JSCL - why does it make for a bad economy ? My understanding is that the Govt doesn't want to regulate everything - just ensure that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are run under separate management teams for the benefit of different sets of shareholders.
By doing so, if an airline is considering flying into London, they will have an additional choice as to which company provides airport services, giving each airport management company a stronger incentive to provide a better quality of service (or lower pricing) to that airline and its passengers. In doing so, the airline is likely to have lower costs at its London airport - maybe it can achieve a faster turnaround time, lower chance of delays or pay lower fees, meaning lower airfares are charged to consumers, and other airlines take a greater interest in opening new routes to/from London.
If London airports are known to be expensive, slow and inefficient, multinational companies have a preference to move staff to places like France or Germany. If London airports instead are cheap and efficient, then businesses are more likely to increase the size of the London office, decreasing UK unemployment and growing the UK economy. Yes, it does mean BAA (or rather Ferrovial) have it tougher, but given London's 5 major airports are pretty busy - even Southend seems likely to become London's 6th airport next year - it seems likely that they are doing fairly well already
It is interesting to note that while BAA was substantially owned by UK shareholders, the UK Govt left BAA alone. Shortly after a Spanish company Ferrovial acquired BAA, the investigation into the monopoly took place, thus placing more of the burden of the enforced airport sell-off on Spanish shareholders than UK based ones
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 22nd Jul 2011 at 10:00.