STANSTED - 2
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: At home
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like servisair have missed the boat.An announcement is imminent regarding ezy moving back to swissport.
Are easyJet not handled by Menzies?
(Shrug) They've already appealed the Competition Commission's ruling to the Supreme Court and lost; I doubt that an application for judicial review is likely to be any more successful. Still, if BAA wants to continue enriching m' learned friends....
Alternatively, (assuming Greece / Portugal / Ireland / Spain / Italy or the euro don't implode financially), the economy might have picked up a bit more and some other airport operator will pay a better price.
Of course all the time that BAA retain control of STN, they still have the capacity to exert more control and pricing power over any airline wishing to fly to a London airport. The more control they have over the market, the better likelihood of being able to charge higher fees
Difficult to see any incentive for BAA to get on with selling STN when delaying has a half decent chance of helping them
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 19th Jul 2011 at 20:46.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would delaying the ruling help BAA?
Frankly as there will never be (under this Govt) a third runway at Heathrow, the owners of Stansted are hanging in there to the bitter end, even though keeping Stansted is costing them dearly! Could we make Stansted pay....err.....no!
Never mind, I remember well the redundancies at Luton when Ryanair and TNT left for the BAA buck!
Life has a way of returning to an equilibrium.
Fancy all those folk flying in and out of Heathrow were once subsidising a white elephant.
That elephant is now sinking deeper into the mire - sad eh...not!
Which airline will be the next to leave?
Frankly as there will never be (under this Govt) a third runway at Heathrow, the owners of Stansted are hanging in there to the bitter end, even though keeping Stansted is costing them dearly! Could we make Stansted pay....err.....no!
Never mind, I remember well the redundancies at Luton when Ryanair and TNT left for the BAA buck!
Life has a way of returning to an equilibrium.
Fancy all those folk flying in and out of Heathrow were once subsidising a white elephant.
That elephant is now sinking deeper into the mire - sad eh...not!
Which airline will be the next to leave?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind, I remember well the redundancies at Luton when Ryanair and TNT left for the BAA buck!
Even all those year ago if Stansted offered nothing to Ryanair to move bases the airline would still have ended up at Stansted, as they outgrew small Luton the same way as easyjet outgrew Luton.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Norwich
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which airline will be the next to leave?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BAA drags this out then leave from STN.
Fewer airlines using STN will surely reduce the price of the sell-off.
I doubt anyone would knock STN long term future, it is the only London airport with capacity at the moment, roll forward ten years and if LGW wants a second runway after 2019 then once again, we could see a shift south of the river.
Anyhow, that is what competition is all about. Hopefully all Airport operators, airlines & employees & Joe public will benefit, once the economy starts to recover.
London plc will have competition from Europe to court as much traffic from the mega carriers from the west & east.
Fewer airlines using STN will surely reduce the price of the sell-off.
I doubt anyone would knock STN long term future, it is the only London airport with capacity at the moment, roll forward ten years and if LGW wants a second runway after 2019 then once again, we could see a shift south of the river.
Anyhow, that is what competition is all about. Hopefully all Airport operators, airlines & employees & Joe public will benefit, once the economy starts to recover.
London plc will have competition from Europe to court as much traffic from the mega carriers from the west & east.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Essex, England
Age: 39
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster
Fancy all those folk flying in and out of Heathrow were once subsidising a white elephant
As per LTNman and nt639 have said if the airport is sold then LTN will be a prime target for the new owners.
I am a little disappointed MAG have now cooled there interest in STN as i think this may have started a healthy three way competition for London Traffic which can only be good for passengers.
I for one am quite optimistic about STN's future. A new ownership of the airport will hopefully steer the airport to a brighter future and hopefully introduce some mid / long haul airlines, after we will go on to LTN's Thread and copy and paste Buster's comments that he has made on here just to rub is little button bear nose in it.
All nit picking aside I hope for the guys/gals that work at STN that it does get through this dark phase and come out the other end brighter.
Quite an interesting read here
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that STN will do well long term, but BAA have been lazy and having 89% of your airline revenue down to Easyjet & Ryanair will not make for a good sales pitch especially when FR will object to any money being spent on anything other than safety critical equipment will make for a low rent atmosphere that will not appeal to international carriers that a new owner might want to attract.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Biz-jets will become a bigger part of the Stansted scene:http://www.flyambeo.co.uk/stansted_move.pdf
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a very neutral party in this industry and my view on this is - why should a Government organisation dictate business? Who are the Gvmt to instruct the sale of company assets? Like really.. why should the Gvmt be able to say that BAA must sell an airport or two, it's BAA's business they are meddling in - it's bad for business, no matter what many of you want or say.
JSCL - the question you're asking is about what policy the Govt should take on competition issues.
On the one hand, you could argue that Govt should take minimal involvement, and let businesses get on with making money. Great for the shareholders of the businesses, but in most industries one usually finds that companies merge and you end up with one or 2 companies having a large share of the market and able to charge over the odds thanks to their hold on the market.
On the other hand, you could argue that Govt is there to protect its citizens and ensure that businesses provide a fair deal to the citizens of a country. Great for the people, but companies see it as a less appealing environment in which to make money.
Generally, if one company is the sole provider of a service to individuals they know they can charge a high price and people will be forced to purchase their product anyway. Equally, when there are many providers but only one consumer, the consumer often has the power to haggle down the price. Of course, if the dominant party is incompetent, this logic doesn't always hold. When there are many providers and purchasers of a service, one tends to find nobody has dominant power, but that companies are forced to be efficient, consumers pay a fair price and everyone gets a reasonably good deal.
Govt seems to think that BAA was abusing its dominant position in London and Scottish airports by charging high fees for poor service and reducing what could reasonably be expected by the public. Until Govt enforces a separation of subsidiaries of a company and one waits a couple of years, it's difficult to know whether the Govt intervention has any benefit.
On the one hand, you could argue that Govt should take minimal involvement, and let businesses get on with making money. Great for the shareholders of the businesses, but in most industries one usually finds that companies merge and you end up with one or 2 companies having a large share of the market and able to charge over the odds thanks to their hold on the market.
On the other hand, you could argue that Govt is there to protect its citizens and ensure that businesses provide a fair deal to the citizens of a country. Great for the people, but companies see it as a less appealing environment in which to make money.
Generally, if one company is the sole provider of a service to individuals they know they can charge a high price and people will be forced to purchase their product anyway. Equally, when there are many providers but only one consumer, the consumer often has the power to haggle down the price. Of course, if the dominant party is incompetent, this logic doesn't always hold. When there are many providers and purchasers of a service, one tends to find nobody has dominant power, but that companies are forced to be efficient, consumers pay a fair price and everyone gets a reasonably good deal.
Govt seems to think that BAA was abusing its dominant position in London and Scottish airports by charging high fees for poor service and reducing what could reasonably be expected by the public. Until Govt enforces a separation of subsidiaries of a company and one waits a couple of years, it's difficult to know whether the Govt intervention has any benefit.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I kindly invite the Gvmt competition commission to get Tesco out of my area.
Thanks.
It's stupid - if BAA has been able to position itself in a strong dominant position - then good for them. For the Gvmt to stroll along and say I don't think so buddy, is just wrong. Taking Tesco as above, strolled along and build a big supermarket near my house and destroyed the town centre in doing so - moving the leisure facilities etc further out and thus destroying small businesses, but the Gvmt don't care for that. But they are prepared to care that fees are too high when the Gvmt themselves and partly responsible for rising air fares - rising APD, rising fuel - the Gvmt should look closer to home before criticizing a dominant position a company is lucky enough to place itself in.
Thanks.
It's stupid - if BAA has been able to position itself in a strong dominant position - then good for them. For the Gvmt to stroll along and say I don't think so buddy, is just wrong. Taking Tesco as above, strolled along and build a big supermarket near my house and destroyed the town centre in doing so - moving the leisure facilities etc further out and thus destroying small businesses, but the Gvmt don't care for that. But they are prepared to care that fees are too high when the Gvmt themselves and partly responsible for rising air fares - rising APD, rising fuel - the Gvmt should look closer to home before criticizing a dominant position a company is lucky enough to place itself in.
I'm a very neutral party in this industry and my view on this is - why should a Government organisation dictate business? Who are the Gvmt to instruct the sale of company assets? Like really.. why should the Gvmt be able to say that BAA must sell an airport or two, it's BAA's business they are meddling in - it's bad for business, no matter what many of you want or say.
They have grossly messed about with the bus industry as well. They said that on a bus route between two towns, each of which had its own bus operation, it was no longer allowed to run a joint operation with them providing alternate vehicles on a co-ordinated timetable and fares, and accepting each other's return tickets. That was somehow "anti competitive" for the few people who actually travelled by bus instead of by car.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's stupid - if BAA has been able to position itself in a strong dominant position - then good for them
I'm a very neutral party in this industry
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LTNman If I was bias towards my focus, I would have ranted to the ground about how awful Stansted is and BAA should definitely be selling it.
But personally, putting my ideals to one side, I don't see any sense in damaging the BAA 'monopoly' what so ever and I don't see the Government as being the people who should have a say in it.
Ultimately, Thatcherised or not, BAA has shareholders who have invested their hard earned money for BAA to invest and maintain the likes of Stansted and Stansted along with BAA's other airports has developed a return for those shareholders - who are no doubt individuals, not just institutional.
I think it makes for a bad economy where it's entirely regulated by the Government, it's bad for business and only slows growth.
But personally, putting my ideals to one side, I don't see any sense in damaging the BAA 'monopoly' what so ever and I don't see the Government as being the people who should have a say in it.
Ultimately, Thatcherised or not, BAA has shareholders who have invested their hard earned money for BAA to invest and maintain the likes of Stansted and Stansted along with BAA's other airports has developed a return for those shareholders - who are no doubt individuals, not just institutional.
I think it makes for a bad economy where it's entirely regulated by the Government, it's bad for business and only slows growth.
JSCL - why does it make for a bad economy ? My understanding is that the Govt doesn't want to regulate everything - just ensure that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are run under separate management teams for the benefit of different sets of shareholders.
By doing so, if an airline is considering flying into London, they will have an additional choice as to which company provides airport services, giving each airport management company a stronger incentive to provide a better quality of service (or lower pricing) to that airline and its passengers. In doing so, the airline is likely to have lower costs at its London airport - maybe it can achieve a faster turnaround time, lower chance of delays or pay lower fees, meaning lower airfares are charged to consumers, and other airlines take a greater interest in opening new routes to/from London.
If London airports are known to be expensive, slow and inefficient, multinational companies have a preference to move staff to places like France or Germany. If London airports instead are cheap and efficient, then businesses are more likely to increase the size of the London office, decreasing UK unemployment and growing the UK economy. Yes, it does mean BAA (or rather Ferrovial) have it tougher, but given London's 5 major airports are pretty busy - even Southend seems likely to become London's 6th airport next year - it seems likely that they are doing fairly well already
It is interesting to note that while BAA was substantially owned by UK shareholders, the UK Govt left BAA alone. Shortly after a Spanish company Ferrovial acquired BAA, the investigation into the monopoly took place, thus placing more of the burden of the enforced airport sell-off on Spanish shareholders than UK based ones
By doing so, if an airline is considering flying into London, they will have an additional choice as to which company provides airport services, giving each airport management company a stronger incentive to provide a better quality of service (or lower pricing) to that airline and its passengers. In doing so, the airline is likely to have lower costs at its London airport - maybe it can achieve a faster turnaround time, lower chance of delays or pay lower fees, meaning lower airfares are charged to consumers, and other airlines take a greater interest in opening new routes to/from London.
If London airports are known to be expensive, slow and inefficient, multinational companies have a preference to move staff to places like France or Germany. If London airports instead are cheap and efficient, then businesses are more likely to increase the size of the London office, decreasing UK unemployment and growing the UK economy. Yes, it does mean BAA (or rather Ferrovial) have it tougher, but given London's 5 major airports are pretty busy - even Southend seems likely to become London's 6th airport next year - it seems likely that they are doing fairly well already
It is interesting to note that while BAA was substantially owned by UK shareholders, the UK Govt left BAA alone. Shortly after a Spanish company Ferrovial acquired BAA, the investigation into the monopoly took place, thus placing more of the burden of the enforced airport sell-off on Spanish shareholders than UK based ones
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 22nd Jul 2011 at 10:00.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The flatlands
Age: 53
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet summer 2012
Any reason why Stansted's flights have not been released yet with Easyjet for early summer 2012?
Seems a bit strange with Luton and Southend on sale. Anyone know when they will be released?
Seems a bit strange with Luton and Southend on sale. Anyone know when they will be released?