There seems to be a rather bizarre victimisation attitude taking hold of this thread whereby if you question EGPK’s future, you automatically oppose the future of airport.

Can anyone explain why this would be the case? :confused:

Not sure im picking up the victimisation bit - what you do tend to get is a pretty firm defensiveness which is to be expected as you see it on all threads concerning airports 'under threat'. There are some posts though that are pretty derogatory and are usually based on people simply being deliberately inflammatory in order to evoke a response. These tossers just need ignored. I've certainly questioned PIK's future as a PAX airport but have certainly never felt that I am being victimised.

Insecurity. The business is in the last chance saloon. If the Scottish Government lose the independence vote, the future could become interesting as the Barnett Formula is revised and Scotland loses 4 billion in block grant. I am not sure there is any party that could justify £12 million a year to support a lame duck facility.

I have never read so much drivel thats on this thread!!

This is exactly my point, not busy at all. 5 in and 5 out in 30 min would be busy but not spread over the whole afternoon and evening. Thats on average one in or out every hour.

Back in the 90s when there were a couple of airproxes two things were different. One we had a large and active military and two Prestwick was moderately active with commercial traffic (was it 10 flights per day to London?). Neither of these factors exist now.

A case is always made to introduce airspace but no one seems to remove it when the risk factors have reduced (as they have). The airport appears to be struggling to fund expensive infrastructure that is hard to justify from the very small number of commercial movements. Would there be a business case to create the current ATC / controlled airspace infrastructure base on todays movements?

Spreading the cost of ATC over 10 or so movements per hour may be affordable but if the airport got down to 1 or 2 commercial movements per day could full ATC and radar be justified on cost basis?

It might be that a considerable saving could be made by replacing the controlled airspace with a Radio Mandatory Zone and scaling back on ATC and expensive radars? Teeside manage with their radar service being delivered remotely.

This could reduce the losses and give the airport a future.

In Australia and USA quiet airport survive as they don't have any ATC costs at all just a CTAF and pilots arranging their own separation.

just a thought.

bb

No they don't. They have their own primary radar and full ATC on the airfield. You may possibly be thinking of the fact that their SSR feed comes from NATS. Prestwick is exactly the same - own primary, SSR piped in from Lowther Hill.

And Prestwick did lose its controlled airspace 20+ years ago when the transatlantics all went to GLA. Took more than ten years to get it back.

In any case, the argument that getting rid of CAS is a saving is a misconception. Radar is required for CAS, yes; but an airport with no CAS and no radar is unlikely to attract any significant commercial operators. Even Dundee has radar of sorts, in the shape of a service from Leuchars.

NS

Haven't they been building a new SSR on the airfield? I'm sure there was notams about it.

GRANITE .... Your totally quackers

Actually Granite makes a worrying point and you haven't answered it. Why should any government continue to subsidise Ryanair when there's a commercially viable alternative very close by. Infantile name calling isn't helping your case, personally I am very keen to hear what's proposed as I would hate to see PIK close.
However don't kid yourself, Cargolux easily swapped MSE for STN, GTI dropped PIK for STN, as did FDX. As for Ryanair? Would you bet on MOL being "loyal"?

Have any costs been cut yet?

I repeat total drivel by people who aint got a scooby due!!!!

Skippy i think you and Granite should just get a room.... Hopefully that will keep the two of you busy and away from here. With regards to subsidising Ryanair which is totally wrong. The government bought Prestwick Airport not Ryanair so please stop thinking that government is helping out Ryanair who have been at Prestwick for years so nothing new has changed.

Of course airlines move from Airport to Airport its just part of life , Like people move from job to job. But unless people have the facts then why post rumours and lies on here .... Its Pathetic. I think the people on PPRUNE just want facts and for the lies and the anti Prestwick Airport to stop.

Amen:ok

Grow up.
The government bought PIK who are dependent on Ryanair, it is in no way a relationship of equals. Ryanair have been talking to GLA, so for the government to offer Ryanair a better deal with taxpayer's money to keep FR from moving, that's anti-competitive behaviour, and likely to end up in court. So there's a problem there that better informed people are trying to discuss like adults. Stop calling people names and try to live up to the decent standard of debate on here.

Let's be clear, *everything has changed* as PIK was bailed out by the taxpayer. You're really coming across as grievance base, tribal and defensive. which is never helpful.
Have any costs been cut yet?

The PIK apologists are ever so quick to go off on one, so let me state for the record that I have fond memories of Prestwick from flying in and out of there in my military days, I sincerely hope that the airport can be made to work and I believe that there is a genuine need for a runway of that capacity in Scotland, regardless of the result in September.

That said, I would also like someone from the airport, and we know you're here, to answer the question about cost savings. I'd also like to hear what, if anything, is being done to get new business in and to turn around a frankly difficult to understand loss. Because I truly do not believe that the government is going to have the ability - regardless of political will - to carry on paying for an airport losing that much money. It would be far cheaper to take everyone employed there and pay them maximum benefits, then close the airport and sell it off.

So let's stop the name calling and petulance and actually look at the facts, shall we?

April 1st??? BBC News - Plea to rename Prestwick Airport after poet Robert Burns

I agree with Skippy...
 

Much along my thoughts, had i posted them i would of course be a) anti PIK b) anti-Scotish c) a tosser

The freedom that a private company enjoys to make a loss to support its one and only airline company is not enjoyed by the state and quite rightly, there is no way that UKPlc would have got involved, yet give Scotland ( & Wales) devolved powers and off they go writing cheques for airports that their (devolved) finances can't cash.

The purchase of PIK has politic's all over it, less so Wales, let take this drivel of hope over realism apart bit by bit

Military flights simple user pays, post Yes if Scotland want's base all 5 of it's fixed wing aircraft at PIK great, their choice.

Freight in flight times it matters not whether these flight's go from PIK or EMA/MAN even if Scotland need scheduled air freight routes this can be provided by EDI/GLA

Private flying, simples user pays, i did my commercial training with Bae years back, where are they now? Spain Cygnet, Bill MaCcloud great times, so long as you weren't up at the same time as, Allah has control

Ryanair, well they are there because it's cheap, the minute it stops being so, then their gone, so the people's republic of Scotland who want a Nuclear free/ neutral
defence force are subbing up for oversea's military stop over's, funding/subsidising XX costs, a company that doesn't pay much in the way of social taxes in Scotland let alone corporation tax and fly's Scottish people away from the beach's of Troon to Tenerife to spend their benefits and the Scottish state are equally happy to sub people flying round the circuit in their C152 adding to the pollution that all the wind turbines are meant to reduce and these are rich people not people on a living wage........but i guess it might be useful to have a quiet little airport tucked away to fly terrorist back to Libya who have committed mass murder of Scots.

They should dig up the cross runway and all but 2k of the main runway, all the hardcore should be shipped South to Carlisle for the foundations of "Salmond's wall"

There a nice balanced post, neutral i thought.....:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Okay - just the facts please.

Who definately knows that Ryanair are speaking to Glasgow?
Remeber a few pages back, our good friend Cabin Crewe threw this grenade in the room, and surprisingly has not been heard from since.

Another poster Airborne Junglie mentioned 2 companies who have come forward with plans to turn the airport around. Well, where were they when the doors were ready to close last November.

Prestwick used to post a small profit off 1 daily Federal Express DC-10, before Ryanair started operations. It will survive of that I am sure, regardless of Ryanair.

PRESTWICK
 

Heard an aircraft on Scottish today using callsign 'Ryanair 1', I think it was airborne from GLA routing MAC then TIR, very strange. Maybe it's that Learjet they have on a test flight from maintenance or something like that.

Yes Granite. Can you tell everyone how you know Ryanair is talking to GLA ? Cmon tells us your source or lack of proof. Its all nonsense..as usuall. And facelookbovered .. pleease put your political question to scottish government. Address on previous page. Cost saving plans i assume will come after the report is publish by mr py. Lets just be patient ans wait for this. Before playing a guessing game on here.

RYR1 is the usual test flight call sign for those having gone through maintenance at Prestwick. Nothing new here

You really are a prize chiseller aren't you windsock? :hmm:
Please point to a single instance where I have ever mentioned this.

As for cost savings, the people at the front end are the ones who have over the years faced the brunt of cost savings (firemen acting as baggage handlers for example). There cannot be many places to cut cost apart from building a more cost efficient terminal and reducing the middle & upper management. Maintenance can't really be reduced much more. They reduced the inspections on the Powburn culvert and that resulted in a flooded runway.