PIK

[Clive]

GLA had grown to just shy of 10m until the sh!t hit the fan in recent times.

Clive

I have to put your 10m into context . . . GLA reached 9.9m in calendar year 2017, by 2019 that had fallen to 8.8m during which period the overall total number of passengers between EDI, GLA & PIK had only increased by 0.2m (EDI +1.3m, GLA -1.0m, PIK -0.1m)

Yes, that was when Ryanair closed their GLA base and piled even more into EDI. One million went from GLA to EDI in a trice. Until then things had been improving.

[cammyboy]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport ... rt-3363108

Just speculation but nevertheless...

[cammyboy]

More investment into non PAX ops

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/storm-avi ... -location/

[Bearsden]

More investment into non PAX ops

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/storm-avi ... -location/

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

[atuk]

What I find interesting is that if PIK were a plc then details of the approaches, offers and actual bids would require disclosure to the Stock Exchange as shareholders, by law, must be notified and kept abreast of developments. Just like Morrisons to quote the most recent example.

Since this utility is owned lock, stock and barrel by The Scottish Government, we the taxpayers who keep this facility alive don’t receive any notification at all. Smoke and mirrors and secrecy suffice. Over to you Mr Mathieson, or should it be Vinci whom I quoted in my spoof April Fool?

[Clive]

More investment into non PAX ops

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/storm-avi ... -location/

Excellent news.

[Clive]

What I find interesting is that if PIK were a plc then details of the approaches, offers and actual bids would require disclosure to the Stock Exchange as shareholders, by law, must be notified and kept abreast of developments. Just like Morrisons to quote the most recent example.

Since this utility is owned lock, stock and barrel by The Scottish Government, we the taxpayers who keep this facility alive don’t receive any notification at all. Smoke and mirrors and secrecy suffice. Over to you Mr Mathieson, or should it be Vinci whom I quoted in my spoof April Fool?

Airport internal commercial dealings are always kept private before being revealed. That’s normal. What good would it do you if you were party to the ongoing negotiations?

Like the rest of us you’ll find out on due course. But rest assured, no other form of government could have sold the facility quicker of for more money than will happen. In fact your preferred kind of government would have let the facility close down in a heartbeat. So the Tory spokesman in the article (never heard of him) has a brass neck to comment at all.

Interesting though that the loan capital has not been written off as some politically motivated types had speculated and that the eventual sale will cover at least some of the Scottish Government’s outlay. The prize at the end of the day will be that the specialist aviation facility has been saved from closure and Scotland retains its benefit instead of it being lost to our nation.

[atuk]

[quote=atuk post_id=4322 time=<a href="tel:1630225528">1630225528</a> user_id=75]
What I find interesting is that if PIK were a plc then details of the approaches, offers and actual bids would require disclosure to the Stock Exchange as shareholders, by law, must be notified and kept abreast of developments. Just like Morrisons to quote the most recent example.

Since this utility is owned lock, stock and barrel by The Scottish Government, we the taxpayers who keep this facility alive don’t receive any notification at all. Smoke and mirrors and secrecy suffice. Over to you Mr Mathieson, or should it be Vinci whom I quoted in my spoof April Fool?

Airport internal commercial dealings are always kept private before being revealed. That’s normal. What good would it do you if you were party to the ongoing negotiations?

Like the rest of us you’ll find out on due course. But rest assured, no other form of government could have sold the facility quicker of for more money than will happen. In fact your preferred kind of government would have let the facility close down in a heartbeat. So the Tory spokesman in the article (never heard of him) has a brass neck to comment at all.

Interesting though that the loan capital has not been written off as some politically motivated types had speculated and that the eventual sale will cover at least some of the Scottish Government’s outlay. The prize at the end of the day will be that the specialist aviation facility has been saved from closure and Scotland retains its benefit instead of it being lost to our nation.
[/quote]

you honestly believe this “asset” will be sold at a profit. Goodness you’re much more gullible than I ever gave you credit for!

[Clive]

[quote=atuk post_id=4322 time=<a href="tel:1630225528">1630225528</a> user_id=75]
What I find interesting is that if PIK were a plc then details of the approaches, offers and actual bids would require disclosure to the Stock Exchange as shareholders, by law, must be notified and kept abreast of developments. Just like Morrisons to quote the most recent example.

Since this utility is owned lock, stock and barrel by The Scottish Government, we the taxpayers who keep this facility alive don’t receive any notification at all. Smoke and mirrors and secrecy suffice. Over to you Mr Mathieson, or should it be Vinci whom I quoted in my spoof April Fool?

Airport internal commercial dealings are always kept private before being revealed. That’s normal. What good would it do you if you were party to the ongoing negotiations?

Like the rest of us you’ll find out on due course. But rest assured, no other form of government could have sold the facility quicker of for more money than will happen. In fact your preferred kind of government would have let the facility close down in a heartbeat. So the Tory spokesman in the article (never heard of him) has a brass neck to comment at all.

Interesting though that the loan capital has not been written off as some politically motivated types had speculated and that the eventual sale will cover at least some of the Scottish Government’s outlay. The prize at the end of the day will be that the specialist aviation facility has been saved from closure and Scotland retains its benefit instead of it being lost to our nation.

you honestly believe this “asset” will be sold at a profit. Goodness you’re much more gullible than I ever gave you credit for!
[/quote]

Instead of being condescending maybe you need to re read what I said. I didn’t say it will be sold at a profit.

Although whatever the eventual sale price, when we consider the whole picture rather than just part of it, it will be a profit to the Scottish public purse in the long run by the very fact that the facility was kept open and productive instead of being closed, the economic input during that time and in all the years that are to follow.

[atuk]

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.