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!