PRESTWICK
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR cutting BUD, BGY, HHN, PSA, CIA, NYO, REU and MRS 
Is it true?
FR Cuts PIK 50%, Opens SVQ — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
Is it true?FR Cuts PIK 50%, Opens SVQ — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More flights on way to Prestwick Airport - Ayrshire Post
I have checked Ryanair's website and several routes are still not bookable but Michael Cawley does say that the "full timetable contains much more"
I have checked Ryanair's website and several routes are still not bookable but Michael Cawley does say that the "full timetable contains much more"
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanar have been to know to lie!!!!
I do believe PIK has been delt a rather crippling blow!!!!! I doubt theres any chance of another carrier stepping in, if anything EZY may take on some routes from GLA.
I do believe PIK has been delt a rather crippling blow!!!!! I doubt theres any chance of another carrier stepping in, if anything EZY may take on some routes from GLA.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or they could be trying to persuade the government to drop the departure tax and try to play Prestwick and Edinburgh against each other in order to get better airport charges. I think it would be a great shame if passenger services were ever to cease at Prestwick. Although certain parts of the airport leave a lot to be desired it has more going for it than some people realise.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great News But We Can't Tell You Where The New Destinations Are
Glasgow Prestwick Airport
Did they sack the publicist during the restructuring? FIVE NEW ROUTES and they forget to specify exactly where....
The focus of the base has swung completely from destinations in Europe to sun breaks to the usual suspects we're had on offer for years. Looks like a big drop to 18 destinations for the winter :
5 UK / Ireland
1 Norway
1 Sweden
1 Poland
1 Lithuania
8 Spanish
1 Portugese
From the newsfash on Ryanair.com, so they get to use the airports for FREE????? I mean come on, this is NUTS!
Did they sack the publicist during the restructuring? FIVE NEW ROUTES and they forget to specify exactly where....
The focus of the base has swung completely from destinations in Europe to sun breaks to the usual suspects we're had on offer for years. Looks like a big drop to 18 destinations for the winter :
5 UK / Ireland
1 Norway
1 Sweden
1 Poland
1 Lithuania
8 Spanish
1 Portugese
Ryanair’s big expansion in the Canary Islands is due to “zero” tourist taxes in Spain and the 100% discount on airport charges this winter.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 29th Jul 2009 at 13:21.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: an expensive mansion
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skipness one echo
This is not nuts, this is how it should be. we provide passengers to the airport, and the airport can make money on those people - and their relatives/friends/colleagues through car hire, parking, shopping, advertising potential etc amongst many other initiatives to make money.
At the end of the day if an airport doesnt get that they wont get the services from us (or other true LCC's) not only in the good times but in the bad times
At the end of the day if an airport doesnt get that they wont get the services from us (or other true LCC's) not only in the good times but in the bad times
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are some peope so determined that Ryanair is going to leave Prestwick and start using Glasgow instead and that Prestwick Airport is going to close? Anyone would think that certain people actually want Prestwick Airport to close with the loss of several hundred jobs not to mention the loss to the local economy. How would they feel if they were made redundant and could not afford to pay their mortgage and their house got reposessed. It never fails to amaze me how childish and immature some users can be with their "my airport / airline is better than your airport / airline" attitude. I'm quite happy to use both Glasgow and Prestwick Airports.
From the newsfash on Ryanair.com, so they get to use the airports for FREE????? I mean come on, this is NUTS!
For Canary Islands is pretty much net benefit as currently slots are unused in winter and adding 800,000 people (assumming cannibaising some existing operators) into economy with their spending power will have nice benefit. Even average spend of €200 per SLF each it certainly justifies free slots.
Canary Islands is losing people as young people are migrating elsewhere in search of work so providing some economic stimulus off peak is in their eyes a good investment.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at your location, one can see why you might be especially sensitive to this. MOL etc however will be more concerned with the bigger picture, leaving symantics and local feeling behind. If PIK doesnt make business sense it will lose out, whether you feel strongly about it or not.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports are VERY expensive capital projects. Ryanair's use of Sat 3 at Stansted is quite a pleasant experience but when MOL gets his way the whole experience will mirror the add on at the end of SAT 3 which is a cramped nightmare full of frustrated and cramped passengers wondering which of the many queues is the one to join.
If an airport is to generate the capital to invest in facilities it needs to charge the users, ie the airlines, a market rate. To airports that Ryanair has by the balls, ie in this example Prestwick, they have to generate ancillary revenue. This is why the rent of the businesses on site has gone up and the airport Terminal and railway station are looking, shall we say, neglected.
The costs that Ryanair have saved are merely passed onto someone else where possible, or the income does not materialise.
Where is Infratil at Prestwick ever going to generate enough profitability to fix the rotting infrastructure when the resident carrier flies gratis? Why should Ryanir fly for free as the other carriers in the Canaries are just subsidising the competition? I do not believe for one minute it costs nothing for Ryanair to use an airport so in effect someone else is paying for them to do so. This is the truth of the ultra low cost model as it is inherently corrosive. One Hell of a good party for some in the good times, but someone else has to pick up the pieces at the end.
This is part of the reason I question whether the Ryanair model is sustainable to some of the airports involved.
Cabincrewe stop stirring needlessly. Ryanair have never suggested moving to GLA as they are not going to get a better deal from the BAA or any new owner as they effectively have a gun to Infratils head at PIK.
If an airport is to generate the capital to invest in facilities it needs to charge the users, ie the airlines, a market rate. To airports that Ryanair has by the balls, ie in this example Prestwick, they have to generate ancillary revenue. This is why the rent of the businesses on site has gone up and the airport Terminal and railway station are looking, shall we say, neglected.
The costs that Ryanair have saved are merely passed onto someone else where possible, or the income does not materialise.
Where is Infratil at Prestwick ever going to generate enough profitability to fix the rotting infrastructure when the resident carrier flies gratis? Why should Ryanir fly for free as the other carriers in the Canaries are just subsidising the competition? I do not believe for one minute it costs nothing for Ryanair to use an airport so in effect someone else is paying for them to do so. This is the truth of the ultra low cost model as it is inherently corrosive. One Hell of a good party for some in the good times, but someone else has to pick up the pieces at the end.
This is part of the reason I question whether the Ryanair model is sustainable to some of the airports involved.
Cabincrewe stop stirring needlessly. Ryanair have never suggested moving to GLA as they are not going to get a better deal from the BAA or any new owner as they effectively have a gun to Infratils head at PIK.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect, the fact that I live nearer to Prestwick than Glasgow has nothing to do with the comments that I made. I am more than happy to use either airport. I would feel exactly the same way if I lived in Paisley. However, I can not understand why certain users appear to be desperate for Ryanair to move to Glasgow and for Prestwick Airport to close. I wonder how they would feel if they worked at Prestwick and had a family to keep and had a mortgage to pay. I also noticed how some cowardly users of this and other forums hide behind the relative anonymity of the internet to trade childish insults with other users. This behaviour I find to be totally unacceptable. Everyone has a right to have an opinion and that is something that we should all respect. And I don't believe that anyone should wish the closure of an airport which would result in people becoming unemployed. I would certainly not wish this on either Glasgow or Prestwick. Before anyone asks, I do not work at either airport - I work for Royal 
Mail!
Mail!
Airports are VERY expensive capital projects.
Its a no lose situation for Canaries as their passenger numbers are struggling and adding 800,000 tourists where money fed directly into Islands economy will be welcomed.
Utimately too many airport operators are over spending on capital investment and forgetting that majority of people want to get in and out of an airport as quickly as possible with the minimum of hassle.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forgetting that majority of people want to get in and out of an airport as quickly as possible with the minimum of hassle.
Think the low cost pier at Glasgow or the scrum downstairs in Sat 3 at STN. That is VERY far from the minimum of hassle racedo, it's often a cramped and horrid experience.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR have certainly spoken to BAA recently about a base at GLA: see para 25 of this ("Ryanair had talked to BAA at Glasgow about introducing a base there, but had been told that BAA’s head office would not allow Glasgow to engage in discount arrangements.") and page 51 of this ("essentially BAA offered us [FR] the same deal at Glasgow International that we have negotiated in Edinburgh, which we would not regard as successful at all"). The latter is an interesting comment about their deal at EDI, which could lend credence to the view (advanced on another thread) that their deal there includes a 'non-cannibalisation' clause, with no (or little) discounts on routes already served from EDI. (That could explain why routes like Oslo and Paris aren't served by FR from EDI, both of which you'd have thought would provide strong inbound loads to EDI.)
If you think it all through though, it could be argued that FR's current position in the west of Scotland is the strongest it can ever be. While based at PIK they always have the threat of moving to GLA, which gives FR the upper hand in any negotiations with PIK. If, however, FR moved to GLA then their position is weakened as they go from being the largest customer at PIK to one of many customers at GLA. GLA's owners would have to take account of all their other customers when considering what deal to offer FR and so - as the quote above about EDI indicates - the deal is unlikely to be particularly attractive and certainly not as attractive as their current deal at PIK (if it were, GSM and EZY I'm sure would soon demand the same terms). Any deal could also have non-cannibalisation clauses in it, restricting the routes that would qualify for the largest discounts. Hence FR's strongest negotiating position is the status quo: stay at PIK but always have the threat of moving to GLA to keep PIK's prices keen - competition in a nutshell.
That said, the prospect of higher yields at GLA may be sufficient to make the switch attractive. Figure 27 of this provides some evidence to suggest that yields at GLA may be higher than PIK (all other things being equal), since it shows that a £15 increase in ticket price would have dissuaded from flying around 30% of those surveyed at PIK, whereas the same increase would have dissuaded only just under 15% at GLA (and EDI for that matter). The experience of BMI Baby's GLA/PIK - CWL route could be interpreted as bearing this out.
Today's route announcements could indicate a long-term refocusing of FR's PIK operations to 'sunshine' destinations (and so take on EZY and GSM at GLA), with EDI focussing on the Euro cities (although a non-canibalistion clause in the contract there would restrict the scale to which that could be done). Looks like ALC is four-weekly, LPA twice-weekly and ACE and PMI each weekly (don't know about IBZ). I'm sure the booking system earlier today showed these increasing in frequency in summer 2010, but they're unbookable as I type so can't be certain. FAO, AGP and TFS all become more frequent in summer 2010: 4, 6 and 5 weekly, although a lot can obviously change between now and then . A report on the BBC website (here) states that the new destinations are being served at the expense of some of the existing destinations identified as unbookable earlier in this thread, so it looks like the FR presence at PIK isn't being cut as much as had been earlier feared.
Finally, there's a few interesting points in Infratil's latest annual report (here):
"The main area of cost reduction has been at Glasgow Prestwick where staff numbers have been reduced by approximately 25%. In addition, business development expenditure has been reduced because it is apparent that in the short term business is just not there to be developed. Making these changes has been disheartening, but necessary."
"Infratil’s investment in these airports has been motivated by assumptions about trends. More people and freight are being moved by air and as hub airports become congested there will be a step change in the demand for under-utilised edge-of-town airports. While this forecast remains valid, its timing is uncertain and this uncertainty is being factored into Infratil’s approach to these investments."
"Glasgow Prestwick and Kent both present similar dilemmas. UK airport ownership is undergoing a major change at present as
BAA has been obliged by regulatory agencies to sell Gatwick Airport and one of its two Scottish airports. In addition an extensive process is underway to identify the next runway for London with Kent being a candidate. These factors and the underlying propensity of the aviation industry to bounce back quickly from recessions auger for the long-term value of Infratil’s UK airports. Set against this is the uncertainty of the time frames."
This report suggests that LBC's likely to be sold in October and stakes sold in MSE or PIK (or both) if a buyer can be found. Perhaps FR should buy a stake in PIK, if they're confident in their theory that airports can offer them low charges and yet still be profitable on the basis of car park charges etc...
If you think it all through though, it could be argued that FR's current position in the west of Scotland is the strongest it can ever be. While based at PIK they always have the threat of moving to GLA, which gives FR the upper hand in any negotiations with PIK. If, however, FR moved to GLA then their position is weakened as they go from being the largest customer at PIK to one of many customers at GLA. GLA's owners would have to take account of all their other customers when considering what deal to offer FR and so - as the quote above about EDI indicates - the deal is unlikely to be particularly attractive and certainly not as attractive as their current deal at PIK (if it were, GSM and EZY I'm sure would soon demand the same terms). Any deal could also have non-cannibalisation clauses in it, restricting the routes that would qualify for the largest discounts. Hence FR's strongest negotiating position is the status quo: stay at PIK but always have the threat of moving to GLA to keep PIK's prices keen - competition in a nutshell.
That said, the prospect of higher yields at GLA may be sufficient to make the switch attractive. Figure 27 of this provides some evidence to suggest that yields at GLA may be higher than PIK (all other things being equal), since it shows that a £15 increase in ticket price would have dissuaded from flying around 30% of those surveyed at PIK, whereas the same increase would have dissuaded only just under 15% at GLA (and EDI for that matter). The experience of BMI Baby's GLA/PIK - CWL route could be interpreted as bearing this out.
Today's route announcements could indicate a long-term refocusing of FR's PIK operations to 'sunshine' destinations (and so take on EZY and GSM at GLA), with EDI focussing on the Euro cities (although a non-canibalistion clause in the contract there would restrict the scale to which that could be done). Looks like ALC is four-weekly, LPA twice-weekly and ACE and PMI each weekly (don't know about IBZ). I'm sure the booking system earlier today showed these increasing in frequency in summer 2010, but they're unbookable as I type so can't be certain. FAO, AGP and TFS all become more frequent in summer 2010: 4, 6 and 5 weekly, although a lot can obviously change between now and then . A report on the BBC website (here) states that the new destinations are being served at the expense of some of the existing destinations identified as unbookable earlier in this thread, so it looks like the FR presence at PIK isn't being cut as much as had been earlier feared.
Finally, there's a few interesting points in Infratil's latest annual report (here):
"The main area of cost reduction has been at Glasgow Prestwick where staff numbers have been reduced by approximately 25%. In addition, business development expenditure has been reduced because it is apparent that in the short term business is just not there to be developed. Making these changes has been disheartening, but necessary."
"Infratil’s investment in these airports has been motivated by assumptions about trends. More people and freight are being moved by air and as hub airports become congested there will be a step change in the demand for under-utilised edge-of-town airports. While this forecast remains valid, its timing is uncertain and this uncertainty is being factored into Infratil’s approach to these investments."
"Glasgow Prestwick and Kent both present similar dilemmas. UK airport ownership is undergoing a major change at present as
BAA has been obliged by regulatory agencies to sell Gatwick Airport and one of its two Scottish airports. In addition an extensive process is underway to identify the next runway for London with Kent being a candidate. These factors and the underlying propensity of the aviation industry to bounce back quickly from recessions auger for the long-term value of Infratil’s UK airports. Set against this is the uncertainty of the time frames."
This report suggests that LBC's likely to be sold in October and stakes sold in MSE or PIK (or both) if a buyer can be found. Perhaps FR should buy a stake in PIK, if they're confident in their theory that airports can offer them low charges and yet still be profitable on the basis of car park charges etc...
Last edited by tartan 201; 31st Jul 2009 at 20:27.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any deal could also have non-cannibalisation clauses in it"
Could this be the reason why some long haul routes (Middle east direct)
operated from GLA are absent from EDI?
Could this be the reason why some long haul routes (Middle east direct)
operated from GLA are absent from EDI?