More to it than being forced to sell one of the airports
This is just a general comment on the situation; I haven't kept up to date on the proposal to force BAA to sell off one or more of the three London Airports, only what I have read briefly here and seen on sky news.
Does it not defeat the purpose somewhat to allow the second biggest consortium in the UK (MAG) to take over one of the capital’s main airports. I understand that BAA has complete domination over London’s airports, however, is it in the best interests of passengers to allow the second biggest airport consortium in the country to take over Gatwick. Will it open up the services to allow passengers access to the destinations they want or will they operate services there and favour their existing airports like Manchester. MAG will have considerable investment in Gatwick and it will be in their best interests to make it profitable.
BAA owns Gatwick and has close links with BA and a long running relationship. Can MAG really make a difference in Gatwick, they can't force BA to fly out of Gatwick and why would BA bring more destination to Gatwick and jeopardise their well established Heathrow operations.
The situation in London's airports is more than simply BAA dominating the airports and how they are run. There is also the National airline and its long established links with BAA and Heathrow in particular. With the planned new runway at Heathrow it’s difficult to see how BA will move or greatly expand any of its operations in Gatwick. If it does what’s to say it doesn't just do it in the interim until the new runway has been completed at Heathrow. Should the government not look at how the three airports could be utilised together in a structured manner rather than building more and more at Heathrow.
Forcing BAA to sell off one or more of London’s airports is a good idea but I think it needs to be planned very carefully.