Rumour is that a new owner for PIK will be announced in a fortnight. No other info on who potentially this may be.

ScotsSLF:

Mr Curry? At least buy acquiring PIK he'll have something genuinely meaningful and worthwhile to spend his time on; rather than constantly bleating about how big bad GLA has "stole" business from rival airports...yadda yadda...:ugh::rolleyes::mad:

Absolutely pathetic to be perfectly frank. The tiresome and petty complaining JC displays shows a lack of basic common sense. Imagine a business securing business and airports poaching from other airports.

I didn't see an outcry when LGW poached Air Asia & Air Berlin from STN. Or, and let us use an example much closer to home, EDI winning the AC Rouge business that GLA was in the running for.

I know that if I'm lucky enough to reach the grand old age of 75, I won't be so bitter and poisonous. Certainly not over something as trivial about an airport securing a new route!:ok:



Anyway, on to something actually worth talking about. Prestwick.

Wonder if the new buyer will close the loss-making pax division and focus on developing the maintenance/training etc sort of things.

Whatever happens, and I genuinely mean this (as a GLA staff member), I wish my PIK counterparts the very best of luck over the coming weeks/months/years. Hopefully y'all find steady and secure jobs IF that need arises:ok:

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why people think Wizzair's move is either bad or surprising. The purpose of an airport is to make it easy to move people and cargo between far apart locations. People and commerce are centred on Glasgow city centre and not a rural area. It's to the benefit of the masses if transport options are more convenient for them.

Ever since BAA lost its armlock on the central belt's aviation, it's been just a matter of time before competition started properly. The central belt has 4 commercial airports, it needs no more than 2. One (Dundee) has commercial passenger service only by clinging on with its fingernails. Another is scrabbling around to get by while aware it needs to spend serious cash on site repair.

Go to one of the main shopping streets in Glasgow on Saturday and ask Joe Bloggs which airport is easiest for him to use.

Joe Bloggs
 

You might actually be surprised by some of the answers you would receive if you did ask Joe Bloggs (are there any Joe Bliggs in Glasgow?). A lot of people in the North East and East of city might just say Edinburgh and a good number who live in the South and South Easr might just say Prestwick. Dundee would never even get a mention as to be honest no one really knows of the airport there and it is not in Scotland's central belt anyhow. It is a critical time for PIK and the present MD Tom Wilson has always maintained that money can be made out of Ryanair so time will tell what a new owner will do and whether they hold on to Tom. If the rumours are true about the imminence of a sale then this sale will have gone ahead in the knowledge that the secondary runway will not be allowed to be closed as Infratil's plans for Developmemt of the runway into industrial units were knocked back by the local council. The buyer must have serious intentions of running the place based on both runways.

For me PIK's future lies as a maintenance, tech stop, training / cargo hub with potentially a low cost/ IT pax operation based out of a small modern purpose built terminal. Let GLA and EDI compete for the scheduled business in whatever way their business models ethically and compliantly allow them to do so. And as for the various accusations about underhand deals etc - as Joe Bloggs in Sauchiehall Street would say - "poppycock!"

Jock McBlogs surely, ah ken him weel....

I believe it was done before coupled with strong cargo demand and a lower cost base.
Excellent point, however I don't know how to get there. The 1965 terminal is not fit for purpose, it's way too big for a start and appears to be falling apart despite numerous attempts at cosmetic facelifts. There's a good niche business to be had there as an airfield, however I have to ask :
Might it be better if Ryanair moved to GLA and the Terminal closed? With DUB just across the water I wonder if given the right deal, Ryanair would maintain the four bay hangar in the same way BA fly from CWL? Devils advocate perhaps but I just don't see a business case for building a new Terminal and to attract more passenger business, that's exactly what's needed.

PIK Sale
 

If the person gets it that ive been hearing rumours about, the gloves will definatley be off and will be interesting to watch in coming months. With possible carrier coming the other way.

why have they not got it, its been on the market for months now. Would be surprised to see a carrier go the other way tbh unless someone is about to invest big money

Well this is a rumour network, so how about telling us who the person in question is, or at least the airlines that'll be hot footing it down the M77?

Wrt to "gloves coming off", surely the various management teams/owners at PIK have had the gloves off and have been trying to poach traffic from the other 2 central belt airports for the last 10+ years, that's certainly the impression I've got. Unfortunately they've not been that successful - Indeed, as much if not more has gone from PIK to GLA/EDI than the other way round, particularly recently. PIK has in the past benefitted from the BAA monopoly at EDI/GLA and picked up airlines who were priced out of both. Now that they are in separate ownership I don't think it will be that easy - both EDI and GLA will be fighting for every piece of new business.

I'm interested to know what any new owner can offer to entice airlines to move. Whilst a shiny new terminal might help, I think the state of the terminal is generally a bit of a red herring - The main issues are surely having to go up against FR and PIK having a less favourable location than GLA and EDI. The W6 spokesman yesterday didn't say a word about the shabby terminal, he was talking about location and being close to their customer base. People can come out with all the rhetoric they want about rail links etc, but the fact of the matter is that GLA and EDI are better located and thus more attractive to most pax and there's little any new owner can do about it. The only way over that is to offer virtually zero charges (as FR seem to receive) which brings up the same problem - little income and resulting losses.

Not everyone who flies is concerned with choosing the airport that is closest to the city centre. Prestwick is only 40 minutes from Glasgow city centre, which is roughly the same as Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted are to London. I don't hear anyone complaining about those airports being too far from the city centre. Prestwick isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere as some would have you believe. Also not everyone who flies wants to fly from a gigantic shopping mall with endless corridors or buses or trains out to the satellite terminal.
As I have said before, I do not wish any of the three central belt airports to close and I hope that all three enjoy increased activity which in turn brings tourism, business and jobs.

Let's remember that in 2012 the Prestwick passenger numbers totalled 1,066,917.

That's more than Cardiff .... over 50% more than Bournemouth, or Doncaster Sheffield, or Exeter, or IOM, or Inverness or Southend .... and more than Durham Tees Valley, Norwich, Newquay and Blackpool put together.

Surely there must be some sort of chance for a good commercial future.

A million pax all through one operator, that's the whole problem,
no other airline will go up against MOL, he knows it, lets hope
the new owners of this white elephant of an airport do too. :ugh:

From a passenger point of view location is only really considered by outbound passengers - local residents who know the area. A lot of passengers will be inbound passengers who simply don't know which airport is closer to the town, all they know is they want to/need to go to Glasgow, and they have an option of two airports.

Passengers will also be price sensitive - if PIK can offer cheaper flights than GLA, or offer direct services to markets that are not served from GLA, then they can also attract outbound passengers.

Ultimately though it is the airlines that decide where they want to fly. As long as PIK can undercut GLA then they can continue to pick up the occasional low cost airline, probably foreign based that mainly targets inbound visitors to Glasgow. However as we have just seen with Wizzair, it now looks like Glasgow is prepared to up its game and offer better deals to attract low cost airlines, which is bad news for PIK.

Passenger numbers aren't everything though, it all depends on the revenue generated from each of them, and more importantly the fees paid by the airlines operating those flights. We have all read that Ryanair pay next to nothing in fees at PIK, whereas Cardiff is served by KLM and Lufthansa, as well as Aer Lingus, Air Malta, Air Europa, BH Air, Citywing, Eastern, Flybe, Onur Air, Thomas Cook, Thomsons and Vueling, all of whom probably pay higher fees than Ryanair do at PIK.

It is going to be difficult for any new owner to make a profit out of PIK, but not impossible.

When Matthew Hudson dragged PIK out of the BAA rubble there was a real spirit about the place with job- sharing accepted and the staff appeared to have a real focus and ownership. With Stagecoach and then Infratil running the show that seems to have been lost amidst varing degrees of corporate incompetence. There is enough aviation related activity at PIK to create a successful airfield operation and for it to go on and grow. I reckon that despite the FR monopoly PAX operations will survive and continue to keep GLA and EDI on their toes which is good for the consumer as regards choice. It does need though the right owner.
Interestingly enough we recently had friends from Edinburgh fly from PIK despite having alternatives from both EDI and GLA - the reason - cost - and they saved a fortune in car parking by parking on my drive for a fortnight! Seriously it shows that people will travel a distance if overall the price and the service is right.

The big thing missing in Prestwick's portfolio is training. To give some idea of the size of the hole, in 1990 - when Prestwick's last major crisis kicked off - 84% of the airport's total aircraft movements were in the 'test and training' category. Then BAe Flight Training moved to Spain and the export of the UK's massive training industry began. Weather was a factor, for sure, but unfortunately we've priced and regulated our pilot training industry out of existence.
NS

This has been a fascinating discussion. I remember Prestwick in the glory days of the 1960s - large check-in areas for BOAC, Pan Am, Air Canada, SAS and KLM and, I think, a third party handler (Scotia?). However,I will stop digressing. In my experience "route development funds", "marketing support" etc do not work in the long term if the route isn't properly viable because no airport operator can pay enough to keep an unviable route going for ever In that spirit I'd like to offer three predictions 1/ Wizz will stay at GLA and probably increase operations. 2/ AC Rouge will, within three years, either be gone from Scotland or flying from GLA. 3/ Also within 3 years the LH DUS at GLA will either have gone altogether or returned to EDI.

Of course if a route isn't viable then it is never going to work. This isn't the purpose of a RDF though.

Launching a new route is a massive financial undertaking, and requires a lot of investment in marketing to make people aware of the new route. Even with an extensive advertising campaign, it can take a few years before a route starts to make a profit. It's a huge risk for an airline, and as such they tend to be very cautious about launching new routes.

The purpose of a RDF is not to make previously un-viable routes viable, but to reduce the initial risk of launch, and make the airline more likely to give the route a shot. If used correctly to attract viable routes by airlines that were previously reluctant to give it a chance, then it can be extremely beneficial. Occasionally those routes may prove to be uneconomical, but that's just the risk you take.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind this. Wizz will be price sensitive - they may be happy at GLA initially while they are receiving funding, but as soon as GLA tries to up their fees they may well be gone back down the road to PIK.

I'm not sure about the DUS flights, it really depends on the target market for this. Edinburgh has traditionally performed better on European flights, which makes the switch seem a little strange at first. However GLA has a greater catchment area and offers greater outbound numbers, so if the intention is to cater for Scots holidaying in Germany or transferring to long-haul flights then GLA may be a better bet.

Air Canada Rouge appears to be aimed at Canadian holiday makers, in which case EDI is the better choice due to it's greater inbound tourism draw. It remains to be seen if there is enough demand for this though; to be viable they may need to attract more Scottish based passengers onto the flight, which could make GLA the better option.

Time will tell if each of the airlines have made the right choice.

"Air Canada Rouge appears to be aimed at Canadian holiday makers, in which case EDI is the better choice due to it's greater inbound tourism draw"
Yet that was not apparently the case with previous AC to Scotland and other current Canadian operators (incl TS at EDI)

You mean back in the day, when BAA owned both GLA and EDI and had some undeniably rigid biases as to what sort of flights they would be willing to accommodate at what airports? AC has obviously had time to look into where the demand lies for Canadian tourists, and benefited from the new degree of competition that exists between the two airports under separate ownership. The world really isn't as black and white as you think.

I'm surprised you did not understand the obvious categorisation at the time.
TS were doing well until it changed aircraft that BAA had cunningly accommodated at GLA and not EDI. What previous AC at EDI are you referring too.?

Nor wet behind the ears thank God. :-)