Really, pretty much however you look at the numbers, GLA really isn't doing that well. 2022 figures obviously include the impact of COVID, but even if we look at numbers up to 2019 things weren't exactly brilliant and what has happened since with loss of carriers like VS to EDI has made it even worse.Bearsden wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 11:25 pm Some very interesting views . . . a good read
I've just downloaded the CAA statistics for 2009 & 2019 and started comparing them . . . and not surprisingly the story is in the numbers
Taking international passengers 2019 v 2009 - EDI Up 5.3m 127%, GLA Up 1.5m 44%, PIK Down 0.7m 53%
I'll extract a few more tables over the next couple of days but here is Glasgow's top 15 new international destinations between 2009 & 2019 over 25,000 passengers per annum - and I think their current 2022 status (Piper One and/or ATUK can confirm) - 593,000 passengers in 2019 but only 330,000 based on today's operating routes
FRANKFURT 94,124
MUNICH 46,694 Non Op 2022
BUCHAREST 46,652 Non Op 2022
KRAKOW 40,352
ENFIDHA 39,393 Non Op 2022
NEW YORK (JFK) 38,104 Non Op 2022
WROCLAW 37,360
BUDAPEST 36,588 Non Op 2022
PRAGUE 35,345
ROME 34,349
HALIFAX 30,357
VENICE 29,490
WARSAW 29,394
DUSSELDORF 28,485 Non Op 2022
CORK 26,505 Non Op 2022
One other set of comparatives caught my eye - that was the Canary Islands
ARRECIFE EDI 85,757 GLA 24,070 PIK 30,665
FUERTEVENTURA EDI 69,418 GLA 16,193 PIK 4,069
LAS PALMAS EDI 55,791 GLA -12,618 PIK 16,877
TENERIFE EDI 211,197 GLA -28,345 PIK 58,489
EDI 422,163 GLA -700 PIK 110,100
So over 0.25 million outbound passengers gained by EDI & PIK while GLA achieved zero
We've discussed at length some other stats that may give some context to that, but imo these don't provide the whole story.
Although I'm not sure I agree about how it relates to the precise relationship that Davieboy was suggesting earlier, I do agree that there has been a fundamental shift away from charters/tour operators to LCCs - and imo GLA has, over 20 years and a number of owners/management teams, failed to fully adapt and make the best of it.
As mentioned by atuk, GLA have failed to replace much of the capacity from TCX going bust (and they were already not doing well before COVID came along) whilst other airports seem to have done better. We are told often that airlines only like to go onto proven routes - well here are a lot of routes that were demonstrably filling planes at GLA, yet GLA couldn't convince airlines to replace many of those routes and capacity. Meanwhile, EDI - where most of the pax were demonstrably not flying from - has managed to get airlines to place the replacement capacity there, so in effect probably relocating many of the TCX pax from GLA to EDI.
Getting more from TUI may well be part of the equation in the short term, but how long will they last? Some of the current problem has come from TCX going bust and EDI capitalising on that - if we had more TUI and they went bust then we would possibly see the same damaging scenario again. As such, I think the most pressing thing is to get more from LCCs, particularly improving the relationship with FR. GLA cannot imo afford to be the only airport in the UK mainland top 9 not to have an FR base. The NCL/LBA/LPL catchments have lower disposable income and inbound tourism, so I find it difficult to understand how they can sustain FR bases, but not GLA.
There has been some discussion here that FR operating one base at EDI, rather than bases at both EDI and GLA is a cost/efficiency saving - and I would tend to agree with that generally. However, if you watch the latter part of the FR Facebook video Davieboy posted it features a Q&A between Scottish journos and the FR Rep. During that Douglas Fraser asks essentially this question if the closing of the GLA base was a cost saving/efficiency measure - The FR Rep quite aggressively denies this and says FR are an "efficient" airline that can and do operate 1 aircraft bases profitably.
