davidjohnson6
No not specifically and that's precisely the point I'm trying to get across to LGS. What we do know though is that MAG and EasyJet have shook hands on an agreement and that will be ultimately based on a variety of aspects such as costs, operations, services etc. The deal is done in a sense, it's a case of how and when EasyJet materialise with it.
Skipness One Echo
Uncompetitive was sort of the hub of the issues, with high costs, less investment, lack of growth etc. as the spokes in a sense. And I think it's reasonable to say that if BAA were still running Stansted, there would not be an £80 terminal revamp under way, they would still be using all the money that could be spent there on investing at Heathrow instead!
BAA, or Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd. are a high cost operator (always have been, and always will be) and therefore much more suited to running airports with a presence of more flag carriers or long haul airlines like Heathrow and Glasgow. Interestingly, Ryanair now serves none of their airports and EasyJet fairly minimally, with GIP owned Edinburgh being their main Scottish airport. Says it all really!
MAG are much more suited to Stansted's market. They already have built strong relationships with Low-cost carriers at Manchester, East Midlands and Bournemouth and are a much more cost efficient operator.
It's also nice to see that somebody actually also has optimism about Stansted's future (rather than denying any growth because to MAG it is, a newly-acquired turd that was overpaid for). I see no reason why under separate ownership and fairer competition, Stansted cannot continue to enjoy growth once again.
Last edited by FRatSTN; 22nd Jun 2013 at 20:48.