They did reasonably well with a host of charter flights to the sun when FR's main Scottish focus was at PIK and inbound city routes were their core focus. When the charter carriers like Futura went bust, and at the same time Ryanair moved all city routes out to EDI for better inbound traction, this left only outbound sun routes from PIK, and so that niche for charters was lost as FR then dominated that same space, one they had avoided at first.
It is entirely possible to lose money with loads more passengers, this is partly why Infratil sold out, they scaled up their costs faster than their revenues should have allowed.
If a new customer started flights on PIK-sun, there is a high probability FR would compete to maintain market share, otherwise they risk losing the very competitive pricing PIK have to offer their only passenger operator. It's a tough call, and I have said this before, but closing the 1964 terminal and concentrating on what PIK do well at as a niche operator may well work IMHO. Trying to offer a full passenger service from that cost base is crippling. What turned PIK around in 1994 was Matthew Hudson making some hard and painful decisions which led to some medium term success in the market as it was then. No politician sees any success in doing the same as they will own the pain with none of the gain. There's a lot of good stuff there, it just needs a break from the fantasy business model that continues to show heavy losses. But it's not my job on the line so that's just keyboard-warrior-ing on my part to some extent

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?

Ryanair don't pay airports like Manston! It doesn't work like that!

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.

Prestwick is an answer to a serious housing shortage.

First time I've ever heard that location suggested. It was always PIK or campbeltown. Lovely part of the world, no infrastructure, peat bog, sure it's not April 1st?

Going by the figures recently provided, It costs everyone in Scotland about thirty bob a year each to keep this massive national asset open. It would be most irresponsible to pull the plug.

That's what I thought as well but it seems that it was mentioned previously in relation to the rocket launched sattelite side of things. The space tourist side, if ever developed, is more likely to be from an existing airport.
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

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?!

Can you explain where it costs each Scot £30 per year?
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.

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......

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.

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.

I don't understand the comparison you're trying to make. Are you aware that Calmac provide essential lifeline services to otherwise inaccessible remote areas?

And not forgetting that calmac carries nearly 10x the pax of pik. Not only vital services for residents but also tourists who actually bring money in to the country, also benefiting people all over Scotland not just a pocket of people in Ayrshire. If pik was run as a proper business it would have been put out of its misery long ago.

Sadly it's a vanity project now. The Snp will never back down and admit they were wrong.

According to the reports of the committee on 20th June (above), It's the passenger side that's being subsidised.

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.

Well you did make the comparison...

About the subsidies, yes, but I did not mention that money-spinner, lifeline services.