Loss of Gatwick Express - BAA's real concern?
Sorry if there's already a thread specifically on this (didn't find one), but I think it needs a bit of a rant..
In the ongoing row over SRA v BAA / N Exp group, how much is their real concern over the loss of one of their cash cows, rather than over the service levels given to passengers?
From what I see of the proposals, Victoria originating pax lose slightly by the stop at East Croydon, but this in turn extends a lot of connections opportunities. Why would airport pax be concerned if the train then continues to Brighton - doesn't this make the best use of existing, heavily congested, tracks? So what if they have "only two minutes" - they aren't exactly going to let the train leave without people boarding are they? Then we have the usual safety nonsense trumpeted out as a reason in its defence.
As so much rail fare revenue seems to be carelessly lost due to lack of ticket inspections, how much are BAA really just concerned because a single stop airport to rail terminus service is cheaper to run, easier to get away with charging top whack for, and easier to check tickets on?
Might enforced stops on the Gatwick service also open them up to eventually needing to put on a stopping service to Heathrow?
Aren't these some of the most expensive trains in the world on a cost per mile basis (excluding routes like Jungfrau in Switzerland, where I don't mind paying top whack for the superb views). I can't think of many, if any other cities where such a premium is charged on airport to city rail services which only give one edge of centre, rather than central option - maybe the CAT in Vienna, or the Shanghai maglev, but that's in a different league to anything in the UK, technology wise at least.
Isn't this really about BAA protecting their monopoly yet again, and nothing to do with consumers' best interests?