GATWICK
LGWbidding
If just 2 airlines (along with some financial backer) were to bid for LGW wouldn't there be a risk of a conflict of interest occuring somewhere ?
If there are 10 significant sized airlines in an ownership consotrium, it becomes much harder for any single airline to ask for some sort of preferential terms. Yes, the CAA can put in all sorts of regulatory rules - but it can't police every internal meeting. Put in enough rules, and the whole organisation becomes overly bureaucratic and incapable of adapting to customer demand.
If you're part of LGW senior management and both (for example) VS and ZB were trying to get hold of the same resource - could you really put hand on heart and always act completely objectively ?
If there are 10 significant sized airlines in an ownership consotrium, it becomes much harder for any single airline to ask for some sort of preferential terms. Yes, the CAA can put in all sorts of regulatory rules - but it can't police every internal meeting. Put in enough rules, and the whole organisation becomes overly bureaucratic and incapable of adapting to customer demand.
If you're part of LGW senior management and both (for example) VS and ZB were trying to get hold of the same resource - could you really put hand on heart and always act completely objectively ?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that we already have impartial treatment throughout the BAA group? Just try saying that to the non BA passengers at LHR with the chaos they're going to have over the next 4 years.
Conflict of interest
Whether BAA treat BA differently or not is a debatable point, but because BA do not have a substantial equity ownership of BAA / Ferrovial, it makes it harder to claim conflict of interest as oppoosed to simply giving your biggest customer a better deal.
From what I can tell, most private companies in the world give their big-spending customers better terms. Where discretion permits, do Fraport really not sometimes try to make things slightly easier for LH, or AdP for AF ? I can't think of any long-haul airlines which don't have some sort of loyalty scheme.
If just a couple of airlines (who happen to be amongst the bigger customers) have a significant equity stake as well - then in my opinion the likes of Monarch, Thomson and others would be justified in publicly complaining about conflict of interest rather than the milder "they take more interest in their biggest spending customers"
From what I can tell, most private companies in the world give their big-spending customers better terms. Where discretion permits, do Fraport really not sometimes try to make things slightly easier for LH, or AdP for AF ? I can't think of any long-haul airlines which don't have some sort of loyalty scheme.
If just a couple of airlines (who happen to be amongst the bigger customers) have a significant equity stake as well - then in my opinion the likes of Monarch, Thomson and others would be justified in publicly complaining about conflict of interest rather than the milder "they take more interest in their biggest spending customers"
NATS
7 airlines jointly hold 42% of the shares in NATS - thus diluting the influence of any single airline. Further, staff hold 5% and the Govt holds 49% plus a golden share - thus largely overriding the commercial interests of any single airline.
This is not to say there is absolutely zero conflict of interest for NATS senior management - but it appears to be quite small.
In comparison, Easy+Virgin being principal members of a consortium bidding to own an airport might raise significantly more conflict of interest
This is not to say there is absolutely zero conflict of interest for NATS senior management - but it appears to be quite small.
In comparison, Easy+Virgin being principal members of a consortium bidding to own an airport might raise significantly more conflict of interest
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if this has been thought through clearly.
Gatwick would be owned by a separate company which would have to suitably distanced from both Easy & Virgin Management and Directors to satisfy competition rules.
This isn't a case of both airlines taking an equity stake in another airline, they're proposing taking on a major UK business with many existing customers and different types of businesses on ONE site who aren't going tolerate any crap.
If they do make a successful bid, to run Gatwick properly on a day to day basis they're going to have to appoint much stronger and more astute management and directors than currently exist at either airline.
Gatwick would be owned by a separate company which would have to suitably distanced from both Easy & Virgin Management and Directors to satisfy competition rules.
This isn't a case of both airlines taking an equity stake in another airline, they're proposing taking on a major UK business with many existing customers and different types of businesses on ONE site who aren't going tolerate any crap.
If they do make a successful bid, to run Gatwick properly on a day to day basis they're going to have to appoint much stronger and more astute management and directors than currently exist at either airline.
Ezy + Vs
niknak - I agree that the company running LGW will have to be on an arm's length basis from EZY / VS. However, I still suspect that there will be a perception of conflict of interest.
Does anyone know how Plymouth separates airport operations from those of AirSouthWest, given that Sutton Harbour essentially runs both companies ? I'm guessing this may not be the best example as no other scheduled airlines currently fly there.
wakeup - BAA own the other 4% of the shares in NATS. The golden share exists so that the Govt essentially have a veto on anything they consider strategic
Does anyone know how Plymouth separates airport operations from those of AirSouthWest, given that Sutton Harbour essentially runs both companies ? I'm guessing this may not be the best example as no other scheduled airlines currently fly there.
wakeup - BAA own the other 4% of the shares in NATS. The golden share exists so that the Govt essentially have a veto on anything they consider strategic
If they do make a successful bid, to run Gatwick properly on a day to day basis they're going to have to appoint much stronger and more astute management and directors than currently exist at either airline.
Gut instinct is it will be less likely as irrespective of what he has done before the bullying of a board by its biggest shareholder will inspire no confidence from the fund managers.
Their viewpoint is if he treats Senior Board like this will our £X million stake get treated the same way.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both Flybe and Aer Lingus have filed slot requests with the German slot-coordinator for flights from DUS to LGW with the E195 and the A320 respectively. EI is only a once-daily midday service, so LGW might be just a dummy for something else (BFS?). Because of the scarcity of slots at DUS, none of the requests has been met so far.
Would be nice to get back a DUS route from LGW. The route has a long tradition and was served by BCal Commuter, Air Europe, Cityflyer etc. A while ago there were flights from DUS/MGL to LHR, LCY, STN, LGW and LTN by seven airlines, now we are down to four airlines, no service to LTN and LGW and STN facing a downgrade to the 78-seat DHC8-Q400 in 2009.
Would be nice to get back a DUS route from LGW. The route has a long tradition and was served by BCal Commuter, Air Europe, Cityflyer etc. A while ago there were flights from DUS/MGL to LHR, LCY, STN, LGW and LTN by seven airlines, now we are down to four airlines, no service to LTN and LGW and STN facing a downgrade to the 78-seat DHC8-Q400 in 2009.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capacity-wise.
I was talking about the overall LON-DUS market, and not only have some routes disappeared, but also on others capacity has been reduced. LHR by BA used to be 757/767 and is now mostly Airbus, STN used to be 100 or 150 seater with Air Berlin and will now be reduced to a 78 seater. Plus the loss of LGW-DUS, LTN-MGL and LCY-MGL (and, if you want so, due to the proximity of the two, LHR-CGN by BA, LTN-CGN by X3, LGW-CGN by 4U/BA).
I was talking about the overall LON-DUS market, and not only have some routes disappeared, but also on others capacity has been reduced. LHR by BA used to be 757/767 and is now mostly Airbus, STN used to be 100 or 150 seater with Air Berlin and will now be reduced to a 78 seater. Plus the loss of LGW-DUS, LTN-MGL and LCY-MGL (and, if you want so, due to the proximity of the two, LHR-CGN by BA, LTN-CGN by X3, LGW-CGN by 4U/BA).
Last edited by virginblue; 24th Nov 2008 at 08:55.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick Swimfest
I hear (via airline staff) that in the recent wet weather about 50 cars may be written off after the staff car park flooded.
Apparently the affected area is know by BAA to have a history of flooding and there used to be signs around the area warning of this that have now been removed.
BAA are denying all responsibility or liability and apparently are trying to blame the airlines for not warning staff of the no liability clause.
Notwithstanding the fact that BAA will not let staff park elsewhere!
Apparently the affected area is know by BAA to have a history of flooding and there used to be signs around the area warning of this that have now been removed.
BAA are denying all responsibility or liability and apparently are trying to blame the airlines for not warning staff of the no liability clause.
Notwithstanding the fact that BAA will not let staff park elsewhere!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luckily i escaped that day by parking further down closer to the entrance. I normally park in the flooded areas....
If I was one of those few with written off cars i'd be getting my insurance company onto the BAA. They're liable and there's definitely no signage to warn of flood risks.
I was also never made aware that area was a flood risk when i collected my car park pass from the BAA offices.
To say its the airlines fault is a joke!
If I was one of those few with written off cars i'd be getting my insurance company onto the BAA. They're liable and there's definitely no signage to warn of flood risks.
I was also never made aware that area was a flood risk when i collected my car park pass from the BAA offices.
To say its the airlines fault is a joke!
