daz211 -
Ok give me an intelligent answer as to why BAA put up such a long and costly Fight to keep stansted ???
1. Because of the regulatory framework governing charges, they were able to make a profit from Stansted.
2. The profit exceeded their cost of capital, and was therefore making a contribution to the mountain of debt they took on when acquiring BAA.
3. As an airport operator, they did not wish to relinquish one of their assets, which would concentrate their overheads, and reduce their overall market strength.
4. As the regulatory framework guaranteed a certain return on capital, it could be argued that it was in their interests to increase capital employed.
TOWTEAMBASE -
at peak times at LHR you can land, hold for a stand, and in the mean time at STN you could be half way into London by the time LHR pax have reclaimed their baggage.
You are quite right, but I can't see STN competing with LHR under any ownership!
FRatSTN -
I think you should stop fooling yourself as to what you see as the "truth" and "intelligant criticism" and start being realistic and use evidence and statistical data instead of your biased and unwanted opinions, with no realistic substance what so ever.
Clearly you are so drowned by your support for Luton that you feel you have to hate it's neighbour. All I can say is that in order to think so little of Stansted, you must feel what you support is threatened by this change of ownership, and like it or not, it may well be!
Can one argue against such erudition?
Captain Birdseye -
Generally a well-argued rebuttal of my points. However, you say
Ryanair on the main fly to out of town airfields not airports. EZY have / can compete. The change to SEN was mainly due to the financial rewards Stobarts were offering not so much due to the the direct competition from FR.
I agree that this was Ryanair's original business plan. However, in recent years they have been moving strongly into bucket & spade routes, as well as serving Eastern European cities. It is on those routes that they will fight to retain a monopoly ex-STN. A second operator serving the likes of Poitiers or Perugia are unlikely to survive long. Also, EZY is the most capable competitor FR have, with deep pockets, economies of scale and a strong brand. A lesser company would have folded sooner.
caiman27 -
Utter rubbish. At the northern end of the M11 the road continues to near-motorway standard until it links with the A1.
The A14 - not a motorway - is notoriously congested north of Cambridge. Before it joins the A1(M) it is down to 2 lanes.
Generally -
I actually welcome the acquisition of STN by MAG, however misguided I think they are. For one thing, a key UK asset will return to (largely) British ownership. Secondly, MAG would not be likely to cross-subsidize STN, as BAA did. That has to be good for the aviation industry as a whole. Subsidies, whether public or private always eventually act against the interests of the public. Free competition is more likely to determine where traffic goes, and that is good.