Yes, LCC pax often spend less (on average) than other pax. But this is not always the case - some pax respond to having got a great deal on the air fare by splurging on things like lounge access etc. And airports can tailor their offer to LCC pax, for example by better 'grab and go' catering.
Based on Last year numbers each passenger generated £2.47 in operating profit. Operating Profit / Number of Passengers from 1st March to End Sept.
As said way back when new FR deal was being discussed the addition of 1 million passengers will not cause costs to go up that much as simply the resources are already there. Thereby adding a million passengers could make substantially more.
On landing fees, STN is now technically able to charge what it likes, subject to general Competition law. But the airport has only been removed from regulation because it is thought that the airlines now have enough power to stop the airport from putting up charges, for example by threatening to reduce traffic.
Agree
On synergies, I agree that these are limited, at least in relation to airport operational activities. But I'm sure there are a range of support activities (Board, marketing, procurement, insurance, planning, engineering support etc etc) that can be shared across MAG airports, reducing overall costs.
Not convinced as Stansted went from being the runt we can ignore in BAA to a growth opportunity for MAG. Focus alone will get things done better.
As I said earlier, time will tell as to whether MAG's £1.5bn gamble has paid off. But one thing is certain - by the time we know whether it's a good or bad deal all those responsible will have long gone, spending their bonuses etc!
Think it will pay off and will no way sooner than you think.
Operating Profit is important but its ability to generate shed loads of cash to get debt down and invest in upgrading facilities.
Seeing what happened at Gatwick following investment shows what can be done.