HEATHROW
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FL360
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, Routem (as a side note to this thread). They tell you that the fare 'should' be no more than £25 to Egham/Staines, in fact the price list is actually printed, but they have a get out clause, if you like, that the driver has the final say on the fare. I was categorically told by the thief that if I didn't want to pay that amount then I had to get out of his taxi! I'd just got in from an overnight flight from Singapore, via AMS, (long story). I was just too knackered to get back out of his lousy cab & search for a reasonably priced ride home & it was being put onto expenses.
Unfortunately it's just another example of the completely crap, rip-off, frustrating experience that is Britain's premier ariport.
Unfortunately it's just another example of the completely crap, rip-off, frustrating experience that is Britain's premier ariport.
Paxing All Over The World
blue_side_up
Very easily IF the regulator does not regulate. 
If the regulator (i.e. govt) wants EGLL to operate at more than it's capacity, so that it cannot handle a serious disruption to traffic flow and is the @r$ehole of the world then, it will be! Since the privatisation of BAA, the CAA have allowed them to do what they like - as far as overall numbers are concerned. They might well be regulating other aspects like crazy but they have allowed the numbers to go crazy.
I agree that the long term prognosis is poor. Since the move away to FRA/CDG/AMS for interchange is now well established, and with some USA routes into UK regional fields like GLA/MAN/etc on medium sized a/c, plus other factors, then the demand at LHR may well be about to peak. This can only be a good thing.
You may not be aware of the following 'bright idea' that BAA have announced. It indicates that their arrogance is as high as their desire to make more money from the mess that they have created:
Heathrow puts up legal barricades to keep away protesters
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 27 July 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2809171.ece
Battle of Heathrow: Opposition to BAA's injunction grows
By Martin Hickman and Nigel Morris
Published: 28 July 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...cle2811656.ece
You will find a leading article in The Independent and articles on BBC etc.
How does an airport operate at 50% more than it's capacity?
If the regulator (i.e. govt) wants EGLL to operate at more than it's capacity, so that it cannot handle a serious disruption to traffic flow and is the @r$ehole of the world then, it will be! Since the privatisation of BAA, the CAA have allowed them to do what they like - as far as overall numbers are concerned. They might well be regulating other aspects like crazy but they have allowed the numbers to go crazy.
I agree that the long term prognosis is poor. Since the move away to FRA/CDG/AMS for interchange is now well established, and with some USA routes into UK regional fields like GLA/MAN/etc on medium sized a/c, plus other factors, then the demand at LHR may well be about to peak. This can only be a good thing.
You may not be aware of the following 'bright idea' that BAA have announced. It indicates that their arrogance is as high as their desire to make more money from the mess that they have created:
Heathrow puts up legal barricades to keep away protesters
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 27 July 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2809171.ece
If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport. And the Piccadilly line. And parts of Paddington station. And sections of the M4. All because the authorities want to halt a protest against climate change...
By Martin Hickman and Nigel Morris
Published: 28 July 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...cle2811656.ece
Heathrow airport's owner BAA was isolated and assailed from all sides yesterday as it headed for a legal and physical showdown with protesters over an attempt to ban a mass demonstration against climate change that has enraged civil rights groups. Within hours of its disclosure, politicians, lawyers and protesters condemned an injunction that would prevent five million members of the public from attending the Camp for Climate Action as "ludicrous," " absurd" and "unenforceable".
The capital's transport authority, Transport for London (TfL), was furious at the inclusion of the Piccadilly line in a list of places police could arrest protesters and demanded it be dropped from the action. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, denounced BAA's plans as a "serious infringement of civil liberties and an attack on the right to peaceful protest". Britain's biggest environmental organisation, the National Trust, described the court action as "over the top", warning that it "smacked of absurdity".
The capital's transport authority, Transport for London (TfL), was furious at the inclusion of the Piccadilly line in a list of places police could arrest protesters and demanded it be dropped from the action. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, denounced BAA's plans as a "serious infringement of civil liberties and an attack on the right to peaceful protest". Britain's biggest environmental organisation, the National Trust, described the court action as "over the top", warning that it "smacked of absurdity".
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame, NOT!
Its always the same old excuse at LHR... Overcrowded, airlines overcharged, baggage problems, lack of aircraft parking stands - the list is endless.
However, things might not have been so dire, had the government AND the airlines got together years ago and formulated an aviation policy to 'Spread the joy' around the UK to other airports. In particular, BA! (British Airway remember, not London Airways...)
Why cant pax fly north to catch American bound flights? Why must Heathrow be THE place? In retrospect, why should everyone fly south to catch flights? Looking at it in a simpler way, you fly from the north to LHR, the fly up over the UK again, to head out over the Atlantic (more often than not). CRAZY! And dont tell me 'Its all about demand...' Thats simply not true, because the demand is there but the BIG players simply want it all down south.
Its sheer greed and now both Big Willie and the BAA Amigos are twitching like mad.
T5 is the biggest greenhouse in Europe! Just imagime whoever gets the window cleaning contract for that place... Millionaire in no time!
Too small, too little - too late.
There are plenty of airports able and willing to accept the big boys and their longhaul flights. Hell mend you all who persist with the narrow-mindedness of LHR - the be all and end all... This could very well be the end for a few.
Yes Iam a supporter of regional airports, but also a supporter of aviation in general and the survival of the industry especially in the UK. Lets not burn our bridges and reputation staking it all on LHR. Times are changing and peoples attitudes too. Lets have a UK-wide network of routes to all destinations world-wide. It isnt impossible.
Its always the same old excuse at LHR... Overcrowded, airlines overcharged, baggage problems, lack of aircraft parking stands - the list is endless.
However, things might not have been so dire, had the government AND the airlines got together years ago and formulated an aviation policy to 'Spread the joy' around the UK to other airports. In particular, BA! (British Airway remember, not London Airways...)
Why cant pax fly north to catch American bound flights? Why must Heathrow be THE place? In retrospect, why should everyone fly south to catch flights? Looking at it in a simpler way, you fly from the north to LHR, the fly up over the UK again, to head out over the Atlantic (more often than not). CRAZY! And dont tell me 'Its all about demand...' Thats simply not true, because the demand is there but the BIG players simply want it all down south.
Its sheer greed and now both Big Willie and the BAA Amigos are twitching like mad.
T5 is the biggest greenhouse in Europe! Just imagime whoever gets the window cleaning contract for that place... Millionaire in no time!
Too small, too little - too late.
There are plenty of airports able and willing to accept the big boys and their longhaul flights. Hell mend you all who persist with the narrow-mindedness of LHR - the be all and end all... This could very well be the end for a few.
Yes Iam a supporter of regional airports, but also a supporter of aviation in general and the survival of the industry especially in the UK. Lets not burn our bridges and reputation staking it all on LHR. Times are changing and peoples attitudes too. Lets have a UK-wide network of routes to all destinations world-wide. It isnt impossible.
Our office is in Slough and the local taxi company charges £15 TO the airport. Coming from the airport black cabs typically look for £75.
The getout is the driver can say "beyond the boundary not on the meter" at the start and then charge what they like. If you decline they can decline you (they are only obliged to take you if the destination is within London).
TfL who control the taxis, like the Met Police before them, take the usual bureaucratic approach that they only control within their defined area and one footstep over their boundary and they couldn't care less. Meanwhile Heathrow will not allow any non-London black taxi to operate for hire at Heathrow.
Paxing All Over The World
tristar500
But you know the answer ... Money!
If the govt formulated a policy that was not cost effective to the airlines, then they would be asked to contribute. Naturally, none of them do and so the free market operates. The free market has found that the airlines make the most money by operating from as few a bases as possible.
The pax will follow until there are other options. Other options are now more in evidence and people like Zoom and XL are eating away at the base of the long haul Y cabins. No, it's not going to solve the problem in one, but when one aspect of the open market concentrates service in one area, it is not long before another opens it up again. It takes longer and is much messier than having a policy but that is the way we do things.
Not forgetting the other reasons why politicians do not make a policy about air travel. Whatever the outcome, they would be blamed. For the past three decades, all politicians have worked assiduously to distance themselves from anything that might get them blamed. This started with the Tories turning govt departments into 'agencies'. It was a very fine wheeze and has paid off for them.
There is no air policy in the UK and there will be no air policy until something really serious happens.
Why cant pax fly north to catch American bound flights? Why must Heathrow be THE place?
If the govt formulated a policy that was not cost effective to the airlines, then they would be asked to contribute. Naturally, none of them do and so the free market operates. The free market has found that the airlines make the most money by operating from as few a bases as possible.
The pax will follow until there are other options. Other options are now more in evidence and people like Zoom and XL are eating away at the base of the long haul Y cabins. No, it's not going to solve the problem in one, but when one aspect of the open market concentrates service in one area, it is not long before another opens it up again. It takes longer and is much messier than having a policy but that is the way we do things.
Not forgetting the other reasons why politicians do not make a policy about air travel. Whatever the outcome, they would be blamed. For the past three decades, all politicians have worked assiduously to distance themselves from anything that might get them blamed. This started with the Tories turning govt departments into 'agencies'. It was a very fine wheeze and has paid off for them.
There is no air policy in the UK and there will be no air policy until something really serious happens.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does an airport operate at 50% more than capacity?
Quite easy really. Look at the schedules and number of aircraft meant to depart at exactly the same time when only 1 runway avail kind of gives it away. Look at the increase in times Pax have to allow to travel and pass through.
Ferrovial have overpaid for BAA, its suggested that the full extent of the problems have only recently become clear to them. Virtually no investment or maintenance outside of retail area for departures appears to have been made for a heck of along time. Presumably in the hope T5 would be ready before it fell apart. Appears the gamble failed.
Security problems have been there since 2001, I think 6 years might have been long enough to open a couple more lanes and actually staff them full time.
T5 will be a bust not long after it opens (remember how nice Stanstead was for a while?). Losing T1&T2 and all that traffic will see to that.
3rd runway wont make a difference to the flights themselves. BAA want to max it to capacity as soon as they can.
And the infrastructure outside of BAAs remit, i.e the roads and transport - nothing can be done.
To run an efficient airport of the magnitude of Heathrow can only be done if its purpose built, greenfield and run in the countries interest not a PLCs. .
Quite easy really. Look at the schedules and number of aircraft meant to depart at exactly the same time when only 1 runway avail kind of gives it away. Look at the increase in times Pax have to allow to travel and pass through.
Ferrovial have overpaid for BAA, its suggested that the full extent of the problems have only recently become clear to them. Virtually no investment or maintenance outside of retail area for departures appears to have been made for a heck of along time. Presumably in the hope T5 would be ready before it fell apart. Appears the gamble failed.
Security problems have been there since 2001, I think 6 years might have been long enough to open a couple more lanes and actually staff them full time.
T5 will be a bust not long after it opens (remember how nice Stanstead was for a while?). Losing T1&T2 and all that traffic will see to that.
3rd runway wont make a difference to the flights themselves. BAA want to max it to capacity as soon as they can.
And the infrastructure outside of BAAs remit, i.e the roads and transport - nothing can be done.
To run an efficient airport of the magnitude of Heathrow can only be done if its purpose built, greenfield and run in the countries interest not a PLCs. .
This thread and Manintheback in particular makes an interesting observation.
Sometime back - really started with Regan and spread with Thatcher, the mantra started that the key to everything was to privatise. User fees, revenue streams etc etc. were going to make prisons, airports, highways, agencies and so on so much faster, better and cheaper.
As surely as the sun comes up we are finding there are no cheap fixes or easy answers.
Every penny plus the required return that Ferrovail paid for BAA is going to come out of the travelling punter like it or not. The traveller is the only revenue source. You can nick him at the parking lot, the departure stores, or on the multitude of ticket taxes but he gets to pay for the lot and has no say in the matter.
When you consider that Heathrow was or should be a public resource its a pretty bold face robbery.
Sound public policy is not easy or cheap but it is needed.
Just curious, who owns and runs CLK and Changai?. Two airports with a good reputation.
20driver
Sometime back - really started with Regan and spread with Thatcher, the mantra started that the key to everything was to privatise. User fees, revenue streams etc etc. were going to make prisons, airports, highways, agencies and so on so much faster, better and cheaper.
As surely as the sun comes up we are finding there are no cheap fixes or easy answers.
Every penny plus the required return that Ferrovail paid for BAA is going to come out of the travelling punter like it or not. The traveller is the only revenue source. You can nick him at the parking lot, the departure stores, or on the multitude of ticket taxes but he gets to pay for the lot and has no say in the matter.
When you consider that Heathrow was or should be a public resource its a pretty bold face robbery.
Sound public policy is not easy or cheap but it is needed.
Just curious, who owns and runs CLK and Changai?. Two airports with a good reputation.
20driver
Paxing All Over The World
manintheback
Yes indeed!!! I remember the first time I returned when they had chopped up the open concourse with retail blocks. Suddenly, you could not see anywhere.
All of the sight lines that the architect had put in and gave the place an open aspect - had gone. You found yourself in a rabbit warren and it has only got worse. I expect T5 was built with retail as the prime directive.
If built, the third runway will certainly not improve matters as it will be overfilled just as the others have been. The only variation will be that, if one of the mains is closed, they will shift those that can onto the short. Then the domestics that are heading for the short runway will be told that LHR is 'closed'. once again, there will be no spare capacity.
T5 will be a bust not long after it opens (remember how nice Stanstead was for a while?). Losing T1&T2 and all that traffic will see to that.
All of the sight lines that the architect had put in and gave the place an open aspect - had gone. You found yourself in a rabbit warren and it has only got worse. I expect T5 was built with retail as the prime directive.
If built, the third runway will certainly not improve matters as it will be overfilled just as the others have been. The only variation will be that, if one of the mains is closed, they will shift those that can onto the short. Then the domestics that are heading for the short runway will be told that LHR is 'closed'. once again, there will be no spare capacity.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 44
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the sight lines that the architect had put in and gave the place an open aspect - had gone. You found yourself in a rabbit warren and it has only got worse. I expect T5 was built with retail as the prime directive.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that Heathrow has made more money from its retail operation than from aviation fees for many years now. Whether we like it or not retail is the way all airports have to go. Especially those infected with LOCO airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the sheers scale of the retail and greed behind it that is the question. When the buildings are falling apart as they are at Heathrow, retail therapy isn't the answer. It just adds to the general stress levels.
Paxing All Over The World
I agree Skipness, no one minds some retail but it is the way that it blocks access to the flights and is clearly a way to hike prices. I know that BAA would say that, the money they make on retail keeps the per-pax cost to the carriers down and so it keeps our ticket prices low. The answer is of course, that that is Bollos. 
The overt retail focus diverts mgmt effort to it, rather than getting the pax through. They will deny that also but the last 30 years tell their own story. In January however, the problem bit back. Going through T3, I planned to do some shopping as time was tight. But the shopping time was all used up standing in the security queue. It is only when they lose money that they wake up.
Unfortunately, they have become infected with the same accounting disease as so many aspects of British commerce in the past 15 years. Which is, that anything that is a cost - or may be construed as a cost - will be removed, irrespective of the effect that has on the delivered service. They get bonus' for removing cost but not for real service that is an intangible and cannot be measured. The frequent customer surveys are no help as they have been formulated in order to produce the correct answer. I could go on ...
The overt retail focus diverts mgmt effort to it, rather than getting the pax through. They will deny that also but the last 30 years tell their own story. In January however, the problem bit back. Going through T3, I planned to do some shopping as time was tight. But the shopping time was all used up standing in the security queue. It is only when they lose money that they wake up.
Unfortunately, they have become infected with the same accounting disease as so many aspects of British commerce in the past 15 years. Which is, that anything that is a cost - or may be construed as a cost - will be removed, irrespective of the effect that has on the delivered service. They get bonus' for removing cost but not for real service that is an intangible and cannot be measured. The frequent customer surveys are no help as they have been formulated in order to produce the correct answer. I could go on ...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going through the joke that is 1 / 10 shoes off security last month I found myself hopping up and down on a skanky carpet 3 feet from the bloody upmarket duty free shop !
If you are going to force grannies and small children to take their footwear off then it is only sensible to have a place where people can get themsleves back together again afterwards. Except at BAA PLC there's no room because it's all greedy money grabbing shops. Napoleon WAS right ! ? !
Oddly enough, and this is perhaps not the best example, I was going to Toronto with Air Canada where the new Terminal is really nice, bright and spacious with a FEW shops and a LOT of seats. How sensible !!!!
Oh and 2 bags carry on but that's another story.........
If you are going to force grannies and small children to take their footwear off then it is only sensible to have a place where people can get themsleves back together again afterwards. Except at BAA PLC there's no room because it's all greedy money grabbing shops. Napoleon WAS right ! ? !
Oddly enough, and this is perhaps not the best example, I was going to Toronto with Air Canada where the new Terminal is really nice, bright and spacious with a FEW shops and a LOT of seats. How sensible !!!!
Oh and 2 bags carry on but that's another story.........
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any airport built with the runways round the outside and the terminals squashed into the centre has a maximum development size and Heathrow hit that in the seventies ( or whenever teminal one was finished). Everything since then has been cobbled together. Terminal 4 is miles away and means long transfer times, and terminal 5 is even worse.
I think the only answer is to start now and plan for a new airport to be built elsewhere, to open in perhaps 8-10 years time. It will be purpose designed and those half mile walks will be things of the past. They might even get someone who knows something about aircraft to have an input into the design instead of all these daft long cul-de-sacs where one aircraft pushing back, or taxying in can block things for ten minutes or so.
Heathrow itself can be redeveloped as housing and office/light industrial/retail space. It has good enough transport links for that, and there is a shortage of good housing in the South East within commuting distance of central London.
If I had my own way I would also avoid it being owned by anyone other than the state. By all means let someone operate it on our behalf, but for our benefit not their own retail fantasies.
I think the only answer is to start now and plan for a new airport to be built elsewhere, to open in perhaps 8-10 years time. It will be purpose designed and those half mile walks will be things of the past. They might even get someone who knows something about aircraft to have an input into the design instead of all these daft long cul-de-sacs where one aircraft pushing back, or taxying in can block things for ten minutes or so.
Heathrow itself can be redeveloped as housing and office/light industrial/retail space. It has good enough transport links for that, and there is a shortage of good housing in the South East within commuting distance of central London.
If I had my own way I would also avoid it being owned by anyone other than the state. By all means let someone operate it on our behalf, but for our benefit not their own retail fantasies.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland nowadays
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But where would you put it?
A hell of a lot of businesses have set up in the area bounded by London, Wycombe, Reading and Bracknell simply because of easy access to Heathrow. From this perspective a Kansai-like move to an island in the Thames Estuary isn't practical.
Looking out of London on the M3 or M4 corridors, you're going to get so much Nimbyism that it won't be happening there.
A hell of a lot of businesses have set up in the area bounded by London, Wycombe, Reading and Bracknell simply because of easy access to Heathrow. From this perspective a Kansai-like move to an island in the Thames Estuary isn't practical.
Looking out of London on the M3 or M4 corridors, you're going to get so much Nimbyism that it won't be happening there.
Paxing All Over The World
BAA wins right to block Heathrow protest
By Cathy Gordon and Mike Taylor, PA
Published: 06 August 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...cle2839254.ece
Heathrow operator BAA today won its High Court bid for an injunction aimed at preventing unlawful conduct at an environmental protest at the airport.
The order was granted by Mrs Justice Swift, sitting in London.
BAA denied that it was seeking to prevent five million people using roads and public transport near the west London airport - the injunction was only aimed at "protesters" acting unlawfully.
The company said its legal action over the Camp for Climate Action, planned for August 14 to 21, was aimed at protecting the airport and the safety of passengers and staff "against the planned direct action by environmental activists".
Mrs Justice Swift ruled today that the only way to prevent potentially "serious and damaging" consequences of any unlawful direct action was to grant an injunction.
-----------------------
Now also on the BBC.
By Cathy Gordon and Mike Taylor, PA
Published: 06 August 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...cle2839254.ece
Heathrow operator BAA today won its High Court bid for an injunction aimed at preventing unlawful conduct at an environmental protest at the airport.
The order was granted by Mrs Justice Swift, sitting in London.
BAA denied that it was seeking to prevent five million people using roads and public transport near the west London airport - the injunction was only aimed at "protesters" acting unlawfully.
The company said its legal action over the Camp for Climate Action, planned for August 14 to 21, was aimed at protecting the airport and the safety of passengers and staff "against the planned direct action by environmental activists".
Mrs Justice Swift ruled today that the only way to prevent potentially "serious and damaging" consequences of any unlawful direct action was to grant an injunction.
-----------------------
Now also on the BBC.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: belfast/london
Age: 44
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How will heathrow t1 be redesigned when ba leave surely the domestic area will be to big for just bmi and where will aer lingus go stay at t1 or move to somewhere else due to not being part of the star alliance.
Since that time the transfer arrangements have been allowed to fall from very good to diabolical. And this is due to nothing more than inertia by BAA.
Security requirements is the invariable cry by Heathrow when there is any complaint, but there was nothing which prevented BAA arranging things so the southern tunnel just needs the same arrangements as the northern tunnels, ie drive straight through keeping within the landside area.
The Heathrow Express allowed all the cost of providing these transfer services to be eliminated, being replaced by expecting people to use the train. This requires :
About 10 minutes to get from T4 terminal to the platform.
Wait anything up to 15 minutes for the next train.
5 minute journey time.
About 15 minutes to get from the T123 platform to the terminal (especially T3) via long walks and a series of travelators which BAA seems absolutely incapable of keeping in working order.
Total journey time up to 45 minutes.
WHBM
the cargo tunnel is exactly that, a means of quickly transporting cargo between the CTA and the cargo terminal, and T4. at one point i seem to remember it was used by buses, but this has not been the case since lockerbie, i think. we already have to put up with an extra control post at the cargo end of the tunnel, when you are already airside, taking usually about an extra 20 mins. it is not practical to have public transport using this tunnel without yet more disruption to the airside operation.
the cargo tunnel is exactly that, a means of quickly transporting cargo between the CTA and the cargo terminal, and T4. at one point i seem to remember it was used by buses, but this has not been the case since lockerbie, i think. we already have to put up with an extra control post at the cargo end of the tunnel, when you are already airside, taking usually about an extra 20 mins. it is not practical to have public transport using this tunnel without yet more disruption to the airside operation.
LHR Investment Down, Revenue Up
Alternate Thread Title: Ferrovial Kills Off Heathrow
From a Press review sheet, today;
Investment in Heathrow drops as ailing airport’s revenue soars
The Times, 8 August 2007
Heathrow’s revenue has soared in the airport’s first year under foreign ownership but investment has dropped, despite airline and passenger concern over the poor state of its terminals.
Capital expenditure at Heathrow was £252 million in the year since Ferrovial, the Spanish construction company, bought the airport’s parent, BAA. This is 15 per cent lower than the £298 million BAA spent in its last year as an independent company. The drop in spending on Heathrow’s infrastructure, revealed in group figures released by Ferrovial, has raised concerns about how the Spanish company is managing its £10.3 billion airport division.
One of the concerns raised when Ferrovial acquired BAA last July was that it would take profits but not invest in one of Britain’s most important strategic assets. (Continues)
Pity no-one listened to the concerns. The Government could have stepped in to prevent what the whole industry KNEW would happen. But BAA's Directors had their noses far too far up Blair's willing bottom for that to happen. Ferrovial will exit as soon as the going gets really tough (2012, perhaps?) having maximised the cash they can extract from the company. As forecast.
And they will leave behind an operational and financial disaster area, sold to the highest bidder, no matter who, again without Government intervention. As forecast.
From a Press review sheet, today;
Investment in Heathrow drops as ailing airport’s revenue soars
The Times, 8 August 2007
Heathrow’s revenue has soared in the airport’s first year under foreign ownership but investment has dropped, despite airline and passenger concern over the poor state of its terminals.
Capital expenditure at Heathrow was £252 million in the year since Ferrovial, the Spanish construction company, bought the airport’s parent, BAA. This is 15 per cent lower than the £298 million BAA spent in its last year as an independent company. The drop in spending on Heathrow’s infrastructure, revealed in group figures released by Ferrovial, has raised concerns about how the Spanish company is managing its £10.3 billion airport division.
One of the concerns raised when Ferrovial acquired BAA last July was that it would take profits but not invest in one of Britain’s most important strategic assets. (Continues)
Pity no-one listened to the concerns. The Government could have stepped in to prevent what the whole industry KNEW would happen. But BAA's Directors had their noses far too far up Blair's willing bottom for that to happen. Ferrovial will exit as soon as the going gets really tough (2012, perhaps?) having maximised the cash they can extract from the company. As forecast.
And they will leave behind an operational and financial disaster area, sold to the highest bidder, no matter who, again without Government intervention. As forecast.