NCL

[FlyGLA]

What are AGS/AviAliiance thinking of?again far too slow off the mark after the Thomas Cook failure.

AviAlliance only assumed control in January, so they cannot be held responsible for the situation GLA is currently in or for AGS's numerous failings over the years, including their poor response to the collapse of Thomas Cook. However, AviAlliance clearly believes it can recover the lost ground, otherwise, it wouldn’t have acquired the airport or committed to such significant investment.

For an airport in an an area with one of the lowest economies in the country, it's definitely punching above its weight, thanks to a strong management team.

Agreed. Along with Glasgow East, I’d say these two airports, and possibly Bristol, are the standout examples in the UK of airports that punch far above their weight, especially when you consider the size of their local markets, regional economies, and other factors. Of course, we know why Glasgow East stands out, it's largely because Glasgow is underperforming so badly that its core market has shifted to using Glasgow East instead.

[Clive]

What are AGS/AviAliiance thinking of?again far too slow off the mark after the Thomas Cook failure.

AviAlliance only assumed control in January, so they cannot be held responsible for the situation GLA is currently in or for AGS's numerous failings over the years, including their poor response to the collapse of Thomas Cook. However, AviAlliance clearly believes it can recover the lost ground, otherwise, it wouldn’t have acquired the airport or committed to such significant investment.

For an airport in an an area with one of the lowest economies in the country, it's definitely punching above its weight, thanks to a strong management team.

Agreed. Along with Glasgow East, I’d say these two airports, and possibly Bristol, are the standout examples in the UK of airports that punch far above their weight, especially when you consider the size of their local markets, regional economies, and other factors. Of course, we know why Glasgow East stands out, it's largely because Glasgow is underperforming so badly that its core market has shifted to using Glasgow East instead.

Only 10% by all accounts, innit? No it’s because Edinburgh is a huge magnet for tourists and point to pint budget flights has opened up such tourist cities to more vacationers, IMO

[FlyGLA]

Only 10% by all accounts, innit? No it’s because Edinburgh is a huge magnet for tourists and point to pint budget flights has opened up such tourist cities to more vacationers, IMO

Between 2 and 3 million passengers a year.

Not all routes to Edinburgh are aimed at bringing in tourists. Edinburgh is not Paris, Rome or even Prague or Budapest. It's not in that league. Far from it. For example, Virgin Atlantic flies to Orlando, Jet2 serves Santorini and Skiathos, easyJet goes to Zante and Tenerife, and Ryanair operates flights to Corfu and Faro. These routes, and many others, primarily serve the Glasgow market, not Scotland's second city. They are only viable from Glasgow East because over 2 million passengers travel from Glasgow each year. Similarly, consider the public transport connections to places like Dundee and Aberdeen. It's misleading to suggest Glasgow East is handling 15 million passengers annually because 15 million people want to travel to Edinburgh, that simply isn’t the case.

We regularly see on this forum how often members are forced to use Glasgow East due to AGS’s shortcomings at GLA. Let’s not kid ourselves, Scotland’s second city isn’t a 15 million passenger per year market. In reality, it’s closer to half that. Hopefully, AviAlliance can help restore natural order.

[Planeenthusiast]

Agree it’s not a 15 million pax airport. It’s going to be 16 million plus airport this year. It may even tip into the 17 million. Like it or not. That’s the reality. It’s a capital city. Airlines like capital cities. This isn’t to say that Glasgow pax numbers won’t increase under the current management. The stats show it’s already happening. A low cost carrier base of some sort is the only realistic way to increase growth quicker in my opinion. Attracting legacy carriers is going to be very difficult.

[FlyGLA]

Agree it’s not a 15 million pax airport. It’s going to be 16 million plus airport this year. It may even tip into the 17 million. Like it or not. That’s the reality. It’s a capital city. Airlines like capital cities. This isn’t to say that Glasgow pax numbers won’t increase under the current management. The stats show it’s already happening. A low cost carrier base of some sort is the only realistic way to increase growth quicker in my opinion. Attracting legacy carriers is going to be very difficult.

Tell me you're an EDI fanboy without telling me you're an EDI fanboy.

Yes, yes, we all know Edinburgh is the capital (though let’s be honest, London is the real one). And before anyone says it, yes, it has a castle. Groundbreaking stuff. Yawn.

The idea that airlines serve cities just because they’re capitals is nonsense. The only airline that might do that is Qatar. Otherwise, explain why Ottawa isn’t busier than Toronto, or why Washington Dulles isn’t outpacing Atlanta, LAX, or JFK. Basel would outshine Geneva and Zurich if that logic held. But it doesn’t.

More often than not, the busiest airport is in the biggest city, the main economic hub. Edinburgh is neither of these. That’s also usually where you’ll find the largest bus depot, the busiest train station, and the bulk of national infrastructure, as is the case with Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city, because demand follows population and commerce, not political status.

What we have here is an exception, one driven by political interference and the use of public funds to steer airlines toward serving Glasgow East over Glasgow. This shift wasn’t organic; it was enabled by weak and complacent management at BAA and later AGS, who allowed it to happen unchecked. AviAlliance are here to restore natural order. Whither EDI fanboys like it or not.

Here’s the point: Glasgow East Airport wouldn’t be handling anywhere near its current passenger numbers if it weren’t pulling in millions from Glasgow. If you disagree, take it up with EDI’s own CEO. He’s spending thousands on targeted advertising in Scotland’s largest city (by far the largest, by the way), and he’s openly boasting about how many Glasgow passengers now use EDI, whether it’s via the subsidised bus route or the record-breaking number of car parking bookings.

And once again, you claim that attracting legacy carriers to Glasgow is going to be "very difficult." Why, exactly? Is Glasgow somehow unworthy in the eyes of certain Edinburgh-centric commentators?

Let me remind you:
1. Glasgow already hosts several legacy carriers.
2. Glasgow has previously been served by many of the same legacy airlines that some EDI enthusiasts are currently idolising.
3. In many cases, these carriers served Glasgow long before they ever turned up at Glasgow East.
4. Just look at the track record, example GLA–PHL had real longevity, over 20 years of success, while EDI–PHL is now being relaunched for the third time after multiple failures.
5. Many of the legacy airlines currently serving Glasgow East would not be serving Glasgow East today if it wasn't for Glasgow and West of Scotland passengers bank-rolling these services.

[Planeenthusiast]

Agree it’s not a 15 million pax airport. It’s going to be 16 million plus airport this year. It may even tip into the 17 million. Like it or not. That’s the reality. It’s a capital city. Airlines like capital cities. This isn’t to say that Glasgow pax numbers won’t increase under the current management. The stats show it’s already happening. A low cost carrier base of some sort is the only realistic way to increase growth quicker in my opinion. Attracting legacy carriers is going to be very difficult.

Tell me you're an EDI fanboy without telling me you're an EDI fanboy.

Yes, yes, we all know Edinburgh is the capital (though let’s be honest, London is the real one). And before anyone says it, yes, it has a castle. Groundbreaking stuff. Yawn.

The idea that airlines serve cities just because they’re capitals is nonsense. The only airline that might do that is Qatar. Otherwise, explain why Ottawa isn’t busier than Toronto, or why Washington Dulles isn’t outpacing Atlanta, LAX, or JFK. Basel would outshine Geneva and Zurich if that logic held. But it doesn’t.

More often than not, the busiest airport is in the biggest city, the main economic hub. Edinburgh is neither of these. That’s also usually where you’ll find the largest bus depot, the busiest train station, and the bulk of national infrastructure, as is the case with Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city, because demand follows population and commerce, not political status.

What we have here is an exception, one driven by political interference and the use of public funds to steer airlines toward serving Glasgow East over Glasgow. This shift wasn’t organic; it was enabled by weak and complacent management at BAA and later AGS, who allowed it to happen unchecked. AviAlliance are here to restore natural order. Whither EDI fanboys like it or not.

Here’s the point: Glasgow East Airport wouldn’t be handling anywhere near its current passenger numbers if it weren’t pulling in millions from Glasgow. If you disagree, take it up with EDI’s own CEO. He’s spending thousands on targeted advertising in Scotland’s largest city (by far the largest, by the way), and he’s openly boasting about how many Glasgow passengers now use EDI, whether it’s via the subsidised bus route or the record-breaking number of car parking bookings.

And once again, you claim that attracting legacy carriers to Glasgow is going to be "very difficult." Why, exactly? Is Glasgow somehow unworthy in the eyes of certain Edinburgh-centric commentators?

Let me remind you:
1. Glasgow already hosts several legacy carriers.
2. Glasgow has previously been served by many of the same legacy airlines that some EDI enthusiasts are currently idolising.
3. In many cases, these carriers served Glasgow long before they ever turned up at Glasgow East.
4. Just look at the track record, example GLA–PHL had real longevity, over 20 years of success, while EDI–PHL is now being relaunched for the third time after multiple failures.
5. Many of the legacy airlines currently serving Glasgow East would not be serving Glasgow East today if it wasn't for Glasgow and West of Scotland passengers bank-rolling these services.

Take a chill pill ma man. Trying to insult others who you disagree with isn’t classy. We all have opinions.

[bill]

Gentlemen. Whilst the debate is very interesting, we've veered way off course here, it's a thread about NCL. Continue the debate by all means but take it to the relevant thread(s). Ta much.

[Fritz]

Agree it’s not a 15 million pax airport. It’s going to be 16 million plus airport this year. It may even tip into the 17 million. Like it or not. That’s the reality. It’s a capital city. Airlines like capital cities. This isn’t to say that Glasgow pax numbers won’t increase under the current management. The stats show it’s already happening. A low cost carrier base of some sort is the only realistic way to increase growth quicker in my opinion. Attracting legacy carriers is going to be very difficult.

Tell me you're an EDI fanboy without telling me you're an EDI fanboy.

Yes, yes, we all know Edinburgh is the capital (though let’s be honest, London is the real one). And before anyone says it, yes, it has a castle. Groundbreaking stuff. Yawn.

The idea that airlines serve cities just because they’re capitals is nonsense. The only airline that might do that is Qatar. Otherwise, explain why Ottawa isn’t busier than Toronto, or why Washington Dulles isn’t outpacing Atlanta, LAX, or JFK. Basel would outshine Geneva and Zurich if that logic held. But it doesn’t.

More often than not, the busiest airport is in the biggest city, the main economic hub. Edinburgh is neither of these. That’s also usually where you’ll find the largest bus depot, the busiest train station, and the bulk of national infrastructure, as is the case with Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city, because demand follows population and commerce, not political status.

What we have here is an exception, one driven by political interference and the use of public funds to steer airlines toward serving Glasgow East over Glasgow. This shift wasn’t organic; it was enabled by weak and complacent management at BAA and later AGS, who allowed it to happen unchecked. AviAlliance are here to restore natural order. Whither EDI fanboys like it or not.

Here’s the point: Glasgow East Airport wouldn’t be handling anywhere near its current passenger numbers if it weren’t pulling in millions from Glasgow. If you disagree, take it up with EDI’s own CEO. He’s spending thousands on targeted advertising in Scotland’s largest city (by far the largest, by the way), and he’s openly boasting about how many Glasgow passengers now use EDI, whether it’s via the subsidised bus route or the record-breaking number of car parking bookings.

And once again, you claim that attracting legacy carriers to Glasgow is going to be "very difficult." Why, exactly? Is Glasgow somehow unworthy in the eyes of certain Edinburgh-centric commentators?

Let me remind you:
1. Glasgow already hosts several legacy carriers.
2. Glasgow has previously been served by many of the same legacy airlines that some EDI enthusiasts are currently idolising.
3. In many cases, these carriers served Glasgow long before they ever turned up at Glasgow East.
4. Just look at the track record, example GLA–PHL had real longevity, over 20 years of success, while EDI–PHL is now being relaunched for the third time after multiple failures.
5. Many of the legacy airlines currently serving Glasgow East would not be serving Glasgow East today if it wasn't for Glasgow and West of Scotland passengers bank-rolling these services.

That would be Bern of course.

[Clive]

Yes, yes, we all know Edinburgh is the capital (though let’s be honest, London is the real one).

Not having that mate. The capital of Scotland is Edinburgh, not London. London is in England, not Scotland.