PIK

[Clive]

I await the published accounts to comment further but an Operating Profit and an Asset Revaluation point to a far better short to medium term financial position than both EDI & GLA who are losing multi £m today and have 15 to 20 times the debt around their necks with their main revenue stream being terminal passengers

Yes, the state put funds into the airport and are writing off the annual interest on its loan capital but the sums are relatively speaking small - the key is cash generation after expenditure on fixed assets

I have said before that there will be an argument that Ryanair's passenger operations may be loss-making on a standalone basis but they are an efficient way to route aircraft in and out its maintenance facility thus maintaining and creating local jobs

Neither EDI nor GLA have invested in the infrastructure to handle multiple heavy military transports / tankers likewise neither has heavy freight handling facilities for An-124s, B748s etc . . . and today neither has the cash to invest in that kind of infrastructure

PIK has no doubt made a tidy sum from the 6 (now 5) ex Norwegian B787s which have been sitting for two years

Yes it’s quite the strategic asset. Just wish the paltry remaining pax services would move to GLA. The Glasgow area can’t support 2 international pax airports.

Other than that it presents no problems to me at all.

[hads]

I dont care whatever happens to it. Just the fact that as long as aircraft can land there, Glasgow Airprot is affected.
Its a bit like stabbing your leg with a knife and saying, I wish my leg didnt hurt.

[Clive]

I await the published accounts to comment further

Await no more: https://www.glasgowprestwick.com/wp-con ... signed.pdf

Interested to hear your learned views. As a layman, it looks to be a business moving in the right direction. The SG would appear to have been quite right to decline a bid if they thought that bid undervalued the business.

Agreed on all counts.

Imagine the uproar in certain quarters if they had sold at a loss, just to wash their hands if it, and written off the loan capital.

[viscount]

One thing we have not look at is all the companies base on the airport who need access to a runway, how much profit do they make, also how much tax do they pay. If the airport was not there we would not have these companies so we would not have all the taxes generated by them and there staff.

Plus we would most likely be paying benefits to the people currently employed there who would be unemployed.

In my option it could cost the country more to close it. What difference would 3 or 4 Ryanair flights a day going to make to Glasgow.

As for a heavy 748f where would you park it at Glasgow also is there a apron strong enough to take it.

[GKirk]

One thing we have not look at is all the companies base on the airport who need access to a runway, how much profit do they make, also how much tax do they pay. If the airport was not there we would not have these companies so we would not have all the taxes generated by them and there staff.

Plus we would most likely be paying benefits to the people currently employed there who would be unemployed.

In my option it could cost the country more to close it. What difference would 3 or 4 Ryanair flights a day going to make to Glasgow.

As for a heavy 748f where would you park it at Glasgow also is there a apron strong enough to take it.

The 747-8F (and A340-600 are not cleared to use GLA).

[Bearsden]

I await the published accounts to comment further

Await no more: https://www.glasgowprestwick.com/wp-con ... signed.pdf

Interested to hear your learned views. As a layman, it looks to be a business moving in the right direction. The SG would appear to have been quite right to decline a bid if they thought that bid undervalued the business.

The business appears to be in a steady state providing the infrastructure (runways and buildings don't need a huge amount of investment in the next few years), indeed the business has taken fixed asset revaluations totalling £13.6m through the P&L (you will recall that all operational capital expenditure was written off in prior years)

There is an element of creativeness in the presentation of £0.5m Operating Profit before Exceptional Items as (a) the number in £'000s is £354,000 and (b) includes £929,000 non recurring income related to windfarm mitigation agreements, so an Operating Loss of £575,000 (£0.6m) is in my eyes more like a 'true & fair view'

Back on 03 Dec I forecast a Loss after Interest of £2.0m - the outturn was £1.8m (£575,000 + £1,186,000 interest)

Other points noted -
> Revenue down £17.0m, mainly Fuel which fell £13.4m
> No change in £43.4m loan
> Loan interest of £6.2m remains unpaid
> Minimal change in cash in hand £14.1m compared to £14.3m last year
> Employee numbers only dropped to 287 from 300
> Debt ageing worse, notably UK customers, with £0.9m > 120 days

Fuel sales will have picked up - looking at the US military contract data which is published for the period May-Nov 2021 v 2020, the quantity uplifted has more than quadrupled, an increase of over US$10m in revenue

The key, compared to GLA & EDI, is net debt . . . . PIK is sitting on only £35.5m (£43.4m loan + £6.2m accrued interest - £14.1m cash in hand)

[Clive]

I await the published accounts to comment further

Await no more: https://www.glasgowprestwick.com/wp-con ... signed.pdf

Interested to hear your learned views. As a layman, it looks to be a business moving in the right direction. The SG would appear to have been quite right to decline a bid if they thought that bid undervalued the business.

The business appears to be in a steady state providing the infrastructure (runways and buildings don't need a huge amount of investment in the next few years), indeed the business has taken fixed asset revaluations totalling £13.6m through the P&L (you will recall that all operational capital expenditure was written off in prior years)

There is an element of creativeness in the presentation of £0.5m Operating Profit before Exceptional Items as (a) the number in £'000s is £354,000 and (b) includes £929,000 non recurring income related to windfarm mitigation agreements, so an Operating Loss of £575,000 (£0.6m) is in my eyes more like a 'true & fair view'

Back on 03 Dec I forecast a Loss after Interest of £2.0m - the outturn was £1.8m (£575,000 + £1,186,000 interest)

Other points noted -
> Revenue down £17.0m, mainly Fuel which fell £13.4m
> No change in £43.4m loan
> Loan interest of £6.2m remains unpaid
> Minimal change in cash in hand £14.1m compared to £14.3m last year
> Employee numbers only dropped to 287 from 300
> Debt ageing worse, notably UK customers, with £0.9m > 120 days

Fuel sales will have picked up - looking at the US military contract data which is published for the period May-Nov 2021 v 2020, the quantity uplifted has more than quadrupled, an increase of over US$10m in revenue

The key, compared to GLA & EDI, is net debt . . . . PIK is sitting on only £35.5m (£43.4m loan + £6.2m accrued interest - £14.1m cash in hand)

Thanks for the good info, Bearsden.

I don’t suppose there is anything on pax related revenue and the cost of running pax ops?

[Bearsden]

The accounts show an analysis of revenue, some of which like car parking is linked to passenger numbers but there is no 'management accounts' analysis of costs

I'm fairly certain that the revenue from passenger traffic (car parking, concessions, landing, navigation & parking fees, and fuel margin) will exceed the marginal costs of terminal handling, security etc ie ignoring the fixed costs of the airfield (infrastructure maintenance, fire cover, air traffic control etc) . . . ie passenger traffic is making a cash contribution although how much the terminal building costs annually might be an interesting question as clearly it has no relevance to military traffic, freight and training

[jetblue497]

As for a heavy 748f where would you park it at Glasgow also is there a apron strong enough to take it.

You mean the 748F that starts off 57,000 KG lighter that the A380 that was a regular at GLA? And the B748/A340-600 not being allowed is airport policy not apron/runway issues. Anyway wheel loading, not aircraft weight per se, is the critical factor.

[Allen McL]

As for a heavy 748f where would you park it at Glasgow also is there a apron strong enough to take it.

You mean the 748F that starts off 57,000 KG lighter that the A380 that was a regular at GLA? And the B748/A340-600 not being allowed is airport policy not apron/runway issues. Anyway wheel loading, not aircraft weight per se, is the critical factor.

GLA hosted a couple of Virgin Atlantic A340-600 flights as short notice 744 replacement. Were there any issues with it taxying ? Can't say I remember any talk at the time.