Prestwick-2
I'm surprised PIK hasn't been able to attract a few chart flights to the sun - Ryanair does well on those kind of flights from PIK.
If they can grow passenger numbers, they will eventually turn a profit. With air travel continuing to grow, and GLA/EDI approaching capacity, PIK may still be in a position to attract some of the overspill.
They are entirely open and flexible. Ryanair being there or not they don't feel affects potential airlines.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SW Scotland
Age: 40
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to know ho much it costs to run the current terminal. I wonder if they are better off demolishing it and building a smaller, more efficient terminal alongside it? It might be a big hit initially, but possibly worth it in the long run?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hinckley
Age: 60
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The committee were more interested in getting mud to stick to the SG than in identifying the real loss making problem (to the airport) of Ryanair's operation, and then getting the airport management to explain what they are discussing with Ryanair about closing the cash gap.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...loser-12918088
Werent PIK putting all their hopes on this ?
Mmm.
Werent PIK putting all their hopes on this ?
Mmm.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rocket was launched in Oct 2015 from the Hebrides Range that would be similar to what would be used at Sutherland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35482244
Last edited by Rob Royston; 15th Jul 2018 at 10:08.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Ryanair were bringing in thousands of tourists to Scotland from the likes of Brussels, Frankfurt, Oslo, Stockholm, Madrid and so on then I could see the benifit. But they aren't.
Prestwick is nothing more than the cheapskate gateway to the Costas for Scottish people to go and fry themselves on a beach for two weeks. Why should the tax payer subsidise that?!
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean it costs everyone in Scotland £30 a year to subsidis Ryanair flights to the Costas.
If Ryanair were bringing in thousands of tourists to Scotland from the likes of Brussels, Frankfurt, Oslo, Stockholm, Madrid and so on then I could see the benifit. But they aren't.
Prestwick is nothing more than the cheapskate gateway to the Costas for Scottish people to go and fry themselves on a beach for two weeks. Why should the tax payer subsidise that?!
If Ryanair were bringing in thousands of tourists to Scotland from the likes of Brussels, Frankfurt, Oslo, Stockholm, Madrid and so on then I could see the benifit. But they aren't.
Prestwick is nothing more than the cheapskate gateway to the Costas for Scottish people to go and fry themselves on a beach for two weeks. Why should the tax payer subsidise that?!
How Ryanair run their business is up to them. From the figures provided it seems that they should be paying over £8 per passenger extra to what they currently pay for going through the airport. It may be that the airport management consider their use of the airport facilities for maintenance etc and the jobs provided at the terminal as too much to lose. I don't agree with them on that but I don't have all the facts available to me.
Keeping the national assett operational is the priority until an alternative is in place.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point in having a "national asset" that only succeeds in throwing money down the pan.
The only reason FR stay is due to the maintenance facility. Oh and guess who paid for most of that......
The only reason FR stay is due to the maintenance facility. Oh and guess who paid for most of that......
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money is not getting thrown down the pan. The losses are with the passenger side and as FR are the sole operator then the airport needs to charge them more or shut down the passenger facility with the obvious job losses and the possible loss of the FR maintenance operation. For a government that has pledged £2 Bn to Calmac over 8 years, it's a drop in the bucket.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one asset they have, the runway, they can't afford to operate without tax payer subsidy.
The profit making side of Prestwick is nothing more than a small time property business.
The profit making side of Prestwick is nothing more than a small time property business.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly it's a vanity project now. The Snp will never back down and admit they were wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the reports of the committee on 20th June (above), It's the passenger side that's being subsidised.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm aware that maybe 5% of the subsidies Calmac receives could be classed as being used for essential lifeline services but that is not a discussion for this forum.
