HEATHROW
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was not implying Heathrow is DEPENDENT on Stansted. Clearly that is not the case! I was basically saying that Stansted's profits help out towards Heathrow's investments.
Again, of course not entirely, but it's extraordinarily unlikely that Stansted's profits have not been used to help pay for Heathrow's investments.
Stansted's pre-tax profits in 2011 amounted to £86.6 million and are estimated to be £94.2 million in 2012.
Stansted to be sold to Manchester Airports for £1.5bn - Business News - Business - The Independent (last sentence)
Let me clear some things up:
The only logical explanation is that the profits from STN were used to pay for LHR's investments, because let's face it, STN hasn't had and more to the point doesn't need nearly as much investment.
Due to reccession, spending gets tough so they double STN's charges purely to increase profit rather than promote growth and funding for LHR's extensive investments starts eating into STN's profits.
Now that BAA (or Heathrow Holdings Ltd.) can no longer do this, they suddenly want to increase Heathrow's charges. How odd!
sponge off Stansted for finance
Stansted's pre-tax profits in 2011 amounted to £86.6 million and are estimated to be £94.2 million in 2012.
Stansted to be sold to Manchester Airports for £1.5bn - Business News - Business - The Independent (last sentence)
Let me clear some things up:
- If Stansted's profit outlook looks positive, then why would BAA be needing to cross subsidise Stansted from Heathrow? Especially since it's Heathrow getting all the major investments.
- Why else would BAA put up such as hard fight for 3 whole years to keep an airport that continued to decline under their management. The only other explanation is to purely retain profit. In that instance it would imply STN is too much of an asset to lose so that totally rules of the theory that it needs LHR to subsidise it.
- If Stansted is a "white elephant terminal", then why did it's sale attract so much attention and why did MAG pay £1.5 billion for it?
The only logical explanation is that the profits from STN were used to pay for LHR's investments, because let's face it, STN hasn't had and more to the point doesn't need nearly as much investment.
Due to reccession, spending gets tough so they double STN's charges purely to increase profit rather than promote growth and funding for LHR's extensive investments starts eating into STN's profits.
Now that BAA (or Heathrow Holdings Ltd.) can no longer do this, they suddenly want to increase Heathrow's charges. How odd!
Last edited by FRatSTN; 12th Feb 2013 at 18:38.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it's not the "only" explanation, it's one of several. BAA would be anxious to prevent GIP and MAG giving long haul a toe hold at LGW and STN respectively. Of course this is not working out to GIP's plan at LGW and I think the risk is overstated at STN. No monopoly is ever willingly given up and BAA was no exception.
You may be right, Stansted my have helped pay for T2 and T5 at LHR, in the same way LHR paid for Norman Foster's terminal at STN. This was done by BAA at Group level and is common practice. Indeed MAN may well end up subsidising investment at STN via MAG. Not sure why you keep banging on at this point as if it wasn't common practice.
You may be right, Stansted my have helped pay for T2 and T5 at LHR, in the same way LHR paid for Norman Foster's terminal at STN. This was done by BAA at Group level and is common practice. Indeed MAN may well end up subsidising investment at STN via MAG. Not sure why you keep banging on at this point as if it wasn't common practice.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as subsidising other airports in a monopoly maybe common practise, its fair to say that LHR and STN is an extreme case. It's very likely, almost definite for example that MAN is helping to pay for the £12 terminal investment at EMA, likewise the new terminal MAG built at BOH, but they are all much smaller scale.
No airports however in Europe, certainly in the UK, other than STN have been so severely exposed to the posibility of its owners using it to fund some of the largest, most complex and most ongoing investments in the industry at the largest international airport in the world.
Like you (Skipness One Echo) say, it's common practise for airport monopolies to do things to help subsidise investments, for instance, hike prices and cross subsidise developments. Ultimately, airport monopoloies are damaging to healthy competition and restrict growth for this reason.
Therefore, the general practice of cross-subsidising is not the issue here, since it is common practice. What's more the concern is the extent of it in this case since investment at LHR, unlike in most cases, is constant. In order for BAA to want such dramatic price increases at LHR now STN is being sold off really does say a lot about what STN really did for them! Because it certainly wasn't in their intentions to operate it as a fast growing, friendly, low-cost alternative gateway to London!!!
No airports however in Europe, certainly in the UK, other than STN have been so severely exposed to the posibility of its owners using it to fund some of the largest, most complex and most ongoing investments in the industry at the largest international airport in the world.
Like you (Skipness One Echo) say, it's common practise for airport monopolies to do things to help subsidise investments, for instance, hike prices and cross subsidise developments. Ultimately, airport monopoloies are damaging to healthy competition and restrict growth for this reason.
Therefore, the general practice of cross-subsidising is not the issue here, since it is common practice. What's more the concern is the extent of it in this case since investment at LHR, unlike in most cases, is constant. In order for BAA to want such dramatic price increases at LHR now STN is being sold off really does say a lot about what STN really did for them! Because it certainly wasn't in their intentions to operate it as a fast growing, friendly, low-cost alternative gateway to London!!!
Last edited by FRatSTN; 12th Feb 2013 at 22:03.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
investment at LHR, unlike in most cases, is constant.
Now the airlines told BAA they were not interested in paying more at LHR to subsidise a facility they had not asked for in Essex. BAA screwed them over anyway, STN was built, Air UK moved in and that was pretty much it until BAA gave it to Ryanair for next to nothing. As soon as that happened, the legacy market which had not really wanted to move, and having sampled STN in the form of SAS and LH moved right back to LHR and LGW. The STN market that came about was a new one driven by FR and EZY using a terminal that was far from Low Cost and was paid for by carriers at LHR and LGW. Now STN may now be profitable but don't go rewriting history and portraying a plucky little fighter up against the big guys as that's not what happened.
Whether the market wants a bigger STN we shall have to wait and see.
In order for BAA to want such dramatic price increases at LHR now STN is being sold off really does say a lot about what STN really did for them!
I like STN as an airport and I used to use it a lot when FR flew to where I wanted to go (!) I wish MAG well in making a return on their investment.
intentions to operate it as a fast growing, friendly, low-cost alternative gateway to London!!!
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 12th Feb 2013 at 23:16.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think profits from Ryanair at STN can pay for all of this, then I have to say I think you are quite wrong.
Except that this is exactly what they ended up doing with a based fleet of Ryanair, easyJet and lots of inbound Air Berlin, German Wings, Norwegian et al. I am sure MAG will aim to repeat that feat.
It's LHR now, that's rightly the focus.
I even worry that GLA, ABZ and SOU may start to suffer in the future as they obtain the same practice there. However, since none of them are nearly as big as STN and there's now more competition around, I think it's much harder to do and therefore it again comes down to why they want the price increases at LHR!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget this silly argument over LHR v STN
How can BAA argue for a cut in APD (to boost numbers) and also want to increase costs at LHR (to boost numbers)?
they just play into the hands of those who say you can't believe a thing the airline industry tells you
How can BAA argue for a cut in APD (to boost numbers) and also want to increase costs at LHR (to boost numbers)?
they just play into the hands of those who say you can't believe a thing the airline industry tells you
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 13th Feb 2013 at 11:13.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can BAA argue for a cut in APD (to boost numbers) and also want to increase costs at LHR (to boost numbers)?
If you have a look at airport facilities in the UK the main lesson is that we don't pay enough to use them which is why they are often
1) Poor
2) Loco dominated
In the UK we expect Hong Kong style infrastructure for next to nothing while we fly for £19.99 less taxes. Like everything else in the economy, it's unsustainbable. Not a huge fan of the late lamented BAA but it's hard headed business acumen that is needed to put finances on a firm footing.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 13th Feb 2013 at 12:53.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR problems? 22:00 03MAR
Any idea what's going on at LHR? Holding stacks look pretty full, no aircraft leaving the holds though, flights diverting into LGW and STN, outbounds going as normal....odd!
EDIT: heard it was a helicopter busting into LHRs airspace, cheeky little sod!
EDIT: heard it was a helicopter busting into LHRs airspace, cheeky little sod!
Last edited by JackRalston; 3rd Mar 2013 at 21:13.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the Police helicopter, given the substantial costs of quite so many aircraft diverting out, perhaps it would be worth knowing what they were chasing?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Her Majesty got caught short on the way to hospital; they were clearing the route for the nearest loo stop for the car.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all looks well now...
Finals EGLL 09 22:52:48 40087B SHT9Q A319 G-EUPL British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:48:01 4CA790 AZA210 A320 EI-DTD Alitalia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:43:50 40083B SHT7B A319 G-EUPE British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:42:23 400966 BAW144 A321 G-MEDF British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:40:57 495282 TAP362L A319 CS-TTB TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:39:39 4BAA56 THY5EQ A321 TC-JRV Turkish Airlines Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:38:38 49528A TAP9438 A319 CS-TTJ TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:37:02 400935 BAW581 A319 G-EUPZ British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:35:33 3420CA IBE3168 A321 EC-IXD Iberia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:34:22 4008B1 BAW547 A319 G-EUPP British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:52:48 40087B SHT9Q A319 G-EUPL British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:48:01 4CA790 AZA210 A320 EI-DTD Alitalia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:43:50 40083B SHT7B A319 G-EUPE British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:42:23 400966 BAW144 A321 G-MEDF British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:40:57 495282 TAP362L A319 CS-TTB TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:39:39 4BAA56 THY5EQ A321 TC-JRV Turkish Airlines Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:38:38 49528A TAP9438 A319 CS-TTJ TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:37:02 400935 BAW581 A319 G-EUPZ British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:35:33 3420CA IBE3168 A321 EC-IXD Iberia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:34:22 4008B1 BAW547 A319 G-EUPP British Airways Approach
It was the Police helicopter, given the substantial costs of quite so many aircraft diverting out, perhaps it would be worth knowing what they were chasing?
Thames Valley Police helicopter assisting in the search for a missing 12-year-old Colnbrook girl, happily found safe and well.
Thames Valley Police - News - Missing girl found - Colnbrook
Why do they never use runway 09L for take-offs' at Heathrow? I want someone with technical knowledge please. I stand to correction but is it because of the close proximity of buildings/hotels on bath road which would break noise levels? Please kindly advise
The longer answer is that there was agreement (now rescinded) made in the 1950s with the residents of Cranford that takeoffs from 09L, over their heads, would be avoided where possible.
The legacy of that agreement is that, while the legal restriction no longer exists, the taxiway layout at LHR does not permit sustained departures from 09L, nor continuous arrivals on 09R, so that the runway roles are never alternated on easterlies, only on westerlies (much to the continued annoyance of Windsor residents).
BAA plan to add additional 09L access taxiways and 09R RETs over the next couple of years, at the same time as the runways are being resurfaced. Until then the practical constraints will still exist.
Having said that, there were around 150 departures off 09L in 2012.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks!
Thanks a lot for that. Now, that is the first time anyone has answered this question 100% in detail. Thank you. Its always baffled me as to why 09L was never used for take-offs. Would love to see a take-off from that runway. Also it explains the huge amounts of taxiway construction works on the ground next to the threshold and Terminal 5 area near 09L! Thanks!
But does that REALLY make a huge difference to people's lives if planes take-off from runway 09L? I mean there are homes near Hatton Cross and Feltham as well....so what difference does it make if a plane takes-off from 09L or 09R in terms of noise?!
But does that REALLY make a huge difference to people's lives if planes take-off from runway 09L? I mean there are homes near Hatton Cross and Feltham as well....so what difference does it make if a plane takes-off from 09L or 09R in terms of noise?!
Last edited by LaudaB777; 9th Mar 2013 at 12:49.