atuk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 5:24 pm
And the band played......
PIK has caused much deficit to the Public purse and shall continue to do so until this white elephant is ditched.
If you read my statement regRdin plus then despite “commercial confidentiality” the LSE demands that any company receiving a bid approach ma,Es these details public as it is the interest of the shareholders to do so. Then again cloaking everything in secrecy suits those in power while the rest of us open up our purses yet again to contribute to the economic bal k hole which is currently, and for many years has been, PIK.
As Bearsden rightly says the passenger operations can be easily duplicated elsewhere so in fact the SG is presently ensuring an unequal playing field by ensuring operations at their state owned facility are subsided against those operated by AGS and GIP. Oh how I wish private equity takes them to task and hangs them out to dry.
Still you are ignoring the economic input the continued and future operation of the facility produces.
It will be interesting to see what the new owners can bring to the airfield - looking after the Norwegian B787s over last two years has probably been > 90% of Chevron's revenue (there was some easyJet work over winter 2019/20 pre COVID plus the occasional BAe146 but otherwise it would appear to have been mainly one off)
But freight is increasing (although some of the increase will be PPE driven from the Far East) and of course military movements (in particular 'heavy' movements such as C-17As, C-130s, KC-135s) have underpinned the airfield's recent financial performance (as of course has windfarm radar mitigation issues income!) - the key to the financial forecasts will be scenarios around future US & NATO involvement in Europe & Middle East
Prestwick's passenger traffic fell year on year in July to just over 42,000 annually (less than for example Kirkwall and Lands End) - the infrastructure costs to handle such a low volume are high (just look at the £20m plus subsidy to HIAL for mainly domestic only operations) but politically it will involve jobs albeit part time and/or split shift - there is no justification for the SG to give financial support for passenger operations at PIK (or indeed allow a cross subsidy from freight, military etc income) especially when it is to allow people to fly out of the country on holiday with three easily accessible alternatives nearby (EDI, GLA & NEW)
Interesting times but I wouldn't expect any significant announcements pre COP26
Interestingly, COP26 and all associated with it, could be the cash cow PIK needs to keep it in 'profit' for the next few years.
At the moment they are planning for approx 160 movements and 70 jets being parked up due to the conference, and are having to hire extra staff and equipment (short term) for the duration. All fine and dandy and will look good in the accounts, but still won't recoup a fraction of the losses incurred since it's been owned publicly.
Clive wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:18 pm
[quote=atuk post_id=4329 time=<a href="tel:1630254252">1630254252</a> user_id=75]
And the band played......
PIK has caused much deficit to the Public purse and shall continue to do so until this white elephant is ditched.
If you read my statement regRdin plus then despite “commercial confidentiality” the LSE demands that any company receiving a bid approach ma,Es these details public as it is the interest of the shareholders to do so. Then again cloaking everything in secrecy suits those in power while the rest of us open up our purses yet again to contribute to the economic bal k hole which is currently, and for many years has been, PIK.
As Bearsden rightly says the passenger operations can be easily duplicated elsewhere so in fact the SG is presently ensuring an unequal playing field by ensuring operations at their state owned facility are subsided against those operated by AGS and GIP. Oh how I wish private equity takes them to task and hangs them out to dry.
Still you are ignoring the economic input the continued and future operation of the facility produces.
Balance sheets have two sides to them.
[/quote]
They certainly do. It’s a pity PIK is saturated by scarlet and not black.
PIK will have been Scotland's most profitable airport over the last couple of days - 3 USAF C-5M visits, 10 C-17A visits (1 Kuwait, 9 USAF), 2 USN C-40A visits (mainly night-stopping) plus A330F G-EODS training plus light aircraft and RAF training
A quick look at the US Defense Logistics Agency website (https://cis.energy.dla.mil/ipcis/Ipcis) shows just how important the US military is for PIK's finances - the table below shows the fuel uplifts since the current 53 months (01/05/2020 to 30/09/2024) contract for 11,301,080 US gallons started
May-20 38,948
Jun-20 79,367
Jul-20 187,564
Aug-20 56,031
Nov-20 509,592
Dec-20 731,128
Jan-21 126,763
Mar-21 130,309
Apr-21 196,260
May-21 265,110
Jun-21 549,238
Jul-21 567,430
Aug-21 449,011
The cumulative to Aug-21 is running 40% higher than a simple 13/53rds of the total contract
Is it still the case that the UK Government picks up the tab for some of the costs?
Bearsden wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:19 am
PIK will have been Scotland's most profitable airport over the last couple of days - 3 USAF C-5M visits, 10 C-17A visits (1 Kuwait, 9 USAF), 2 USN C-40A visits (mainly night-stopping) plus A330F G-EODS training plus light aircraft and RAF training
Won’t USAF flights now reduce via PIK since US military departure from Afghanistan?
Bearsden wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:19 am
PIK will have been Scotland's most profitable airport over the last couple of days - 3 USAF C-5M visits, 10 C-17A visits (1 Kuwait, 9 USAF), 2 USN C-40A visits (mainly night-stopping) plus A330F G-EODS training plus light aircraft and RAF training
Won’t USAF flights now reduce via PIK since US military departure from Afghanistan?
Bearsden wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:19 am
PIK will have been Scotland's most profitable airport over the last couple of days - 3 USAF C-5M visits, 10 C-17A visits (1 Kuwait, 9 USAF), 2 USN C-40A visits (mainly night-stopping) plus A330F G-EODS training plus light aircraft and RAF training
Won’t USAF flights now reduce via PIK since US military departure from Afghanistan?
I think thats probable ...
It will be interesting to see the FY2020/21 accounts and the treatment/narrative on this contract. Was the contract with the airport or with Air BP? If it is with the airport, did it hedge the contract with Air BP ie commit to buy the fuel over the term of the contract at agreed $ or £ rates per litre or US gallon? Are there any 'get out' clauses for either party or are the US Government committed to buy 11.3m US gallons?
Interesting to read that 'with Astraius, the leading UK based, commercially operated horizontal ‘air launch’ company.' - The UK entity was only formed last year however its origins are in the US although a number of directors are British
Interesting to see a photo of a photoshopped C17 aircraft which will ‘carry and launch the rockets’
As far as I know all C17s worldwide are operated by various country’s Air Forces or at least used mainly for military purpose
Wondering who is providing the C17 for this operation or is this claim a bit far fetched?