from Glasgow and will be doing so at night for the next 5 months when the runway built on a bog is once again closed. Also I have flown from both airports countless times. Yes, Prestwick is a more pleasant experience than Glasgow. Even for those in my office who live in Linwood and Dumbarton. (They are close to GLA, btw.)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, "Won't sit well with most on here!" With regards to airlines or airline let's just wait and see....! You will hear no more from me for a bit, I don't answer questions to those who would love to see PIK gone - I have no personal agenda but do know about commercial sensitivity!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Let's just wait and see?"
Why not? They're being showered by the magic money fountain.
As to "make more use of the existing facility at PIK rather than expand GLA"? Well let me rephrase that :
Make more use of the airport the airlines want to serve rather than make them serve another more remote airfield they've had the option of serving for decades and still choose not to. No major commercial passenger airline outside of Ryanair use or even want to use PIK. This has been the core truth since 1994. The others who tried have mainly gone bust.
Globespan, Futura, Air Columbus, Air Wales, bmi Baby etc
So take as many diversion as you like. PIK has as ad-hoc value but commercially it remains a dead duck and not one fanboy on here has a remotely plausible business case to address that. I do not want to see PIK die but no one is being realistic here.
Why not? They're being showered by the magic money fountain.
As to "make more use of the existing facility at PIK rather than expand GLA"? Well let me rephrase that :
Make more use of the airport the airlines want to serve rather than make them serve another more remote airfield they've had the option of serving for decades and still choose not to. No major commercial passenger airline outside of Ryanair use or even want to use PIK. This has been the core truth since 1994. The others who tried have mainly gone bust.
Globespan, Futura, Air Columbus, Air Wales, bmi Baby etc
So take as many diversion as you like. PIK has as ad-hoc value but commercially it remains a dead duck and not one fanboy on here has a remotely plausible business case to address that. I do not want to see PIK die but no one is being realistic here.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On point Skipness, PIK offering a terminal and pax flights is a total white elephant. Anybody with an ounce of commercial acumen would admit to that. Not nice clearly for a person employed in that terminal who might be in here to read such comments, I can get that.
Nice that they can take diversions at night, but if PIK want doing so the ac would go to EDI etc.
I wish PIK well, but any government intervention is a waste of money, and a subsidy for a failing entity, Tyne government should show leadership.
EI-BUD
Nice that they can take diversions at night, but if PIK want doing so the ac would go to EDI etc.
I wish PIK well, but any government intervention is a waste of money, and a subsidy for a failing entity, Tyne government should show leadership.
EI-BUD
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Age: 64
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK weve got down to the usual bull**** spouted by both sides of the argument with most of it based on prejudice and not real facts. The argument around which terminal is better is childish crap - whether you like either terminal is a matter of personal taste. I fly from both airports regularly and to be honest both terminals can be crap or decent dependent on how im feeling at the time and what time I have to spend in them. The underground v natural light argument is bollocks personally. Try Mumbai!
I would like to see the official breakdown as to each of the 'operational units' at PIK to see exactly where the profits / losses are, particularly in relation to exact incomes / costs attributed to the PAX operations and terminal. If anyone has these figures then please PM me because some of the figures being posted on here seem to appear to be plucked out of thin air.
Also in terms of the monies being invested by the Government into PIK my understanding is that they are in the form of a low interest repayable loan, payable when the airfield is sold on to a private concern. Now whether that is an airfield operating company or developers remains to be seen but either way there will be a sizable return for the Government. Now thats a bit different from what the tabloids and certain posts on here seem to claim. But as ever posters' own politics get in the way of the real facts.
As I have said whoever has the exact operating costs of the various business units at PIK if they could PM me with links to the information that would be great. Its about time we got some real facts as opposed to the urine that is posted on here on occasion.
I would like to see the official breakdown as to each of the 'operational units' at PIK to see exactly where the profits / losses are, particularly in relation to exact incomes / costs attributed to the PAX operations and terminal. If anyone has these figures then please PM me because some of the figures being posted on here seem to appear to be plucked out of thin air.
Also in terms of the monies being invested by the Government into PIK my understanding is that they are in the form of a low interest repayable loan, payable when the airfield is sold on to a private concern. Now whether that is an airfield operating company or developers remains to be seen but either way there will be a sizable return for the Government. Now thats a bit different from what the tabloids and certain posts on here seem to claim. But as ever posters' own politics get in the way of the real facts.
As I have said whoever has the exact operating costs of the various business units at PIK if they could PM me with links to the information that would be great. Its about time we got some real facts as opposed to the urine that is posted on here on occasion.