Flights to Glasgow scrapped by major airline in 'difficult decision'

[bill]

No one is debating EDI's position here and its effect on the GLA, I think that's been discussed to death. That doesn't excuse the lacklustre approach of AGS.

What's shocking is the airport's inability to focus on anything but the bucket & spade market and Emirates. Serious investment is needed on refurbishment, not opening Greggs and advertising it on social media like it's the best thing that's ever happened to the place. They were quicker to announce that than they are new routes. The other eating and shopping options are abysmal. Most parts of the airport still have BAA signage and still use a manual PA system. GLA have turned down expansion offers in the past from exisiting airlines and continue to keep any meaningful Ryanair expansion at bay. So long as they are at the helm, nothing will change and the position as a domestic and holiday airport will long continue.

But yet we'll still get blasted on here for not using GLA

I’d say they’ve even lost the bucket and spade market to EDI. I’d also wager a bet that the majority of pax using these flights will be from the west of Scotland!

Maybe not lost the bucket & spade market altogether just yet (but they're working on it) but EDI has certainly just about equalled GLA's offerings, seat for seat.

[bill]

“The funds generated through our parking services will continue to go directly towards re-establishing our connectivity and improving the airport’s facilities” That’s a Bunnn Buster of a statement … Connectivity ffs

Maybe they mean wi-fi or something?

[GeorgeNTravels]

No one is debating EDI's position here and its effect on the GLA, I think that's been discussed to death. That doesn't excuse the lacklustre approach of AGS.

What's shocking is the airport's inability to focus on anything but the bucket & spade market and Emirates. Serious investment is needed on refurbishment, not opening Greggs and advertising it on social media like it's the best thing that's ever happened to the place. They were quicker to announce that than they are new routes. The other eating and shopping options are abysmal. Most parts of the airport still have BAA signage and still use a manual PA system. GLA have turned down expansion offers in the past from exisiting airlines and continue to keep any meaningful Ryanair expansion at bay. So long as they are at the helm, nothing will change and the position as a domestic and holiday airport will long continue.

But yet we'll still get blasted on here for not using GLA

I’d say they’ve even lost the bucket and spade market to EDI. I’d also wager a bet that the majority of pax using these flights will be from the west of Scotland!

Maybe not lost the bucket & spade market altogether just yet (but they're working on it) but EDI has certainly just about equalled GLA's offerings, seat for seat.

Stats for W22 for the Canary Islands

EDI TFS - 109,199
GLA TFS - 122,226

EDI LPA - 35,826
GLA LPA - 61,935

EDI ACE - 81,680
GLA ACE - 53,865

EDI FUE - 62,813
GLA FUE - 17,010

EDI TOTAL - 289,518
GLA TOTAL - 255,036

Shows the power of a Ryanair base considering they have 123,034 of those seats

[bill]

Stats for W22 for the Canary Islands

EDI TFS - 109,199
GLA TFS - 122,226

EDI LPA - 35,826
GLA LPA - 61,935

EDI ACE - 81,680
GLA ACE - 53,865

EDI FUE - 62,813
GLA FUE - 17,010

EDI TOTAL - 289,518
GLA TOTAL - 255,036

Shows the power of a Ryanair base considering they have 123,034 of those seats

Pretty grim when you see it like that. FUE/ACE figures especially.Thanks for the stats George.

[Sharpal7]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

[atuk]

[quote=GeorgeNTravels post_id=8896 time=<a href="tel:1676504237">1676504237</a> user_id=391]


Stats for W22 for the Canary Islands

EDI TFS - 109,199
GLA TFS - 122,226

EDI LPA - 35,826
GLA LPA - 61,935

EDI ACE - 81,680
GLA ACE - 53,865

EDI FUE - 62,813
GLA FUE - 17,010

EDI TOTAL - 289,518
GLA TOTAL - 255,036

Shows the power of a Ryanair base considering they have 123,034 of those seats

Pretty grim when you see it like that. FUE/ACE figures especially.Thanks for the stats George.
[/quote]

Well it irks me to see there is no GLA-FUE service from TUI. Back in Thomas Cook days there was a twice weekly service shared with TUI!

Now with no Thomas Cook TUI chosen to take seats from EZY on their twice weekly service. Yes Jet2 operate from EDI and GLA but add to that two*EZY and 3*FR then EDI has at least 7 FUE services!

I also noticed one day on shift recently that FR have both an early morning and lunchtime ACE so some days they have 2*ACE as well as 2*TFS! No wonder they have 11based aircraft for S23.

[Clive]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

Yes, IIRC there was a pivotal decision back in the day at a time when easyJet had 4 aircraft at both bases and had been growing with parity, when EDI landed the expansion deal and GLA lost out. The rest became history.

Similarly, back in the day, pre-Amanda, GLA appeared to not actually want a Ryanair base. Some folks feared it would impact on existing services. Shows that even back then few had faith in the virility of the market in Glasgow and the west. I always contended that Ryanair make new passengers - they get people to fly who wouldn’t otherwise and they could sustain routes to all sorts of airports, even ones that no one had previously heard of.

I was also told by the management in an interview I did for my college course around 1996/7 that lo-co pax do not spend in the terminal so with the kind of airport fees the airlines would pay there was nothing in it for the airport company. I said then that you have to move with the market and keep up with the competition.

So the battle - if there ever was one - was lost way back then and subsequent owners/management were shackled with that history while all the airlines filled up EDI.

The new CEO must come in with a whole new outlook. I dearly hope he plays with the market rather than trying to swim against it.

[Bearsden]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

Yes, IIRC there was a pivotal decision back in the day at a time when easyJet had 4 aircraft at both bases and had been growing with parity, when EDI landed the expansion deal and GLA lost out. The rest became history.

Similarly, back in the day, pre-Amanda, GLA appeared to not actually want a Ryanair base. Some folks feared it would impact on existing services. Shows that even back then few had faith in the virility of the market in Glasgow and the west. I always contended that Ryanair make new passengers - they get people to fly who wouldn’t otherwise and they could sustain routes to all sorts of airports, even ones that no one had previously heard of.

I was also told by the management in an interview I did for my college course around 1996/7 that lo-co pax do not spend in the terminal so with the kind of airport fees the airlines would pay there was nothing in it for the airport company. I said then that you have to move with the market and keep up with the competition.

So the battle - if there ever was one - was lost way back then and subsequent owners/management were shackled with that history while all the airlines filled up EDI.

The new CEO must come in with a whole new outlook. I dearly hope he plays with the market rather than trying to swim against it.

Sadly we are all reaching the same conclusion

Some weeks ago I responded directly to the author of third article in The Herald by someone from The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce - no reply, no reply to my response to the first article, and only an acknowledgement to my response to the second article . . . . maybe they have accepted reality

Back in 1996/7 we were BAA owned so both GLA & EDI were stiffled by LHR/LGW centric mentality - it wasn't until the early 2000s that PIK really challenged the market reaching 2.4 million passengers in 2005

As noted above, all the cards were stacked in EDI's favour - sold first by BAA, bought by GIP who already owned LGW and a 75% stake in LCY, located west of the city so easy access to motorways west & north, established a management focus on new traffic, established a strategy for existing operators/routes which was aimed at damaging the two main competitors (the coach from Buchanan Street is an obvious example of pulling customers to you), have relentlessly worked with Ryanair, easyJet & Jet2 to build bases which cannot be moved to or replicated by a competitor airport, and filled the gaps in the based aircraft cycles with numerous inbound schedules

GLA could have been a stronger competitor but not at the ridiculous price Ferrovial/Macquarie paid for AGS with the debt burden that forced management into measures that increase EBITDA by bleeding its current passenger base (like increasing parking charges!) - if Infratil were forced to sell PIK for £1 then how much was GLA worth . . . . £10?

I had a look at the Ryanair increased frequencies to Dublin . . . . looks like one extra service on a Thursday (four rotations rather than three) and filling one or two rotations in certain weeks of the summer programme bringing the frequency up to three flights a day

In typical RYR fashion, 70 weekly flights equates to 35 weekly rotations (< 2 aircraft given the sector lengths)

[Clive]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

Yes, IIRC there was a pivotal decision back in the day at a time when easyJet had 4 aircraft at both bases and had been growing with parity, when EDI landed the expansion deal and GLA lost out. The rest became history.

Similarly, back in the day, pre-Amanda, GLA appeared to not actually want a Ryanair base. Some folks feared it would impact on existing services. Shows that even back then few had faith in the virility of the market in Glasgow and the west. I always contended that Ryanair make new passengers - they get people to fly who wouldn’t otherwise and they could sustain routes to all sorts of airports, even ones that no one had previously heard of.

I was also told by the management in an interview I did for my college course around 1996/7 that lo-co pax do not spend in the terminal so with the kind of airport fees the airlines would pay there was nothing in it for the airport company. I said then that you have to move with the market and keep up with the competition.

So the battle - if there ever was one - was lost way back then and subsequent owners/management were shackled with that history while all the airlines filled up EDI.

The new CEO must come in with a whole new outlook. I dearly hope he plays with the market rather than trying to swim against it.

Sadly we are all reaching the same conclusion

Some weeks ago I responded directly to the author of third article in The Herald by someone from The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce - no reply, no reply to my response to the first article, and only an acknowledgement to my response to the second article . . . . maybe they have accepted reality

Back in 1996/7 we were BAA owned so both GLA & EDI were stiffled by LHR/LGW centric mentality - it wasn't until the early 2000s that PIK really challenged the market reaching 2.4 million passengers in 2005

As noted above, all the cards were stacked in EDI's favour - sold first by BAA, bought by GIP who already owned LGW and a 75% stake in LCY, located west of the city so easy access to motorways west & north, established a management focus on new traffic, established a strategy for existing operators/routes which was aimed at damaging the two main competitors (the coach from Buchanan Street is an obvious example of pulling customers to you), have relentlessly worked with Ryanair, easyJet & Jet2 to build bases which cannot be moved to or replicated by a competitor airport, and filled the gaps in the based aircraft cycles with numerous inbound schedules

GLA could have been a stronger competitor but not at the ridiculous price Ferrovial/Macquarie paid for AGS with the debt burden that forced management into measures that increase EBITDA by bleeding its current passenger base (like increasing parking charges!) - if Infratil were forced to sell PIK for £1 then how much was GLA worth . . . . £10?

I had a look at the Ryanair increased frequencies to Dublin . . . . looks like one extra service on a Thursday (four rotations rather than three) and filling one or two rotations in certain weeks of the summer programme bringing the frequency up to three flights a day

In typical RYR fashion, 70 weekly flights equates to 35 weekly rotations (< 2 aircraft given the sector lengths)

So in reality the damage - if we call it that - was done over 20 years ago and it’s impossible to overcome. Embracing lo co fully at the start would have changed the future course.

I say if we call it damage as looking at it from the other side, why wouldn’t EDI be the go-to airport for the airlines?

It serves one of Europe’s top destinations and it’s positioned geographically to serve much of Scotland. The advent of budget flights opened the flood gates. One could say what has happened re competition in the central belt is natural. Those who wanted greater competition got what they wanted.

The move into Transcontinental services at EDI only really took place in such a meaningful way once they built the required infrastructure. Now there’s no stopping them.

Of course all during this time range we are talking about Ryanair had an alternative airport at PIK and didn’t need to base at GLA. If PIK hadn’t been in the equation everything would have developed very differently than it has. But it did exist and it was in the equation otherwise there is no doubt that Ryanair would have a base at GLA with at least 3 million pax per annum and EDI would have less than it does.

PIK’s existence is just another of the real world factors that successive owners and managers have had to live with at GLA. The only remedy to that is to get Ryanair up the road which will lead to the closure of the terminal at PIK. None of us know why GLA bosses have not been able to do that.

[rusty irish]

It wouldn't surprise me at all that if the terminal at PIK closed the based aircraft would leave the West of Scotland altogether for EDI or elsewhere.