High volume doesn't always mean high complexity.
To achieve high volume you also need the right infrastructure in place, something that regional airports like EDI don't have, such as:
-rapid exit taxiways
-multiple runway holding points and bays
-adequate airspace design
-efficient departure routes (i.e. 1 minute intervals)

None of the above are available at Scottish airports.

Sorry my mistake.
Indeed Glasgow have RETs. Now they just need the traffic :)

I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. Demolishing the terminal could be relatively costly. It was built in the 1960s and so its construction predates modern standards. This document, for example, refers to the removal of asbestos in a recent refurbishment of the terminal building - there may be other locations in the terminal where demolition costs may be abnormally high. Parts of the terminal and the old cargo sheds on the western side of Apron A are let to non-aviation businesses and generate income. So demolishing things just to save costs might end up having a fairly high upfront cost and reduce income.

However, if the terminal was demolished with the aim of turning aprons A and B into housing development money would have to be spent on other things. If I recall correctly, aprons A and B were served by an underground hydrant refuelling system fed by the fuel tanks to the west of Apron A (visible at the top left on the photo below). Assuming that's still there, that system would likely have to be removed and the land remediated before any housing development could start - again that may be costly given it dates from the 60s. Would the cargo sheds on the eastern side of Apron B need to be relocated, which would again involve a cost?

https://goo.gl/maps/5EUrkrjvywhyr3ZM7

I would have thought that few property developers are likely to want to take on the risk of dealing with the above. They may likely expect any new owner to undertake such work and handover to the developer a remediated site that could then be built upon. Assuming they did that though, there could then be other issues that come into play.

Assuming the parallel taxiway remains past aprons A and B (and it would be short-sighted to remove it), any development of housing may need a significant stand-off distance from the taxiway and from the fuel farm. So there may be significant chunks of aprons A and B that couldn’t be built upon. The Pow Burn to the east has flooded in the past and money may have to be spent remediating that.

Let’s assume, however, that all the above are addressed and a developer wishes to submit a planning application to South Ayrshire Council for houses. Among other things, SAC may want to be convinced that a housing development represented a logical extension of Prestwick and residents could easily access local facilities. If you look at an aerial photograph of the area, housing there could be considered isolated from the rest of Prestwick - it would be around a 20-minute walk to the nearest primary school for example, so the council may not be convinced of the planning case for some houses on the current terminal site.

Any deal with, for example, a housing developer could likely be contingent on the developer buying the land only when they get planning consent. So the terminal could be closed (with income lost), the land remediated (money spent) but no income gained from a sale if no planning consent was forthcoming.

Assuming that planning consent for housing was gained, there’s then the matter of selling the houses. Some of these would front onto a busy dual-carriageway (the A79), others on to the fuel farm and others onto a live taxiway. All of them would be near a 24hr operational airport with the noise that that entails. Such houses may sell for less compared to others in the area.

So any housing development may have to spend more than average to make the site suitable yet may command prices less than average given the characteristics of the site. Data from the Scottish Government (here) shows that there were 144 houses built for private sale in South Ayrshire in 2018, down from around 200 - 300 a year prior to the recession. Perhaps demand for housing in the area isn't as buoyant as some think and may not be able to absorb the costs of dealing with the above? Housing developers would also have a choice of other potential development sites elsewhere in Ayrshire, which likely wouldn't have the same extent of issues (including political) as building on the terminal site would - the airport site isn't the only potential housing development site in the area and demand doesn't appear to be such that developers are falling over themselves to build houses.

That said, there are parts of the airport estate that could make sense for housing development and could avoid the issues above. The former HMS Gannet may be considered suitable for housing - there is a live planning application for houses immediately to the west of it and the airport themselves obviously saw some development potential on the HMSG land as they submitted a Proposal of Application notice to SAC for potential development on that land, but no application was forthcoming.

Also, the southern part of 03/21 could perhaps form a logical eastwards extension of housing in Prestwick. However, there is a golf course between there and the existing housing (see below) which might need to be included in any development to stitch the new housing into the existing. More expense though.

https://goo.gl/maps/uFeaHYhRNQWj4cFr5

If a new owner closed the terminal, then they may have to deal with some potential political flak given the loss of employment at the terminal. If the terminal closed, then there would presumably also be a question mark over the future of the Ryanair hangars and their associated jobs, since Ryanair would have to position the aircraft in empty from other airports.

Any flak the new owners got for losing jobs would presumably spread to the Scottish Government. There may well be a Westminster election this coming autumn, at around the time any new owners could take over, so the SNP may be nervous about any new owner announcing plans that could have a negative effect on employment at a politically-sensitive time. They could perhaps get round that by including a condition in the sale that passenger operations should be continued for 'x' years (perhaps until after the 2021 Holyrood elections).

I could just about see the logic of AGS buying it and relocating Ryanair to Glasgow as they could offer some new jobs at Glasgow for affected staff and it may be palatable for Ryanair to position aircraft between Glasgow and Prestwick for maintenance. However, AGS could have done that at any point since Infratil started seeking offers and they haven’t so why would they suddenly want to do it now? Perhaps the loss of Ryanair at Glasgow has made the airport management there think again? Equally, Ryanair could have decided to relocate all their Prestwick operations to Glasgow at any time but hitherto haven't - perhaps they like the negotiating leverage of keeping Prestwick's terminal open?

Edinburgh airport could make a similar case for buying it and relocating Ryanair’s aircraft there. However, Ryanair's Edinburgh base grew to nine aircraft in spring this year but seems to have reduced back to eight in June with the reduction in the Stansted flights. So it’s not obvious that there’s a demand, at least in the short term, to relocate Ryanair’s Prestwick-based aircraft to Edinburgh.

Would either AGS or Edinburgh airport really want to deal with the issues mentioned above to reclaim some of their outlay?

This article states that several expressions of interest have been received and that the preferred bidder should be known by early September, so not long until everything I've written above is no doubt proven wrong.

What's the Ryanair plan for Prestwick this winter given MOL's profit warning this week?

Kudos to tartan 201 for her/his detailed analysis - I learn a lot!

None of those items is anywhere near a deal breaker to a developer who gets all that lovely flat land (with drainage!)

People will buy houses anywhere (look at the A4 Cromwell Road in London ) - especially if the price is right

But my bet is phased development - non-airline to start with (which cuts an awful lot of costs with some business park/housing and then a gradual withering away over 5-10 years to wholesale built up

Depends on what alternative sites are available - we aren't talking the south-east

It's only 'lovely flat land (with drainage)' if someone (e.g. a new owner) spends money to remediate it so that it becomes 'lovely flat land'. Your second sentence backs-up a point I made in my earlier post - the nature of the area may mean that houses built on it are less valuable than houses built somewhere more attractive (ie not surrounded by a dual-carriageway, fuel farm and live runway and taxiway). There isn't a huge untapped demand for housing in South Ayrshire - since around 2007 the Local Plan has allocated land at South East Ayr for >500 houses - that's all farmland and is relatively easy to develop (certainly compared to remediating part of the current airport site) but despite two consented planning applications, no developer has started work.

Similarly, where is the demand for a business park going to come from? Scottish Enterprise prepared a site immediately to the north of the runway at Monkton (https://goo.gl/maps/TmsfA3n1H5z4aF2A8) at the turn of the century to create the Prestwick Aerospace Park. The plots there are levelled and serviced with roads and utilities - all a potential occupier has to do is construct a building on one of the plots, but still plenty of it remains undeveloped. Who's going to spend money remediating part of the current airport site for a business park when there is demonstrably little demand even for a ready-made site nearby?

Five new aircraft, 30 new routes and the Scottish taxpayers getting their money back.

BBC - Trump Turnberry: US Congress launches investigation into Prestwick Airport deals

No bid from Glasgow Airport according to this but no comment from Edinburgh Airport.

'US military fuel deal with Prestwick 'kicked into long grass' over Trump investigation'
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... -1-5002381

Are there any rumblings about a potential purchase? This article from July said "The preferred bidder is due to be selected around 6 September and the sale completed around 4 October, according to the sale documents", so Friday of this week. However, this report from Audit Scotland published last week says "Prestwick Airport is currently assessing expressions of interest in purchasing the airport. No date has been set to complete the sale, but Transport Scotland anticipates that a sale may be achievable by the end of 2019/20".

When they say "that a sale may be achievable by the end of 2019/20" that, to me, suggests that they are now looking at a possible sale by the end of the fiscal year 2019/20 which would be around the end of Q1 next year. The wording also suggests that a sale is by no means certain and neither is the timing.

That was my interpretation too. I wonder if perhaps the bids haven't fully been to Transport Scotland's satisfaction?

An article in The Scotsman at the weekend stated that "Prestwick executives have also held talks with Sierra Nevada Corporation, the US firm behind the Dream Chaser space plane, as part of the airport’s ambitions to host a spaceport".

The video below shows, rather impressively, the Dream Chaser being hoisted aloft by a Chinook and then landing.
Page 27 of this document lists locations for 'Dream Chaser Landing Site Studies' and lists Prestwick as one of six airports they were working with and that they "assume multiple will enter into contracts" (albeit that was from 2016, so things may have moved on).