STANSTED - 2
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok,
With lower fares, lower fees and mostly increase in LCCs etc how exactly is STN going to raise the funds for any 2nd runway ?
Not sure MAG will have enough profits, they are still paying off MAN 2nd runway .
Nigel
With lower fares, lower fees and mostly increase in LCCs etc how exactly is STN going to raise the funds for any 2nd runway ?
Not sure MAG will have enough profits, they are still paying off MAN 2nd runway .
Nigel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The deal seems to make commercial sense for Stansted, although we cannot reach a definitive view on this without access to details of the agreement
lower fees will dilute Stansted’s aeronautical yield per passenger,
Further translation: We're even more in Ryanair's clutches than we were before.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGS and Skipness.
So is that all you have to say? That's highly unusual. Please keep going, I want to hear more...
But on one condition...
Please add something much more concrete which you'll find I often do.
Please do us all a favour and try not to give us a compilation of your clever little remarks or this stupid routine LGS especially you have of picking bits from reports that give you the slightest opportunity to twist them. It simply demonstrates nothing but stupidity.
If that is all you have to contribute, it says a lot about the credibility of what you are saying!!
How about adding your own links to credible analytical sources and reports to back up what you're saying?? Oh no, sorry you can't, because they frankly don't exist.
So is that all you have to say? That's highly unusual. Please keep going, I want to hear more...
But on one condition...
Please add something much more concrete which you'll find I often do.
Please do us all a favour and try not to give us a compilation of your clever little remarks or this stupid routine LGS especially you have of picking bits from reports that give you the slightest opportunity to twist them. It simply demonstrates nothing but stupidity.
If that is all you have to contribute, it says a lot about the credibility of what you are saying!!
How about adding your own links to credible analytical sources and reports to back up what you're saying?? Oh no, sorry you can't, because they frankly don't exist.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 24,000 feet and climbing
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the face of it, the paragraph you refer to seems fairly positive for Stansted. The trouble is it's full of assumptions. What seems to be implied is that increasing numbers of passengers do not increase the wear and tear on the terminal and infrastructure (a "largely fixed cost business"). It's the old mass tourism problem revisited. Will the profit level from increased traffic meet the expenses of infrastructure maintenance and refurbishment?. There's also the assumption ("benefit of retail sales") that Ryanair passengers have the same financial power as those flying with other carriers and so will have the shopkeepers' delighted. Has that been proven elsewhere? My own suspicion is that retail margins will be lower because those products proving popular will in fact be lower margin products while higher margin products will eventually disappear from the shops. To me it seems like an exercise in chasing passenger numbers at every cost.
mikkie4
If you go the SEN website you will find a page entitled Controlled Airspace where there is a link to the consultation document. That will answer all your questions.
If you go the SEN website you will find a page entitled Controlled Airspace where there is a link to the consultation document. That will answer all your questions.
On the face of it, the paragraph you refer to seems fairly positive for Stansted. The trouble is it's full of assumptions. What seems to be implied is that increasing numbers of passengers do not increase the wear and tear on the terminal and infrastructure (a "largely fixed cost business"). It's the old mass tourism problem revisited. Will the profit level from increased traffic meet the expenses of infrastructure maintenance and refurbishment?. There's also the assumption ("benefit of retail sales") that Ryanair passengers have the same financial power as those flying with other carriers and so will have the shopkeepers' delighted. Has that been proven elsewhere? My own suspicion is that retail margins will be lower because those products proving popular will in fact be lower margin products while higher margin products will eventually disappear from the shops. To me it seems like an exercise in chasing passenger numbers at every cost.
Stansted KNOW what Ryanair passengers spend because they have 13 Million of them a year.
If as you claim that more passengers would be reducing high margin items then wouldn't they have already done so years ago
Claims that it will cost the airport more in terms of wear and tear are pretty bogus because wear and tear happens anyway and instead of having 20 million in 18 months you have 20 million in 15 months..............little or no difference.
Infrastructure already in place with car parks, acccess, trains etc so instead of a Stansted express going with 150 passengers it has 250, no additional cost in the slightest.
I've been having a read of MAG's press releases and other PR as to how they will transform the facilities at Stansted. Sounds awfully nice and helpful, but given the money involved I have to assume it's simply a reorganisation of what is inside the main terminal building and not an expansion. On that basis, this means some areas will be shrunk down while others are enlarged.
Does anyone have good information as to what MAG's capital investment and terminal redesign plans *really* involve ? The relocation of security is of particular interest.
I'm interested in more than just "we're adding some extra toilets in a corridor".
Does anyone have good information as to what MAG's capital investment and terminal redesign plans *really* involve ? The relocation of security is of particular interest.
I'm interested in more than just "we're adding some extra toilets in a corridor".
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, Stansted doesn't need a lot of expansion, reorganisation of the terminal building is exactly what it needs.
If you ever fly from Stansted, you'll notice that the check-in concourse is really quite spacious now. Even at 5-6am at its busiest, its more than adequate. Ryanair has a lot of passengers who don't even use the check-in/bag-drop desks now so there's less of a need for check-in/bag drop desks than there used to be.
The Departure Lounge on the other hand is often quite busy and at 5-6am, seating can be tight. Security is probably the worst thing about Stansted, again at 5-6am, quite busy.
It is only common sense to make better use of the existing infrastructure to suit the needs of passengers. It's more than just adding a few more toilets and simply "moving" security.
Security will relocate but also increase from 18 to 22 lanes to improve passenger flow. Some other nice additions like a "calm zone" between Security and the Departure Lounge which is quite a unique idea. It allows passengers to re-gather belongings after security in a more relaxed and spacious manner.
More flight info screens and a countdown to gate number announcements is also part of it. That will have a great impact on all those Ryanair passengers crowding the screens waiting 10 minutes so they can be first to run to the gate!
The more major stuff is the doubled amount of seating in Departures, more shops and restaurants, a food court by 2016. All this offers better comfort, better choice and encouraging more spend from passengers. Just as well they have 1.3 million more passengers next year to help make that investment worth while!
It's a completely different investment from an expansion entirely. While Heathrow and Gatwick want to raise charges to airlines and passengers and just make their airports bigger through big infrastructural investments and claim that will increase the quality of their airport, MAG at Stansted have got right to the bottom of what really makes passengers more satisfied and investing in improvements, not expansion while keeping the place more affordable. That brings massive added value to the airport and potentially opens up huge opportunities.
Remember only £40m really is their own investment, another £40m funding is from commercial partners. That's a big investment, but it isn't massive! It has the potential to help Stansted stand out from Heathrow and Gatwick as a better and more customer friendly airport. It really does demonstrate how competition works and how each airport competes in their own way now the BAA monopoly has been broken up.
If you ever fly from Stansted, you'll notice that the check-in concourse is really quite spacious now. Even at 5-6am at its busiest, its more than adequate. Ryanair has a lot of passengers who don't even use the check-in/bag-drop desks now so there's less of a need for check-in/bag drop desks than there used to be.
The Departure Lounge on the other hand is often quite busy and at 5-6am, seating can be tight. Security is probably the worst thing about Stansted, again at 5-6am, quite busy.
It is only common sense to make better use of the existing infrastructure to suit the needs of passengers. It's more than just adding a few more toilets and simply "moving" security.
Security will relocate but also increase from 18 to 22 lanes to improve passenger flow. Some other nice additions like a "calm zone" between Security and the Departure Lounge which is quite a unique idea. It allows passengers to re-gather belongings after security in a more relaxed and spacious manner.
More flight info screens and a countdown to gate number announcements is also part of it. That will have a great impact on all those Ryanair passengers crowding the screens waiting 10 minutes so they can be first to run to the gate!
The more major stuff is the doubled amount of seating in Departures, more shops and restaurants, a food court by 2016. All this offers better comfort, better choice and encouraging more spend from passengers. Just as well they have 1.3 million more passengers next year to help make that investment worth while!
It's a completely different investment from an expansion entirely. While Heathrow and Gatwick want to raise charges to airlines and passengers and just make their airports bigger through big infrastructural investments and claim that will increase the quality of their airport, MAG at Stansted have got right to the bottom of what really makes passengers more satisfied and investing in improvements, not expansion while keeping the place more affordable. That brings massive added value to the airport and potentially opens up huge opportunities.
Remember only £40m really is their own investment, another £40m funding is from commercial partners. That's a big investment, but it isn't massive! It has the potential to help Stansted stand out from Heathrow and Gatwick as a better and more customer friendly airport. It really does demonstrate how competition works and how each airport competes in their own way now the BAA monopoly has been broken up.
Last edited by FRatSTN; 6th Oct 2013 at 16:06.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long-haul returns to Stansted
It has been revealed that Pakistani carrier Airblue will start flights from Stansted to Lahore from next year.
MAG are reportedly holding detailed talks with several other airlines and has said one is close to announcing another route for next year as well.
MAG chief puts focus on two-runway future for Stansted - FT.com
MAG are reportedly holding detailed talks with several other airlines and has said one is close to announcing another route for next year as well.
MAG chief puts focus on two-runway future for Stansted - FT.com
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did MAG also purchase all the land and housing that the BAA has been buying up over the last 20 years or so to facilitate runway 2? I am sure I read the BAA flogged it of in a separate deal?
An ex colleague held out selling his cottage somewhere close (near where the KAL jumbo dived into a lake) until he retired. Got a handsome cheque to go into his retirement kitty, BAA then rented it out pending demolision.
An ex colleague held out selling his cottage somewhere close (near where the KAL jumbo dived into a lake) until he retired. Got a handsome cheque to go into his retirement kitty, BAA then rented it out pending demolision.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Pegasus do move to Luton at least it would end the Luton fans argument that El Al would never move back to STN because the Jewish population is nearer Luton, as STN is the best airport for the Turkish contingent.
I'm not convinced personally, but you never know
I'm not convinced personally, but you never know
Pegasus could benefit from a transfer to Luton. Aside from a bigger catchment area and better surface access, their current flight schedule would not conflict with Luton's busy periods, where capacity is limited.
No doubt LTN would offer an introductory deal to a new airline too.
It seems that the EZY flight to SAW is not bookable after March 2014, so there could be a ready-made market for them too, if EZY are in fact dropping the route.
No doubt LTN would offer an introductory deal to a new airline too.
It seems that the EZY flight to SAW is not bookable after March 2014, so there could be a ready-made market for them too, if EZY are in fact dropping the route.