Flights to Glasgow scrapped by major airline in 'difficult decision'

[Bearsden]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

Yes, IIRC there was a pivotal decision back in the day at a time when easyJet had 4 aircraft at both bases and had been growing with parity, when EDI landed the expansion deal and GLA lost out. The rest became history.

Similarly, back in the day, pre-Amanda, GLA appeared to not actually want a Ryanair base. Some folks feared it would impact on existing services. Shows that even back then few had faith in the virility of the market in Glasgow and the west. I always contended that Ryanair make new passengers - they get people to fly who wouldn’t otherwise and they could sustain routes to all sorts of airports, even ones that no one had previously heard of.

I was also told by the management in an interview I did for my college course around 1996/7 that lo-co pax do not spend in the terminal so with the kind of airport fees the airlines would pay there was nothing in it for the airport company. I said then that you have to move with the market and keep up with the competition.

So the battle - if there ever was one - was lost way back then and subsequent owners/management were shackled with that history while all the airlines filled up EDI.

The new CEO must come in with a whole new outlook. I dearly hope he plays with the market rather than trying to swim against it.

Sadly we are all reaching the same conclusion

Some weeks ago I responded directly to the author of third article in The Herald by someone from The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce - no reply, no reply to my response to the first article, and only an acknowledgement to my response to the second article . . . . maybe they have accepted reality

Back in 1996/7 we were BAA owned so both GLA & EDI were stiffled by LHR/LGW centric mentality - it wasn't until the early 2000s that PIK really challenged the market reaching 2.4 million passengers in 2005

As noted above, all the cards were stacked in EDI's favour - sold first by BAA, bought by GIP who already owned LGW and a 75% stake in LCY, located west of the city so easy access to motorways west & north, established a management focus on new traffic, established a strategy for existing operators/routes which was aimed at damaging the two main competitors (the coach from Buchanan Street is an obvious example of pulling customers to you), have relentlessly worked with Ryanair, easyJet & Jet2 to build bases which cannot be moved to or replicated by a competitor airport, and filled the gaps in the based aircraft cycles with numerous inbound schedules

GLA could have been a stronger competitor but not at the ridiculous price Ferrovial/Macquarie paid for AGS with the debt burden that forced management into measures that increase EBITDA by bleeding its current passenger base (like increasing parking charges!) - if Infratil were forced to sell PIK for £1 then how much was GLA worth . . . . £10?

I had a look at the Ryanair increased frequencies to Dublin . . . . looks like one extra service on a Thursday (four rotations rather than three) and filling one or two rotations in certain weeks of the summer programme bringing the frequency up to three flights a day

In typical RYR fashion, 70 weekly flights equates to 35 weekly rotations (< 2 aircraft given the sector lengths)

[Clive]

Some interesting and very informative answers to my (rhetorical) question. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

Different owners (and their foresight or lack-of) is the key. After the BAA sale of EDI, the new owners there saw the benefit of embracing the lo-co model and went aggressively for it. Meanwhile GLA snubbed EZY and stuck with the legacy carrier model in the main.

As others have pointed out there are other elements in play, but no-one will convince me otherwise that the GLA management have not been partly responsible for the situation the airport now finds itself in. Yes, of course the airlines decide where they want to fly to but sometimes it also boils down to incentives, marketing and good management.

The ship has sailed and GLA has been holed below the waterline.

Yes, IIRC there was a pivotal decision back in the day at a time when easyJet had 4 aircraft at both bases and had been growing with parity, when EDI landed the expansion deal and GLA lost out. The rest became history.

Similarly, back in the day, pre-Amanda, GLA appeared to not actually want a Ryanair base. Some folks feared it would impact on existing services. Shows that even back then few had faith in the virility of the market in Glasgow and the west. I always contended that Ryanair make new passengers - they get people to fly who wouldn’t otherwise and they could sustain routes to all sorts of airports, even ones that no one had previously heard of.

I was also told by the management in an interview I did for my college course around 1996/7 that lo-co pax do not spend in the terminal so with the kind of airport fees the airlines would pay there was nothing in it for the airport company. I said then that you have to move with the market and keep up with the competition.

So the battle - if there ever was one - was lost way back then and subsequent owners/management were shackled with that history while all the airlines filled up EDI.

The new CEO must come in with a whole new outlook. I dearly hope he plays with the market rather than trying to swim against it.

Sadly we are all reaching the same conclusion

Some weeks ago I responded directly to the author of third article in The Herald by someone from The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce - no reply, no reply to my response to the first article, and only an acknowledgement to my response to the second article . . . . maybe they have accepted reality

Back in 1996/7 we were BAA owned so both GLA & EDI were stiffled by LHR/LGW centric mentality - it wasn't until the early 2000s that PIK really challenged the market reaching 2.4 million passengers in 2005

As noted above, all the cards were stacked in EDI's favour - sold first by BAA, bought by GIP who already owned LGW and a 75% stake in LCY, located west of the city so easy access to motorways west & north, established a management focus on new traffic, established a strategy for existing operators/routes which was aimed at damaging the two main competitors (the coach from Buchanan Street is an obvious example of pulling customers to you), have relentlessly worked with Ryanair, easyJet & Jet2 to build bases which cannot be moved to or replicated by a competitor airport, and filled the gaps in the based aircraft cycles with numerous inbound schedules

GLA could have been a stronger competitor but not at the ridiculous price Ferrovial/Macquarie paid for AGS with the debt burden that forced management into measures that increase EBITDA by bleeding its current passenger base (like increasing parking charges!) - if Infratil were forced to sell PIK for £1 then how much was GLA worth . . . . £10?

I had a look at the Ryanair increased frequencies to Dublin . . . . looks like one extra service on a Thursday (four rotations rather than three) and filling one or two rotations in certain weeks of the summer programme bringing the frequency up to three flights a day

In typical RYR fashion, 70 weekly flights equates to 35 weekly rotations (< 2 aircraft given the sector lengths)

So in reality the damage - if we call it that - was done over 20 years ago and it’s impossible to overcome. Embracing lo co fully at the start would have changed the future course.

I say if we call it damage as looking at it from the other side, why wouldn’t EDI be the go-to airport for the airlines?

It serves one of Europe’s top destinations and it’s positioned geographically to serve much of Scotland. The advent of budget flights opened the flood gates. One could say what has happened re competition in the central belt is natural. Those who wanted greater competition got what they wanted.

The move into Transcontinental services at EDI only really took place in such a meaningful way once they built the required infrastructure. Now there’s no stopping them.

Of course all during this time range we are talking about Ryanair had an alternative airport at PIK and didn’t need to base at GLA. If PIK hadn’t been in the equation everything would have developed very differently than it has. But it did exist and it was in the equation otherwise there is no doubt that Ryanair would have a base at GLA with at least 3 million pax per annum and EDI would have less than it does.

PIK’s existence is just another of the real world factors that successive owners and managers have had to live with at GLA. The only remedy to that is to get Ryanair up the road which will lead to the closure of the terminal at PIK. None of us know why GLA bosses have not been able to do that.

[rusty irish]

It wouldn't surprise me at all that if the terminal at PIK closed the based aircraft would leave the West of Scotland altogether for EDI or elsewhere.

[Clive]

It wouldn't surprise me at all that if the terminal at PIK closed the based aircraft would leave the West of Scotland altogether for EDI or elsewhere.

Yes we’ve gathered that you think there’s more than market forces in play.

[bill]

It wouldn't surprise me at all that if the terminal at PIK closed the based aircraft would leave the West of Scotland altogether for EDI or elsewhere.

I think a lot of us fear that too, although that would see RYR putting all their eggs in one basket. If they ever pulled out of PIK then GLA would be a must for me, if only to keep the east/west scenario alive.They always like to have a threat or two up their sleeves and to be fair, it generally works out for them.

[bill]

When the owner's portfolio alongside GLA is two small stagnating regional airports, it tells you all you need to know...

Think their portfolio is now three small stagnating airports.

[bill]

Not news to many here but just making it to the media now

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/flight ... t-decision

So, let me get this right. They pulled their 737's out of GLA and re-appeared with Dreamliners into EDI? How's that work then?

[GeorgeNTravels]

Not news to many here but just making it to the media now

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/flight ... t-decision

So, let me get this right. They pulled their 737's out of GLA and re-appeared with Dreamliners into EDI? How's that work then?

Essentially yes, but it’s been caused by a change within WestJet.

All the transatlantic stuff from Halifax and Toronto was canned and the Max fleet reallocated domestics and CA-US routes.

The 787 became the only TATL aircraft in their fleet and they decided that EDI was better for them than GLA.

[bill]

Not news to many here but just making it to the media now

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/flight ... t-decision

So, let me get this right. They pulled their 737's out of GLA and re-appeared with Dreamliners into EDI? How's that work then?

Essentially yes, but it’s been caused by a change within WestJet.

All the transatlantic stuff from Halifax and Toronto was canned and the Max fleet reallocated domestics and CA-US routes.

The 787 became the only TATL aircraft in their fleet and they decided that EDI was better for them than GLA.

Of course they did, silly me. Cheers for the info George!