These things are seldom straightforward to be honest.
Boiling the numbers down to the important bits, there’s some interesting points to draw out.
Although PAX numbers were up 1.4% in the FY, income arising from traffic (including movements and services) was down by 5.5%. However, commercial income was up by 7.2% which meant the airport was making more money per passenger from passenger-facing value-add services (retail, car parking, etc). Impressive given the passenger increase was so small.
This and a 6.8% increase in tenancy income boosted overall revenue by 2.9% (£553,000) to £19,892,000, which demonstrates the airport's immediate focus of financial growth will be across the commercial and tenancy areas, although with PAX likely to be up by 6-7% this FY, we could feasibly see an increase across all three next time
Then there’s the additional income arising from the final drawdown from the WG Covid Recovery Grant (£11,750,000), giving a total income of £31,642,000.
Some would argue the grant is not “real” income, but, as with any other limited company, shareholders are allowed to invest cash to maintain the business. For accounting purposes, this is shareholder “investment” and is duly classed as income nonetheless.
Total costs and expenditure amounted to £31,408,000, which included the £18.3m investment required to meet the airport’s regulatory obligations, i.e. “next generation” security (which completed December 2024) and the runway infrastructure upgrade and rehabilitation project (which commenced during the financial year).
Income – Costs = an operating profit of £234,000, adjusted to £201,000 to allow for ancillary losses.
Given the point above around the WG grant, it’s up to you guys to draw your own conclusions as to whether the profit is real or not in your opinion. However, in true accountancy terms, the profit is technically real.
Lets face it, Cardiff Airport is no different from any other when it comes to financing projects, be that mandatory or to generate growth. Investment in capital projects is almost always needed to balance the books. Just look at Bristol Airport – their car park and terminal works were not paid for in-year by operating profit. They were financed through investment.
Without the grant, there would be a £11,516,000 loss. Although the capital investment (the grant) covered most of the mandatory regulatory expenditure, the key part of this is £6,784,000 of the overall cost was accounted for by CIAL’s own liquidity, which, again, shows the effort behind the scenes to grow a surplus of funds (more on that in a moment).
Finally, the business’ assets amount to £53,223,000, although total liabilities (including the WG commercial loan now amounting to £36,001,000 to be serviced from 2031) means that only £4,017,000 of the airport’s non-liquid assets can be attributed to equity.
However, CIAL does have a surplus of cash of £8,104,000 which is impressive under the circumstances and offers a far better picture than the £21.2m deficit posted last year.
It’s not easy to reach the right conclusions from submissions like these so hope the above proves useful.