But doesnt that Mean when It sold that they Become unregulated and then they can charge what they like,
Gatwick would remain regulated...it's its size, not its ownership, that's the key factor.
Ironic, isn't it, that after BAA played very foul to have Redhill kicked into touch in 2003 as a potential feeder for LGW, but also a potential monopoly-breaker, and the Department of Transport - Alistair Darling - bowed to BAA's demands to protect their monopoly, BAA's new Spanish owners are now exploiting that to maximise the asset realisation values, of which Gatwick is only the first to be realised for cash from the highest bidder, regardless of who that will be.
We need to ask ourselves why it's Gatwick that's being disposed of first. A sale of Stansted may provide better competition for Gatwick and thus reduce its value. But a sale of Gatwick will not affect Stansted's already poor open-market value.
A sale of Heathrow can safely be put off until last without reducing whatever value it has now. It was only ever an exercise in buying some badly managed assets, adding some superficial value, or simply letting the value increase in a growing market, and selling to maximise the gain as a short-term investment.
Would the present perceived slow-down in growth have anything to do with the timing? Of course it would; BAA's owners could and would have ignored the Competition Commission's "recommendations" if it suited them.
I give it 5-10 years before we see the Spaniards marching off into the sunset with their cash, having continued the DfT's work of destroying any hope London ever had of a viable, prosperous and coherent airport system.