Terminal is a good description as it looks like an airport terminal and is longer than many U.K terminal buildings. It seems very grand compared to the airport infrastructure at Luton that it will serve.

The walk from the drop off zone seems it will remain the longest walk to a terminal in the U.K. Even walking through the airport station would only shave a minute off the walk so not a massive saving.

With no facility to buy a ticket outside the ticket barriers it seems passengers will have to walk back to the terminal if they forget or they need to interact with a human.

pabely

In many ways I see the logic of this, but as previous posters have pointed out having two airlines responsible for 80%+ of your traffic is much better than just one! (for both the airport and passengers) Some commentators though seem to believe a deal may resurface later down the line...

A takeover could see the EasyJet HQ and hangar eventually shut down with the work ending up in Hungary on Eastern European wages to cut cost. I am not aware of Wizz U.K. even having a U.K. office that employees anyone yet it is registered inside the terminal building.

For Luton employment it would be a disaster. For the airport it would be a disaster.

Easy do not do heavy maintenance in Luton anyhow, the new facility at LGW I think is still line work, alot already gets done via subcontractors elsewhere. Wizzair UK & Techik looked at the old MON hangers but same old story of no guarantee of stand access in front of them.
The need for UK staff for a UK operations will go in favour of Luton of any merger/takeover but obviously at new T&C for some. Staff on good contracts would be in favour as it would be a bigger employer with greater oppertunities. I'm sure some here will have inside views.

Disclaimer - I do not work at Luton, or for either Easyjet or Wizzair. This may not make for pleasant reading - but I hope being brutally honest will give people the information they need

Over the last 100+ years, the general experience has been that when a single company is the major source of economic activity in a geographical area, it has the capacity to dictate terms to both suppliers and customers, and it will usually exercise that capacity to a greater or lesser degree, paying suppliers just enough to get what it needs and selling its products at as high a price as possible. There will be lots of fluffy talk from management with words like "centre of excellence" and "Action Plan 2025" - these are rarely good things to hear if you work in a high cost location. Think (and be honest with yourself) as to what you would be doing if you were in the shoes of the big boss of EasyWizz and what you would do to somebody in your current role to maximise profits. When companies merge, investors push senior management hard to achieve synergies and rationalise operations - yes that means cutting costs and laying off staff wherever possible. This will not happen the day the merger legally takes effect - it will be over a 12 or 18 month period.... but you can be certain that rationalisation and finding synergies WILL happen

For those staff whose skills are difficult to source elsewhere, or for which there is a regulatory need, a future EasyWizz will continue to cough up. For other people (e.g. dispatchers or cabin crew), T&Cs for staff may worsen, those on rolling contracts will be unlikely to see any kind of pay rise - at least until inflation puts them on the same terms as new joiners, and those on well-paid permanent contracts will likely be given subtle signs (e.g. poor annual appraisal scores) to encourage them to look for employment elsewhere so they can be replaced with people on lower-paid contracts. Any significant career growth opportunities are likely to be in low-cost locations - think places like Hungary. Those working for EasyWizz's suppliers (e.g. handling staff) will likely experience the side effects of a new EasyWizz demanding the handling agent cut the prices it charges to EasyWizz. The only time pay will increase is if a future EasyWizz finds it is unable to source sufficient bodies to continue uninterrupted operations because too many people are resigning to take better-paid roles elsewhere

In any company, employees are a cost. Senior management at all companies see costs as being bad. Wizz is profitable because it is ruthless in keeping its costs to an absolute minimum.
If you work at Luton, be very clear as to how management of a combined EasyWizz will see you personally and the role you fulfil.... and have a plan of what to do next if you and the management of the merged company have different opinions of the importance of your role, or be prepared to take action post-merger in your own personal interests

I can confirm Wizz UK does have a real office in the terminal building with real people working in it, including the UK Managing Director, Chief Pilot etc etc

I agree with other posters that consolidation does not always bring about benefits unless you're a shareholder.

Yes but not many staff with most of the work being done in Hungary.

As for takeovers or mergers let’s look at Easyjet and the takeover of Go at Stansted. Well it didn’t work out to well for them did it with their HQ shut down.

I don't think using Go is a good example, it never made any money. Other than for the directors and investors once sold.

DJ6's analysis is typical of an objective outsider's view. However, the truth is that there are a lot more issues weighing on management than pure cost. As one who has been on the inside track of acquisitions, as acquirer and acquiree, I can tell you that one of the key factors is the "not invented here" syndrome. The acquirer will favour his own staff, systems, suppliers and processes. In the case under discussion, many of those operated by Wizz will be lower cost, but that's far from the only criterion. There is also the important matter of "company culture", which the acquirer will wish to impose on the new combined entity. Of course, it gives the acquirer an opportunity to divest himself of troublesome staff/suppliers/systems he has identified in his own operation under cover of rationalisation.
A successful acquisition is a multi-faceted project of great complexity. That's why there are so few of them....

Legally they are obliged to have an office with a set of post holders - it’s rule 1 in the AOC rule book. It’s not uncommon to have 90% of the work outsourced or done elsewhere; lots of airlines do this.

As for easyWizz, I didn’t realise this at the time, but having put Hester as chairman, it now makes a bit more sense. It was being readied for a takeover and/or sale.

https://www.cityam.com/london-luton-...hirds-on-2019/

LBC can always borrow a bit more on the rail to nowhere.

Although as I have pointed out previously Luton Council has not loaned the 'airport' any money. It has loaned it to its airport company LLAL which is not involved in running the airport.

Which makes it even worse as it wouldn't have needed any money whatsoever if it wasn't for reckless spending resulting in huge debts. That spending still continues today despite no staff costs

avidspotter

I am sure that is legal, above board and in the best interests of the town!

The town was lacking a theatre, but now it has a year long pantomime running at the airport owned by the people of Luton and a non working train to get there!

They now expect me and you to help out financially!

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/...assenger-slump

Buster the Bear As an aviation worker I support the calls made by the MD of the airport operator. It's still pretty bleak at the moment and the industry has received very little in the way of financial support. Most airport bosses have made the same noises.

As a non-Luton resident I offer no comment on the financial arrangements between the council and the company that owns the airport - other than to say it's being used to prop up the landlord and its projects rather than keeping the day to day operation afloat.

The landlord is the Council, there is no difference and that is the problem as one is not accountable to the other.

Its time that the Council realises that this current policy of over reliance on the airport for financial returns is deeply flawed and that the local residents deserve a far better and more balanced approach. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a sensible idea (but that is effectively the policy that LBC/LLAL have pursued for some time!)

Am I being stupid, but why is the concession holder not funding a bail out?

LLAOL is 51% owned by the worlds largest airport operator, which in turn is majority owned by the Spanish government. https://portal.aena.es/en/corporate/...y-profile.html

The other 49% is owned by Amp Capital, which is a multinational Australian investment company. I can’t say LLAOL deserve any U.K. government money. If they are struggling with the concession then they can sell the remaining years of the concession to the highest bidder and then walk away.

Lets not forget that LLAOL built the terminal extension on the cheap, which still ended up 40% over budget and was finished a year late. To this day they never put a ceiling in apart from a small section that Princess Ann stood under when she was a guest of the airport.

El Al appears to restart Friday with a flutter of flights this month, then drop off to be 1 weekly in October then 4 weekly November onwards.