PIK

[Bearsden]

As we all know the biggest revenue earner is its military operations (in particular fuelling) with of course a significant spin-off in the local community for accommodation etc

Prestwick is running at a profit

The SG still see Prestwick as an airport ie with passengers and not an airfield so I see any 'forced' move of Ryanair's passengers operations highly unlikely - the argument will be put forward that the passenger flights lessen the need for positioning flights for maintenance

Yes the terminal building is expensive to run per sq ft used but that is largely irrelevant if the contribution from car parking, duty & tax free sales and other passenger income exceeds direct passenger costs (a lot of contracts are seasonal, part-time or split-shift) - asbestos only becomes an issue if you disturb it so 'let sleeping dogs lie'

The question will be what the eventual buyers intend to do with their facility. Hopefully they’ll be of the opinion that keeping pax ops with one unpredictable customer and no prospect of additional airline customers is a costly burden on the core business activities, which are clearly going to be similar to now. We don’t need me to list them - but they might see scope for expansion in global air freight and military staging. They might have a major partner wanting to build a hub such as Fed Ex, UPS or the likes. If pax ops don’t cover their own costs or if Ryanair don’t like the new owners attitude then all bets would be off in a trice.

But is it a 'costly burden'? I suspect marginal passenger income exceeds marginal passengers costs eg ATC is 24/7 anyway so the marginal cost for passenger operations is NIL

[Clive]

As we all know the biggest revenue earner is its military operations (in particular fuelling) with of course a significant spin-off in the local community for accommodation etc

Prestwick is running at a profit

The SG still see Prestwick as an airport ie with passengers and not an airfield so I see any 'forced' move of Ryanair's passengers operations highly unlikely - the argument will be put forward that the passenger flights lessen the need for positioning flights for maintenance

Yes the terminal building is expensive to run per sq ft used but that is largely irrelevant if the contribution from car parking, duty & tax free sales and other passenger income exceeds direct passenger costs (a lot of contracts are seasonal, part-time or split-shift) - asbestos only becomes an issue if you disturb it so 'let sleeping dogs lie'

The question will be what the eventual buyers intend to do with their facility. Hopefully they’ll be of the opinion that keeping pax ops with one unpredictable customer and no prospect of additional airline customers is a costly burden on the core business activities, which are clearly going to be similar to now. We don’t need me to list them - but they might see scope for expansion in global air freight and military staging. They might have a major partner wanting to build a hub such as Fed Ex, UPS or the likes. If pax ops don’t cover their own costs or if Ryanair don’t like the new owners attitude then all bets would be off in a trice.

But is it a 'costly burden'? I suspect marginal passenger income exceeds marginal passengers costs eg ATC is 24/7 anyway so the marginal cost for passenger operations is NIL

I guess the biggest costs directly attributable to handling commercial pax will be the terminal building running costs and upkeep, rates if any and staff wages. But the bigger question is will the new owners see Ryanair as the sole operator a sound investment when it comes to making a sustainable business plan. A new carpet in the terminal might cost as much as 2 years profit generated from the pax who wear it out (profit, not income for those who might not separate the two), but can they guarantee pax will still be there in 2 years, for example.

Personally I’ve just got to hope the buyers have every intention of building on all of the good and unique things PIK does and no intention of providing pax handling facilities for Ryanair. Or Ryanair don’t like the charges they will get from the new owners or GLA seals the deal by providing an alternative base with massive growth potential.

[Iain]

https://x.com/seanm1997/status/17223579 ... lOa6GAi2Ew

Ryanair REMOVE 39 routes across their network including:

Glasgow Prestwick - Marseille

Shame EZY rolled over so easily and dropped GLA-MRS.

[Clive]

Sh!t. PIK have agreed a new 5 year deal with Ryanair.

https://www.insider.co.uk/company-resul ... e-31482501

[PiperOne]

The delay in FR's S23 routes going on sale about this time last year was presumably a bit of brinkmanship during the negotiations.

And perhaps explains the delay in loading S24 as well. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out in practice.

[Clive]

The delay in FR's S23 routes going on sale about this time last year was presumably a bit of brinkmanship during the negotiations.

And perhaps explains the delay in loading S24 as well. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out in practice.

Hopefully it doesn’t mean a deal with GLA is off the table. Indeed it might now pave the way for a GLA base announcement.

[GeorgeNTravels]

PIK didn't get it's schedule fully loaded last year until December 23rd and officially confirmed publicly by press release in February, still plenty of time, especially as MAX delays and deliveries become more certain.

[will1983]

Future growth at PIK. What is their based A/C just now for S24? Noticed a lot of the S24 schedule is away-based flying too.

[Bearsden]

Sh!t. PIK have agreed a new 5 year deal with Ryanair.

https://www.insider.co.uk/company-resul ... e-31482501

Not surprising - marginal revenue > marginal costs

Those in power at Holyrood enjoy the political 'brownie points' from keeping PIK as a passenger airport - although it is the military activity which keeps it afloat . . . no sign of that abating in the foreseeable

SG manage the spin so McConnell regurgitates 'Prestwick Airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has unveiled its fourth consecutive annual profit, boosted in the year to March by a surge in passenger numbers.' with the obligatory Ryanair B738 photograph . . . £1.3m revenue last year to £3.8m in 2022/23 but fuel revenue (mainly military of course) increased from £20.8m to £40.8m

I wonder why they are sitting on £19.6m in the bank but still owe SG £43.4m loan + £9.1m interest . . . . going to waive the interest in a sale and cut the price down to £23.8m (£43.4m less £19.6m)??

[Clive]

Sh!t. PIK have agreed a new 5 year deal with Ryanair.

https://www.insider.co.uk/company-resul ... e-31482501

Not surprising - marginal revenue > marginal costs

Those in power at Holyrood enjoy the political 'brownie points' from keeping PIK as a passenger airport - although it is the military activity which keeps it afloat”

Remember we’re not allowed to stray into politics but really is there anyone outwith this forum who doesn’t think it should be a passenger airport? The Brownie points are due to saving the facility from closure and the job will be complete when the business is sold.