MAG buy STN
 

So MAG are the new owners. What are they like, are they able to drop fees and attract more airlines, or will they pander to FR.

So Stansted returns to public ownership.......

Quote: "So Stansted returns to public ownership....... "

Apparently not, according to the MAN thread.

MAG will be 65% owned by the consortium of local authorities, so still majority publically owned.

Not sure why we need another thread on this as its being discussed at length on both Manchester and Stansted forums. However, perhaps you can explain why you feel there is a problem with MAG being, as it will be partly local authority owned.

They certainly won't be "dropping fees" any time soon. They have just taken on a financing commitment of £1,500,000,000 so their first priority is servicing and repaying that debt (far larger than the debt ascribed to STN under BAA ownership).

I can't see them attracting new airlines, for a number of reasons:

• Stansted is the worst located of the London area airports
• It has a smaller catchment area than LHR, LGW or LTN
• Ground links are poor - the M11 only links London and Cambridge, and rail services are infrequent and slow
• New operators will be up against Ryanair
• Gatwick and Luton both have some available capacity
• Stansted will not be able to compete financially as long as it is saddled with debt

Of course they will look after Ryanair - they provide 70% of the passengers!!
MAG have overpaid, and overpaid seriously, for a white elephant.

Lgs of course if this was Luton you would be posting everything positive, I & probably a lot of other people on here are rather fed up with your constant trolling. Please take your rosé tinted specs & post on the ltn thread.

I am sitting at Manchester Airport as I write this. I use the airport several times a year and can only say that if STN ends up being run as well as MAN, it will be a vast improvement. The last time I went to STN - admittedly 5 years or so ago - it was an experience I do not intend to repeat.

I am no expert in the field of finance, but others that do seem to have a grasp of such details say that in real terms this stacks up better than the deal for EDI.

Also as I stated to you elsewhere the deal is to a greater part financed by the part sale of MAG.

But seems from what I see the facts will not get in the way of a good rant.

NT -

If by 'trolling' you mean telling the truth, then I'm guilty as charged.
I am very concerned that so much of the (then) taxpayer's money was spent developing STN when everyone could see it was an error of judgement based on BAA's lobbying, and to enhance its value on privatization.
The fact that some time has passed doesn't change the fact that STN is in the wrong place, and has some serious shortcomings.
It has distorted competition in the London market for 20 years, which I consider to be disadvantageous to the aviation industry.
Yes, I support Luton Airport, and will continue to do so. When a new competitor springs up on your doorstep, subsidized to the hilt, and takes your business, you can't help but be concerned, and I am.

If that makers me a 'troll', fine, but my arguments will continue to be made, so either get used to the idea, or, if you can't take intelligent criticism, hit the 'ignore' button.

LGS
 

If that makers me a 'troll', fine, but my arguments will continue to be made, so either get used to the idea, or, if you can't take intelligent criticism, hit the 'ignore' button.

Ok give me an intelligent answer as to why BAA put up such a long and costly
Fight to keep stansted ???

After all according to you it's not got much going for it !
And the people who bought it haven't got a clue when it
Comes to business ! What do you think happened ? Maybe sat
Round a table and thought lets buy an airport that is over priced
And in the wrong place and has a bully of an airline as it main
Operator ??? I really don't think so ...

MAG buy STN
 

LGS

I take your earlier point, but trains into London are every 15 mins so hardly infrequent. And also at peak times at LHR you can land, hold for a stand, and in the mean time at STN you could be half way into London by the time LHR pax have reclaimed their baggage. STN connecting flights into Europe let them down, unless you want ezy or FR, you don't have much choice

....or, this could be a very shrewd move by MAG. Given that the long term goal of Gatwick is to get rid of the smaller (domestic) operators and cater solely for medium to long haul, and no-one can afford slots at Heathrow unless you're Virgin. It could just be that STN may, in time, become the London domestic hub of the future.

I'm sorry LGS, but that Luton airport - bus - train thing is a major pain. STN is not very quick, and you have to go to Liverpool Street, but its right on the doorstep.

LGS,

I've already had this discussion with you about Stansted being in the "wrong place" on the Stansted thread (on page 98, from post #1941).

I think you should stop fooling yourself as to what you see as the "truth" and "intelligant criticism" and start being realistic and use evidence and statistical data instead of your biased and unwanted opinions, with no realistic substance what so ever.

Clearly you are so drowned by your support for Luton that you feel you have to hate it's neighbour. All I can say is that in order to think so little of Stansted, you must feel what you support is threatened by this change of ownership, and like it or not, it may well be!

With plenty of spare capacity MAG know they need to invest nothing for a few years but just service the debt.

I suspect MAG would disagree with that.

Investing in marketing would be a good idea, if they don't want that ample spare capacity to remain, well, spare capacity.

I welcome MAG's acquisition of STN, and hope that it will bring improvements across the board for passengers, staff and airlines, local businesses and residents.

I'm a regular user of all the airports that purport to serve London (except Oxford 'London Oxford', and Lydd 'London Ashford'). However, it's not often that I'm actually going to London itself; I'm more often bound for various places in the Home Counties, and choose my airport accordingly.

I hope that the new owners of Stansted will recognise that the airport will benefit by becoming more of a multi-modal transport hub for towns to the north east of London; ease of access and connectivity across Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk will be valuable in growing their market share.

As I see it STN does not need to drop fees so low as to attract business. LGW is practically full and have recently drastically increase fees, LHR is full and LCY not much better and restrictive, LTN is quite full at peak times and SENs growth aspirations are circa 2 Million in its first decade. This collection of information presents the new owner with a unique opportunity. Exciting times ahead.....

MAG buying STN
 

I also welcome this news. As well other members of this forum and getting a little tired with some of the contributions made by the same pro Luton / Anti Everywhere else North of the river.

As previously stated on an earlier post, I too am impressed with MAG's management of MAN and the turnaround of a run down airport.

I am struggling to find the logic of some people's understanding, in terms that MAG have bought and an Airport for £1.5 billion and now are not going to invest in the infrastructure and marketing.

I am quite sad and have done a quick look on transport direct website. The above search i have done was leaving the below airports at 8am on the 23rd January 2013 via public transport only.

LTN - Docklands - 1 hour 46 minutes
STN - Docklands - 1 hour 38 minutes

LTN - Bank of England - 1 hour 19 minutes
STN - Bank of England - 1 hour 7 minutes

LTN - Westminster - 1 hour 13 minutes
STN - Westminster - 1 hour 14 minutes

Although catchment areas provide some sort of useful data, this should not be used soley for an argument. Firstly, 18 million pax a year in 2011 through STN would say that this argument does not really hold too much water Travellers also take into account the price of flights, destinations flown from the departure airport, timing of flights. Its more complicated than just saying "smaller catchment areas" would not attract airlines.

Although not ideal, rail travel is expensive and slow, every 15 minutes is not infrequent. on the plus side, Coach travel into C.London is fairly cheap and frequent. Roadwise, the M11 past the M25 can get rammed, so can the M4 from LHR to C.London and the M1 down to the M25 can be murder as well. There is no real direct route in c.London that I can think off that doesnt involve a painful wait in traffic.

Ryanair on the main fly to out of town airfields not airports. EZY have / can compete. The change to SEN was mainly due to the financial rewards Stobarts were offering not so much due to the the direct competition from FR.

Struggling to find what the point you are making with this. More competition can only be good a thing for all involved surely?

The only way to pay off debt is to make a profit. Investment will be one of the highest priorities for MAG.

I for one am looking forward to MAG joining in the competition for London Traffic. Let the competing commence!!

Quote: "....or, this could be a very shrewd move by MAG. Given that the long term goal of Gatwick is to get rid of the smaller (domestic) operators and cater solely for medium to long haul, and no-one can afford slots at Heathrow unless you're Virgin. It could just be that STN may, in time, become the London domestic hub of the future."

Not going to happen: most domestic routes have transfer pax as well, so need to go where there's connectivity, that means LHR, which is difficult at present, maybe in the long term. For now they're at LGW.

LGW is probably ill-advised to squeeze out domestic operators. It is primarily a short haul airport. If it wants to attract more long haul, it needs domestic flights to provide transfer pax.

STN's future is FR and cargo, cargo, cargo.