Originally Posted by
davidjohnson6
Alas beautifully designed buildings cost more money than basic pre-fabricated sheds... and most of us want to be able to fly as cheaply as possible when going for leisure
Yes there is a limit (Marseille terminal 2, with metal cages, I am looking at you) but Stansted seems to be sufficiently comfortable that people will put up with its desire to extract money from pax via retail
It's not "extra money" in any way, it's core revenue. Airline charges have withered so much that to even cover costs, airports have to discount massively to get the operators in at all, (e.g. Ryanair) and as a consequence, the money comes from retail charges and profit share. The only things that really matter, are safety, security and shopping, there's no other way. There are exceptions like LHR where a premium is paid as yields can be *much* higher, or YYZ where you either pay or fly from Hamilton.
Personally, I grew up watching BAA build shiney new facilities at GLA, only for the market to fragment and move East. It was only the agreed strategy to force growth at GLA what allowed an ROI to justify what GLA now has over EDI. Even though EDI has way more traffic, the facilities at GLA remain superior, with 12 airbridge capable stands, something EDI is only now addressing and only in a rather basic manner.
STN was (re-)built with another world in mind, less Westfield more Heathrow.
BAA was allowed to take a wider strategic view but it was close to being a monopoly, and now we may have gone a little too far the other way?