All I can say Canberra97 you must have money to burn if you drive from Southampton to Stansted - or is it on company expenses. Surely you must be able to use Gatwick or Heathrow or maybe you are flying to some airport miles from anywhere. Some 9.5 million passengers cannot be wrong about Luton just like 70 odd million cannot be wrong about Ryanair.

"Luton is a big tin shed and as I often drive from Southampton to fly from STN, I never ever give LTN a look in even if the flights were cheaper it is a horrible airport, it always has been and it always will be!"

I get fed up with saying "bears are stupid!"

So no link this summer to the Faroe Islands?

Whoever takes on Bishop Stortford International, will have to take on the massive might that is....................L....Gatwick! Shed loads of investment going on there.

Here go the precious Luton'ites! :rolleyes:

Couldn't agree more... Will avoid 'Bedfordshire International' where ever possible. Gatwick has also come on a treat since the sale and is a pleasure to use. Stansted is great too now it's a little quieter and actually takes me the same time from where I live in London at Gatwick does so a thumbs up from me. :ok:

As I said many times before, Luton Airport has always been a building site and by the looks of it, always will be.

I first worked there in 1981 and building works to improve the roads, terminal etc were happening then. I'd say it was probably a more efficient airport in those days than what it is now.

It has a road system that is at best, flawed. It has a terminal that looks like a tin shed. Not enough car parking. I could go on....

Exactly what has improved since the 80's apart from aircraft movement levels ?

At least with Stansted, they built effectively a new airport which works well, looks good, has plenty of car parking space. I admit, not enough airlines use it but hopefully with a new owner that is not stuck in the dark ages (BAA), the promotion of the airport will take off (excuse the pun).

But Luton still bucks the trend, while other airports are in negatives, it still holds it's own! God, wouldn't things have been different if a few £100M was spend in Beds rather than Herts?:eek:

Herts ??? think you mean Essex :ugh:.

buster the bear
 

Bishops stortford is in hertfortshire,stansted is in essex!!!!!

Yep, exactly my point (if indirectly), having a dig at local councils & local press, Bishops Stortford, Ware etc vs Stevenage & Welwyn Garden City. The East is quite happy with the benefits of a major investment next door whereas the West is in uproar!
Sorry, not a dig at STN directly , I think we have debated that once or twice!:rolleyes:

Let’s get this straight, Stansted is a far superior airport than Luton. It has facilities and space that Luton can only dream of but for an airport that has cost a fortune to build it would only have around 2 million passengers per year using it if it was not for Ryanair.

Stansted and Ryanair and linked by an umbilical cord. Ryanair are stuck at Stansted due to its size and Stansted are stuck with Ryanair. Maybe that is Stansted’s problem and why other airlines are queuing up to move out.

The truth is, what ever people here might think, is that Luton is far more successful than Stansted as Luton is almost at capacity while Stansted is half empty.

LTNman - I don't follow your reasoning. Frankfurt is very dependent on Lufthansa and operates below capacity. Luton is not dependent on a single airline and has fewer passengers than Frankfurt. Why is Luton more successful than just Stansted ? If it was then Luton would be deemed more succesful than Frankfurt.

Assuming BAA sell Stansted in before 2015, its good times will return

LTNman
 

The truth is, what ever people here might think, is that Luton is far more successful than Stansted as Luton is almost at capacity while Stansted is half empty.

I must point out that it is easier to fill a tea cup than it is to fill a pint glass but to me half a pint is always better than an almost full cup of tea :ok:.

It is not Stansted nor its location that see's it half empty or half full it is just the fact that BAA have ran the Airport to the ground in the hope that the only Airlines left would be FR/EZY so they can say its a low cost airport and not in compatition with any other Airport.

I look forward to the day when every Ryanair A/C reads
BYE BYE BAA.

So BAA are looking for very small Sale price because all that is left is RYR/EZY, doesn't sound like a good return on investment for the shareholders....would they not want the maximum ROI if being forced to sell?

Pabely
 

You miss the point !

They didnt want to sell it so made it look none competative and in doing so hoped the gamble of stripping down would pay off...

Now I understand what you are saying but if BAA wanted to sell and get a good price why didnt BAA offer Airlines massive reductions and insentives to come to Stansted full it up and sell ?

The fact is BAA dont want to let STN go and are willing to try anything to save it, Even running it to the ground, Stansted has room where others dont and BAA want it for keeps.

So why do many people here think Stansted’s future prosperity will only come about if BAA go. Without the might of the BAA and its ability to keep Stansted going over the years with the profits from Heathrow Stansted would never have had the good times. Now that Stansted has to stand on its own two feet the good times are over.

Is it the feeling here that Stansted needs another cash cow provider that can plough money into this airport for charitable reasons by offering free landing slots? The infrastructure is fine so what does a new owner need to do to get the airport back on its feet apart from offering loss making big discounts?

No not by offering loss making big discounts just offering realistic operating costs :rolleyes:.

What you need to concider is why Airlines have left Stansted ?
I was'nt due to poor transport links or the lack of good infrastructure so it must have been the operating costs.

Back to propper news :}.

Anyone know who the new big hanger is for going up next to Titan ?

STN
 

I fly from STN to destinations otherwise not flown from either LHR or LGW although I have to admit my flights recently have not involved STN but more so LGW but I find flying through STN a far more enjoyable experience with its nice terminal, etc, it is exactly 123 miles from my drive to the long term car park at STN and if I leave at approx 3 am for a 06.30 flight I can be at STN within 1.45 hours, I have done the journey in 1.25 mins before but I won't be letting on as to how fast I was driving, it can take just as long to drive to LGW from Southampton although LHR is only 50 mins drive up the M3.

canberra97 wrote

You shouldn’t be ashamed to say you fly Ryanair

Only 95 miles to Luton

No one is going to disagree that that flying out of a half empty terminal is not going to be anything other than a good experience but it wasn’t that long ago that people here were moaning about how long it was taking to get through security and the time it was taking to collect luggage. Ahh I remember now, that was when Stansted was used by more passengers.


Dazz211 wrote




So what is a realistic operating cost and how does a new operator achieve it apart from job reductions and wages cuts?

So what is a realistic operating cost and how does a new operator achieve it apart from job reductions and wages cuts?

Realistic operating cost are cost that make a profit but on a smaller margin ill make it simple for you £1 profit is still a profit but £10 profit is driving Airlines away so lower your profit margin to £5 profit or even £3 profit you are still making a profit.

It make better business sence to make £5 from lots of Airlines than it does making £10 of a hand full of Airlines.

Now once your Airport is full you can start looking at your margins as demand grows which it will after all there wont be much room out there in 10 years or so you can start operating a supply and demand stratergy

There is only one reason Airlines left stansted to go to LGW and LTN and it is all down to cost but dont forget lowering cost is not always a smooth ride AirAsiaX and AirBerlin had a far better time at STN than at LGW

I am not saying this and this alone will turn STN back into a Full and sought after Airfield but as the people of LGW know under new management the job cuts and restructuring will come and although this will be bad news for alot of Airport workers you just need to look how LGW has turned round as an Airport with job cuts and restructuring.

I can agree with you on Air Berlin although Nuremburg seems to just aboout be holding its own but Air Asia X would have left regardless of the airport as it was due to their longer routes nothing cheaper enough compared to the competition. Add in the Government diving into the pockets of every passenger they carry with apd and the EU who have their 'carbon trading tax' or whatever it is called and it's not hard to see why they pulled out of LON and their other longer markets. It was down to them not having a large enough price difference to warranty a poorer on board product vs Malaysia Airlines and the Middle East big 3, not because they changed airports!

Agree on AirasiaX but what I was trying to get across on that one was if AirasiaX had stopped the route whilst at STN everyone would have blamed STN for the loss of the route.

I think AirBerlin should have stayed at STN they were doing very well and only left because of pricing issues and wanting to join an Airline "team" they seem to have lost their way trying to be something they are not and forgot they are a low cost airline.

I live near Derby, but my last 2 flights have been from Stansted. Although it is a long way to travel, I like Stansted.
I have to say that EMA is turning into a dump, I hate the place, drop off and pickup are poor, you can be on the plane for ages waiting for the stairs, walking in the open, queuing to get through passport control.
I went from Luton a few years ago, what a dump.
I hope Stansted gets more airlines, they deserve to.

What STN needs is for one of the Low cost Airlines Ryanair, Easyjet,
Southwest, Jetblue ect... to start daily Transatlantic flights to the Airport.

The onward destinations are endless both sides of the pond.

Airlines need to understand that passengers needs have changed and a growing amount of passengers dont mind not having interlined baggage or having one ticket to the final destinaton.

Ryanair has seen a big rise in the number of passengers from the USA traveling to SUN destinations, on my last two flights to from STN-ACE and STN-LPA there were a large amount of Americans and Canadians, and on my last BUF-LAS flight there were a hell of a lot of people from the UK on our Southwest flight.

Im not saying it is going to happen, Im just saying it would work even if the flights were not much less than the normal flag carriers, there is far to many people wanting to discover Europe and the States on a budget.

Probably those Americans and Canadians going to the Canaries live and work in the South East Daz211. Transatlantic services never have or never will succeed at Stansted unfortunately. You will always get plenty of ´Europeans´ going to the US but as I have said before practically all Americans want to fly into London Heathrow or Gatwick. They haven´t a clue where Stansted or even Manchester is and you try informing them where it is and how reasonably easy it is to get to Central London.
I do not include regular Business and US travellers but mainly the once in a lifetime type who leave American shores.

You don't have interlined baggage transitting US airports as you need to collect and go through customs which is why see using Stansted flying to the US as a great opportunity.

Forecast its about 2 years max away as still recession everywhere but next year start coming out and then opportunity for growth will be there.

daz - would be great if that happens, but nobody seems to have been able to come up with a business plan that has cheap transatlantic flights from London and still makes money. Sun Country don't seem to be flying this year. After the failures of Eos, Silverjet and Maxjet, the 800 lb gorillas in the form of BA, Virgin, American, Delta and United are just too scary.

I dont agree thousands of passenger only discovered places in Europe through look at Ryanairs website and only traveled to those destination because the route was opened.

So the same would happen if say London Stansted showed on the JetBlue website or if La Guardia New York showed up on the Ryanair Website people would travel on the routes.

As for saying transatlantic routes would never work at STN i strongly disagree, AA worked very well, CO also worked very well, The only reason MAXJET and EOS failed was due to the Bully boys AA & BA teaming up and opening a AA Route to New York to push MAXJET and EOS out of business and as soon as they done that AA pulled out.

If anything it shows that Transatlantic would work from STN as people were willing to pay that bit more on MAX and EOS and also filling up the AA flights, AA/BA were so worried about MAX and EOS that was the only reason AA returned to STN and closed the route only to get the passengers back to LHR ... You dont need to be a "boffin" to figure that one out.

What makes you think that lower operating costs would bring in more airlines?? Who makes the loudest noises about charges at STN? Ryanair! Lower costs = potentially more Ryanair & I suspect they would use their already dominant position to ensure nobody else got a foothold there. I've said before MOL is the first to scream about monopoly abuse but he isn't averse to having a monolpolistic position himself! To be fair - he would say thats good business / survival of the fitest etc. & almost certainly has a point.
Airports are not charities: they have to make money too. Is it better to have an airport which is under utilised & makes money or a packed airport where the charges are too low & so the place loses money?
Scenario: Regional airport in Europe has taken the RYR route to rapid expansion . After 18 months or so the other airlines have been pushed from the picture or have a reduced ability to compete. Back comes Ryanair wanting an extension to the initial start up deal or they are off. Airport now virtually dependant on FR finds it has limited options if it wants to keep the business but also finds with less airlines paying "normals" charges they are now losing money! It can be a poison chalise!
Now STN is not a regional airport by any means but equally it is not & never will be LHR. LHR is the UK hub and a different beast altogether.
I have no doubts that STN outside the BAA would also be a different beast to what it is now & may take a different approach. I am certain MOL would come in looking for a "deal" & an offer to increase the number of based airframes to get the place busy again. He has already alluded to it if I recall. Some new owners may jump at that possibility. Others maybe not. I'm thinking MAPLC had a bit of a run in over charges to prevent exactly this situation developing at MAN.
I for one am not convinced that lower charges are necessarily the panacea that cures all ills for STN.

Daz

The Stansted-USA via SNN to me probably is the best opportunity provided Irish Govt plays ball with taxes using SNN as the hub from across Europe. Direct back to Stansted is always possible and using aircraft to feed back to SNN.

Using this avoids APD across the pond and also enable US Immigration and Customs to be cleared in SNN, potentially saving lost time at SNN versus direct.

Naysayers will claim adds hours more to journey but no worse than the hours going via LHR which is the norm and the hours queueing when arriving.

Priced a LHR - NYC for July for 4 and its £1,750, booking a SNN (UK)-US for £1,250 which includes a voucher for flight from UK to SNN including 2 bags at any time so getting family to SNN in time for flight makes it a done deal.

Daz211
You may well be correct in thinking a transatlantic route would help STN but low cost leaves us asking will it happen any time soon given Air Asias recent decision stating taxes in Europe.
Just cant help thinking the might of Ryanair at STN prevents airlines starting up routes.
For example would Atlas,Turkish and Pegasus and others hang around if Ryanair attacked their turkish routes or North Cyprus.It will be interesting if LTN gets the expansion it wants to see which airlines would increase based units there.
They obviously see this as a chance to get on a more level playing field. as STN under a different operator and half utilised could see a exodus back to the Essex side.
LTN needs to get the cutomer experience right where STN has the advantage right now.

Gentleman - the buyer of Stansted whoever it is wants a return on its investment and profits for its shareholders. I would suggest the fees that the LoCos are charged at the moment are not particularly high and personally cannot see the new owners wanting to reduce them en masse.
Also most people in the US have never heard of Ryanair or easyJet so if you put them into the booking systems of US carriers they would be scratching their heads and saying who are these guys!

That depends on what your target market is, as most people in the US don't have a passport. However those who travel do know about various airlines and if the opportunity to save $250 or more on a fare they would know very quickly.

Using same basis Laker would not have taken off in US before the Cartel destroyed him.

I think the old using route profitability from elsewhere to destroy Laker isn't going to happen as the LCCs have that profitability more so than the legacy carriers.

Does Stansted have any scheduled airlines that are full service airlines and not a low cost operator?

Anyone here heard the rumour about another airline that is moving out of Stansted but this time to Luton for the summer?

Full service carriers at STN
 

I can only assume Cyprus Airways are the only full service carrier left at STN.

If only STN still had

PK to Islamabad
AA to New York JFK
CO/UA to Newark

and possibly

EK to Dubai
TS to Toronto

Add those destinations to the those that have gone or to the airlines that have left STN it would be a good network of routes, who ever buys STN must attract new airlines and especially a major long haul airline like EK.

I think EL AL was also at Stansted for a while before they moved to Bedforshire.

One aspect of these arguments not mentioned is the fact that the decision to expand STN was made 20 years ago to serve capacity restrictions in the SE.

It simply filled up as the Locost boom came along, right airport at the right time !

..... BUT the inescapable fact remains not one mainline legacy carrier has moved from either LHR OR LGW and made a success of STN.

It also throws into Q the building of another airport in the SE, there is little point UNLESS you close LHR and force airlines to move !

TNT sort by UPS......... or will FedEx respond?
 

If this goes through, what fallout for STN?

Navpi, to be fair airlines moving out of LHR are generally on their knees whether they move to another airport or not ie Malev, Lithuanian, BWIA.

I don't think there have been any full service switching between STN & LGW recently, Atlantic aside - there were quite a few in the 90s but that's a long time ago now.

There have been examples of sustained legacy carriers at STN in addition to LHR service - CSA, Cyprus, El Al, KTHY all 15 years plus.

If you're talking sustainable, Aegean would easily fit in that category...3 daily A321, two class, great loads. But essentially it was just waiting for slots at LHR which does back up your other argument - LHR would have to shut to make any new airport work.

new airline?
 

whilst sitting in sat 1 yesterday several suits were seen walking around with delta on their hi vis.Anything to do with the rumour that they are pulling out of gatwick?

Think DL are going to LHR from LGW in April-possibly what you saw may have been to do with the Somali conference in London today-the USA visitors may have arrived in STN with DL..... a few came into LGW yesterday .