Prestwick-2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BAA sold 03/21 off to allow Freeport Scotland to be built. It was fenced off and derelict in the late 80s. It was only the need for the BAe Flying College to fly in horrendous winter crosswinds that brought back the northern third into use. It was only under PIK Ltd that it was brought back into full use. So for short term gain the airport had long term pain to get back to what they had. Nothing changes.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some cuts at PIK too. Including a daily flight to BCN. Gran Canaria also goes. Theres been some minor cuts this summer as well.
A further nail in the coffin for me.
A further nail in the coffin for me.
Last edited by mwm991; 27th Feb 2018 at 10:34.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet FR's media release indicate that MLA ccontinues from PIK:
https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/r...rom-edinburgh/
– Edinburgh: 45 routes including London Stansted & 11 new routes to Berlin, Derry, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Lisbon, Memmingen, Stockholm Skavsta, Riga, Seville, Sofia, & Tallinn
– Glasgow Prestwick: 8 routes to Alicante, Faro, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, Malaga, Malta, Rzeszow & Tenerife South
– Glasgow International – 3 routes to Dublin (3 times daily), Krakow (2 wkly) & Wroclaw (2 wkly)
https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/r...rom-edinburgh/
– Edinburgh: 45 routes including London Stansted & 11 new routes to Berlin, Derry, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Lisbon, Memmingen, Stockholm Skavsta, Riga, Seville, Sofia, & Tallinn
– Glasgow Prestwick: 8 routes to Alicante, Faro, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, Malaga, Malta, Rzeszow & Tenerife South
– Glasgow International – 3 routes to Dublin (3 times daily), Krakow (2 wkly) & Wroclaw (2 wkly)
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alicante 3x weekly,
Faro 1x weekly
Fuertevetura 1x weekly
Lanzarote 2x weekly
Malaga 2x weekly
Malta 1x weekly
Rzeszow 2x weekly
Tenerife South 4x weekly
16 weekly fights for Winter '18/19. (Correct me if wrong)
Faro 1x weekly
Fuertevetura 1x weekly
Lanzarote 2x weekly
Malaga 2x weekly
Malta 1x weekly
Rzeszow 2x weekly
Tenerife South 4x weekly
16 weekly fights for Winter '18/19. (Correct me if wrong)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The M77...
Age: 41
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times has reported that there has been over 20 approaches to the Scottish Government about investment or purchase of PIK.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...fers-mfkw2fxm2
22 approaches either means that the interested parties could not make a case for operating PIK after looking at the books or the SG did not think the approaches were viable. They do not state what or who the approaches were made by though.
However it does show that there may be businesses out there that want to have a go at operating Prestwick.
Also, on an unrelated note, there's been a Qatar 747 sitting on the tarmac for a few days now, anyone got any ideas what it's in for?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...fers-mfkw2fxm2
22 approaches either means that the interested parties could not make a case for operating PIK after looking at the books or the SG did not think the approaches were viable. They do not state what or who the approaches were made by though.
However it does show that there may be businesses out there that want to have a go at operating Prestwick.
Also, on an unrelated note, there's been a Qatar 747 sitting on the tarmac for a few days now, anyone got any ideas what it's in for?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rural Affairs committee looking into future of PIK
Suggestion that pax ops might ultimately be dropped
Interesting giving comments about FR only offering pax ops due to leased maintenance facilities.
Suggestion that pax ops might ultimately be dropped
Interesting giving comments about FR only offering pax ops due to leased maintenance facilities.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a poorly kept secret that Prestwick loses money on the FR contract. A brave owner would oust FR immediately and then attract a mix of short-haul, holiday sun and a long haul to North America. Whilst FR are there none of the above will happen.
Interesting giving comments about FR only offering pax ops due to leased maintenance facilities.
A brave owner would oust FR immediately and then attract a mix of short-haul, holiday sun and a long haul to North America.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just listened to the committee.
They said they have spoken to 23 airlines. Closest they have got is with a Cypriot operator but an "operational issue" with pilots put paid to it.
Met with upto 17 cargo operators.
Feel they could sustain a London service. At a recent summit they were told by Flybe and Easyjet that they would consider a PIK-LHR route if the third runway came to fruition. However they also realise that they service would need to be more than 1x daily to be attractive to business. Number of flights from Glasgow and Edinburgh works against them.
They feel a lot of smaller aspects of the business are doing well like fuelling, maintenance, rent occupancy.
They got grilled about how much the passenger ops service is costing them. Asked why it has taken them 5 years to realise that passenger ops at the airport has been losing money, which they conceded. However they said the are carrying out a review to understand truly what makes money and what doesn't at the airport. They blamed managerial changes for the length of time being so long. Admitted they are up against it with other airports which are better located. Stated that at the end of the next review they may make a recommendation to cease passenger ops if it saves the business.
Stated they have virtually no inbound traffic and are reliant on sun, sea and sand outbound.
Asked if and when the taxpayer would get their money back and they couldn't answer. They did make a lot of argument about the value of the 800 acres of land of the airport. One of the panel mentioned that Nicola Sturgeon had told them at the time that of purchase by the SG that they would not loan more to airport than the value of the land. When told by one of the panel that they didn't think they could pay the tax payer back but if they could what year would the tax payer see their money back, Ian Forgie the Finance Director couldn't answer this.
Annual loans are pretty much spent on maintaing the infrastructure of the airport, i.e terminal, runway etc.
Also told that they have now went in a different direction from their original five year plan in 2014. A panel member said they found that confusing and that the airport is playing a dangerous game by relying on FR as their lone operator when they are notorious for ditching airports on a whim.
They did say that passenger numbers and cargo were marginally increasing. Although with no service increases coming and minor reductions from their only operator, concern exists.
Said that most parties who want to invest in or buy the airport want to basically bulldoze the place and build houses and they will only sell to parties which have the same vision of the board. They are not actively looking to sell the airport but if the right bid comes along they will talk.
Asked about how long SG would keep funding a loss making entity. No one really knew.
Lots of chit chat about the Heathrow Hub and the Spaceport but nothing really concrete. Just talks and meetings are ongoing. A lot of non-disclosure stuff.
A new commercial director coming in and they have recently hired a "cargo industry expert" who lives 10 minutes from the airport and is retired. His contacts have helped the airport.
Overall it felt very defeatist. They are relying on areas of the business which make minor profits to prop up the drain of the passenger operations.
They said they have spoken to 23 airlines. Closest they have got is with a Cypriot operator but an "operational issue" with pilots put paid to it.
Met with upto 17 cargo operators.
Feel they could sustain a London service. At a recent summit they were told by Flybe and Easyjet that they would consider a PIK-LHR route if the third runway came to fruition. However they also realise that they service would need to be more than 1x daily to be attractive to business. Number of flights from Glasgow and Edinburgh works against them.
They feel a lot of smaller aspects of the business are doing well like fuelling, maintenance, rent occupancy.
They got grilled about how much the passenger ops service is costing them. Asked why it has taken them 5 years to realise that passenger ops at the airport has been losing money, which they conceded. However they said the are carrying out a review to understand truly what makes money and what doesn't at the airport. They blamed managerial changes for the length of time being so long. Admitted they are up against it with other airports which are better located. Stated that at the end of the next review they may make a recommendation to cease passenger ops if it saves the business.
Stated they have virtually no inbound traffic and are reliant on sun, sea and sand outbound.
Asked if and when the taxpayer would get their money back and they couldn't answer. They did make a lot of argument about the value of the 800 acres of land of the airport. One of the panel mentioned that Nicola Sturgeon had told them at the time that of purchase by the SG that they would not loan more to airport than the value of the land. When told by one of the panel that they didn't think they could pay the tax payer back but if they could what year would the tax payer see their money back, Ian Forgie the Finance Director couldn't answer this.
Annual loans are pretty much spent on maintaing the infrastructure of the airport, i.e terminal, runway etc.
Also told that they have now went in a different direction from their original five year plan in 2014. A panel member said they found that confusing and that the airport is playing a dangerous game by relying on FR as their lone operator when they are notorious for ditching airports on a whim.
They did say that passenger numbers and cargo were marginally increasing. Although with no service increases coming and minor reductions from their only operator, concern exists.
Said that most parties who want to invest in or buy the airport want to basically bulldoze the place and build houses and they will only sell to parties which have the same vision of the board. They are not actively looking to sell the airport but if the right bid comes along they will talk.
Asked about how long SG would keep funding a loss making entity. No one really knew.
Lots of chit chat about the Heathrow Hub and the Spaceport but nothing really concrete. Just talks and meetings are ongoing. A lot of non-disclosure stuff.
A new commercial director coming in and they have recently hired a "cargo industry expert" who lives 10 minutes from the airport and is retired. His contacts have helped the airport.
Overall it felt very defeatist. They are relying on areas of the business which make minor profits to prop up the drain of the passenger operations.
Last edited by mwm991; 20th Jun 2018 at 21:50.
Also told that they have now went in a different direction from their original five year plan in 2014.
they will only sell to parties which have the same vision of the board
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Age: 64
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not very much new that isn't known already. The PAX operation is the main area holding back the company and they seem to be holding out for a London route to reappear but not via FR. They may wait a long time and who knows exactly what the Heathrow Hub initiative will look like. The FBO and military / tech / maintenance/ training side of things look sustainable and profitable with possibly the cargo side of the business and the property rentals so this should form the core of the business moving forward. Ditch the PAX and use the terminal for a new museum of aviation for Scotland alongside the Spaceport which I do believe will happen. This would generate more paying punters through the terminal doors than there are PAX at present. If PAX are warranted ( and profitable) in the future then a small functional terminal could easily be built to accommodate the needs of the present 700k+ PAX. However with GLA under increasing pressure from EDI then expect more pressure on PIK's present services
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SW Scotland
Age: 40
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the summary... very informative, if not slightly troubling!
You make it sound so simple! I think you are massively overestimating the impact of Ryanair! How exactly are Ryanair putting off an airline starting service to North America? And just who would want to run a flight to North America from PIK, when Glasgow is just up the road? 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.
I still believe there could be a market for passenger flights from PIK. Ryanair are managing to fill their sun flights, showing people are prepared to travel to PIK if the price is right. With Ryanair now cutting capacity out of GLA, we might see additional flights added from PIK in future. Given the right incentives, additional airlines could be attracted too - Wizzair did well enough for a few years, it would be interesting to see how the move to GLA has impacted their profits.
Closing the terminal and abandoning passenger flights is a big step, and something that is difficult to come back from. 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.
A brave owner would oust FR immediately and then attract a mix of short-haul, holiday sun and a long haul to North America. Whilst FR are there none of the above will happen.
I still believe there could be a market for passenger flights from PIK. Ryanair are managing to fill their sun flights, showing people are prepared to travel to PIK if the price is right. With Ryanair now cutting capacity out of GLA, we might see additional flights added from PIK in future. Given the right incentives, additional airlines could be attracted too - Wizzair did well enough for a few years, it would be interesting to see how the move to GLA has impacted their profits.
Closing the terminal and abandoning passenger flights is a big step, and something that is difficult to come back from. 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.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newspaper reports on this committee are very sketchy. I have not seen the yearly turnover figures anywhere, just that the owners (us) have loaned £40m over 6 years and that losses are at £24m over 4 years. Does that mean that it loses £6m a year which the loan is covering for now? Have any loan repayments been made? Many on the committee are politically motivated which does not help.
If it is the case that the passenger side is where the losses are, should these 700,000 passengers not be paying an extra £8.50 in landing and take off fees. Did the committee ask how much Ryanair paid at Prestwick compared to what they pay at other UK airports?
If it is the case that the passenger side is where the losses are, should these 700,000 passengers not be paying an extra £8.50 in landing and take off fees. Did the committee ask how much Ryanair paid at Prestwick compared to what they pay at other UK airports?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
a new museum of aviation for Scotland
I've always thought there must be mileage in trying to get a commercial training school back at PIK.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The management felt that they have one of the best offerings open to any operator due to the price and availability of slots at the airport compared to competitors. They are entirely open and flexible. Ryanair being there or not they don't feel affects potential airlines.
Also said that just under 1/3 of passengers at the airport are rail users.
Also said that just under 1/3 of passengers at the airport are rail users.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newspaper reports on this committee are very sketchy. I have not seen the yearly turnover figures anywhere, just that the owners (us) have loaned £40m over 6 years and that losses are at £24m over 4 years. Does that mean that it loses £6m a year which the loan is covering for now? Have any loan repayments been made? Many on the committee are politically motivated which does not help.
If it is the case that the passenger side is where the losses are, should these 700,000 passengers not be paying an extra £8.50 in landing and take off fees. Did the committee ask how much Ryanair paid at Prestwick compared to what they pay at other UK airports?
If it is the case that the passenger side is where the losses are, should these 700,000 passengers not be paying an extra £8.50 in landing and take off fees. Did the committee ask how much Ryanair paid at Prestwick compared to what they pay at other UK airports?