STANSTED - 2 [Archive] - Page 8

davidjohnson6

4th Sep 2012, 08:24

What would it take, either from BAA or UKBA to ensure that the immigration queues around 10pm on Sunday do not stretch all the way back to the transit system doors, remembering that the UK is in recession and major Govt expenditure increases will not happen ? Preferably without telling captains not to let passengers disembark from aircraft for 10 mins until queues further on in the system go down.

If 4 B738 land in about 10 mins that can send 720 people to immigration in a very short spike in passenger flow. To expect UKBA to have the capacity to handle all spikes is unreasonable on cost grounds. So what can be done ? Or are UKBA actually doing a good job already ?

Additionally, how much would it cost to widen the corridor between the main terminal building and the Ryanair pier ? Can get very crowded with people sometimes

Finally, is there a way to remove some of the obstacles in the main post-security departures area ? Around 7 am it feels extremely cluttered and in need of a bit more space to allow the flow of people.

FRatSTN

30th Sep 2012, 18:38

Have heard BMI Regional will be announcing further expansion plans in spring 2013. What do people think the odds are of Stansted being a new airport for them?

Would suit their business model I think and Stansted lacks domestic routes and to nearby cities like Brussels and Frankfurt. Plus BMI Regional are in no way like Ryanair or EasyJet, so they will hardly be any competition to them!

cornishsimon

30th Sep 2012, 20:35

Maybe bmi regional will bring back STN-NQY.

cs

Skipness One Echo

30th Sep 2012, 21:22

Maybe bmi regional will bring back STN-NQY.
What's the point to point business load likely to be on a twice daily Cornwall to Essex in Feburary? Surely it's WAY too seasonal?

Aero Mad

30th Sep 2012, 21:57

In the nicest possible way, cs, I think you live in dreamland. :ok:

davidjohnson6

30th Sep 2012, 22:26

Stansted lacks domestic routes

Easyjet fly from STN to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Belfast. They also used to fly to Newcastle, but it was dropped.

What other domestic routes are there from STN which are really going to be worthwhile bmir looking at ? The only one I can really think of is Aberdeen, but as far as I know, STN is not a place of major hydrocarbon-related activity

Fairdealfrank

30th Sep 2012, 23:06

Quote: "Have heard BMI Regional will be announcing further expansion plans in spring 2013. What do people think the odds are of Stansted being a new airport for them?"

Would say nil.

Would expect it to be LHR if returning to the south, and that looks highly unlikely at present! Regretably, don't think we'll see BD reg/BM in this neck of the woods for a while.

mikkie4

30th Sep 2012, 23:08

would southend have a better chance?

cessna24

2nd Oct 2012, 11:04

Anyone know of the outcome of BAA selling STN?

davidjohnson6

2nd Oct 2012, 12:59

cessna - a glance at the Stansted airport website shows the letters BAA displayed prominently. You may wish to draw your own conclusions as to whether BAA have sold Stansted yet

cessna24

2nd Oct 2012, 14:49

Only asking! And Thankyou for pointing the obvious out. :mad:

bread&water

2nd Oct 2012, 15:01

I believe the formal sale process is now underway and the aim is for the sale to be completed by the end of 2012

FRatSTN

2nd Oct 2012, 15:45

God I hope so, maybe Stansted may have some good growth potential now!

pamann

4th Oct 2012, 23:54

Just what is going on with Easy @ Stansted?

Now before anyone points out the obvious I'm fully aware they have a new basket at Southend that they seem to be putting most of their eggs into. But dropping ALC from their Stansted network is crazy seeing as ALC is Stansted's second most popular route. None of the charters serve the route which has mostly been dominated by Easy with upto three/four departures at their busiest and Ryanair on this occasion with two departures most days.

Faro, Funchal, Fuerteventura, Barcelona (Going too) among others I'm sure. Does this not now pave the way for Monarch or Jet2 to step in and clean up where they've left off? Please don't leave it to the monopoly that is RyanAir with their sour faced crew, crap customer service and day-glo cabin interiors with hard plastic seats. :ugh:

LGS6753

5th Oct 2012, 07:23

New report on London's airports suggests a limited future for Stansted, and is scathing about its lack of catchment area:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bigger%20and%20quieter.pdf

All-The-Nines

5th Oct 2012, 13:33

The problem is, it's not even just about catchment areas any more. It's all well and good saying so many people live within an hour of Stansted, but how many of those actually want to use it with what's on offer?

I live 3 miles/10 minutes by public transport from Stansted. This year I've flown from Stansted twice (both on Ryanair), from Gatwick 12 times (on Easyjet) and from Heathrow 4 times (BA and Bmi).

The 2 times I've flown from Stansted have been far the worst experiences. Mainly because of Ryanair themselves, but also 30 minute security queues on both occasions, 30 minute immigration queues late at night coming home, rude staff, etc. On one of the trips, a guy infront of me had 2 bags at security and the security woman was telling him that he'd have to go back to Ryanair and check-in one of the bags. He was pleading with her saying that surely it is is own risk to try his chances at the gate, to which she replied "If you walk off and attempt to join another security line without checking-in your 2nd bag I will call the police". Is it really her job? I'm not really sure of the answer to be honest, I'm sure someone can tell me.

Anyway, I think that the point I'm trying to make is that Stansted has lost it. Is it any wonder that people don't enjoy coming to Stansted, when even I would prefer to go to Gatwick or Heathrow despite them being on the wrong side of London for me? At least Easyjet are consistently average, despite being no-frills and basic they try to make life as easy as possible for the customer and you know exactly what to expect each time (nice website, decent mobile phone app, not too much emphasis on selling you stuff on board, no silly tunes played on landing, no embarrassing J20 adverts played on boarding...etc). With Ryanair I just have no idea how cr@p my flight is going to be, my last trip on them was so dire that it actually put a downer on my entire weekend away.

Unfortunately with Easyjet cutting back at Stansted it will only mean more and more trips to Gatwick for me.

And as for the train line...I commute on that line daily to London on the Stansted Express and at a guess I'd say that approximately once every 2 weeks it has some kind of signal failure where I have to sit there watching various tourists pull their hair out over missing their flights and panicking about how much Ryanair are going to charge them for new tickets on the day. I imagine that each and every one of them who has been through that experience would choose to avoid Stansted on any future visits, and recommend the same to their family and friends. I hate to say it because I worked at Stansted during it's peak around 2008 when everyone really seemed to be enjoying themselves, but I can only see the passenger numbers continuing to drop for the foreseeable future.

LTNman

5th Oct 2012, 14:00

At least the train is quicker to London than the Southend shuffle. It is more frequent and doesn't stop at every station. Also the trains get you to Stansted in time for the early departures. I still like Stansted, just a shame about its location

FRatSTN

5th Oct 2012, 15:02

All-The-Nines

I don't agree one bit, I think your conclusion is very wrong! Stansted is in no way held back by its location. It has a huge catchment area which covers all of London and East Anglia as awell as counties like Herforshire, Cambridshire, Northamptonshire, the list goes on. Even in Leicestershire and the Midlands, Stansted is a more than viable option if it offers the best flights/prices or whatever! And I would know, living in Leicester! Lots of us have used Stansted and Luton instead of East Midlands and Birmingham many times, so we are definitely included in their catchment areas. In Leicester, we tend to use Heathrow only for long-haul flights and very occassionally Gatwick for the same reason or for some holiday charter. I would be surprised if anywhere near many people from outside London and East Anglia even knew that there was a Southend airport!! So to say it's catchment area is small, or even smaller than other London airports is absoloutely not the case!

Also, Stansted's load factors are very impressive, easily as good as Gatwick's if not better. On average, aircraft were over 80% full in 2011, see parapraph 5 here:
BAA launches new Stansted appeal (http://www.trbusiness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11049:baa-launches-new-stansted-appeal&catid=29:europe&Itemid=41)

Instead, the reason for Stansted's passenger declines is down to BAA's outrageously bad management of the airport. Remember that Gatwick was also underperforming for a time when BAA owened but once sold off to GIP, look at the transformation it's had! Gatwick is growing quite strongly now and passenger experience is also better. The same could easily be achieved at Stansted when that is also sold off within the coming months. Stansted is currently not competetive with the other London airports and it would seem BAA's only interest in owning Stansted is to reduce rivalry to Heathrow and is there only to further subsidise Heathrow growth and improvements. BAA clearly have very little commitment to growing Stansted and making it the best airport they possibly can. A new owner, in complete rivalry with other London airports would be totally committed to making it the most successfull airport they can make it. Stansted could very quickly turn around and return to growth with the right ownership, just like Gatwick has done!

All-The-Nines

5th Oct 2012, 15:27

FRatSTN, I'm not suggesting that the catchment area for Stansted is any smaller than some of its competitors - I live in this area and understand the local geography/train lines/motorways which could potentially bring custom to Stansted.

I guess what I'm trying to question is out of those people, how many actually want to use what's on offer at Stansted any more? Most of my family and friends have come to the same conclusion that Easyjet is an all round better experience than Ryanair. Therefore the more Easyjet cut back at Stansted, the more we'll be looking to Gatwick instead. I don't have anything personal against Ryanair (I've flown them over 200 times in the last 7 or 8 years), all I'm saying quite simply is that they seem to become more unbearable as the years go on whilst Easyjet are on a continuous drive to make life easier for their passengers (i.e. allocated seating, the mobile phone app, an easy-to-use website which remembers your data, etc).

Of course it is the fault of the airport in the first place, driving away the likes of Air Berlin, Germanwings, Norwegian etc, and not doing more to hold on to the routes that Easyjet had at their peak. But now that those airlines have had the taste of life at Gatwick, do you see a new management being able to win them back at Stansted any time soon? Airlines don't want to chop and change airports too often, it annoys passengers and gives them a bad reputation. I just feel that the more Stansted becomes Ryanair-centric, the more that they'll struggle to claw back the passenger numbers they had a few years back.

FRatSTN

5th Oct 2012, 15:57

All-The-Nines

That's very true but it can be done. For me it's a case if "Love Stansted but hate BAA". My personal experience is that Stansted's a much nicer airport than Gatwick in terms of the infrastructure. It has a modern, airy and spacious terminal building whilst Gatwick's old, busy and is too artificially lit and heated (especially the South terminal). There isn't really anything that's a massive wow factor at Gatwick when compared to Stansted.

Alot of the old carriers of Stansted like Norwegian or Blue Air who moved to Luton have all moved for financial reasons. Norwegian did however say they moved due to better connection to central London from Gatwick, but I fail to beleive that was really the reason since the extra 15 minutes saved using the Gatwick express would have been used up flying further down the UK from Scandinavia to Gatwick (and indeed more added by laning at a bigger airport, increasinf taxiing times and turnarounds).

I think in time, after the new owners have settled in and recovered the mess that BAA have made at Stansted, you will start to see some of Stansted's old airlines such as Transavia who now dont fly to the UK at all anymore and indeed some brand new ones at Stansted. Ryanair will always dominate, but some airlines have a very different way of operating/have destinations that Ryanair can't/won't use so are not really much competition to them. A bit like the situation with Atlasjet or Pegasus in Stansted, Ryanair causes very little harm to them.

Remember Gatwick actually now has more EasyJet flights than Ryanair has from Stansted, it's just that Gatwick is much less dependent on EasyJet because it's much bigger and has more airlines than Stansted. Therefore, the amount of Ryanair's at Stansted shouldn't be too much of a problem to airlines who are now at Gatwick since they are used to the same type of thing with EasyJet at Gatwick!

pamann

5th Oct 2012, 16:39

Driving away Germanwings? Since when?

FRatSTN

5th Oct 2012, 18:14

Infact Germanwings does seem to be cutting back as well. Cologne will lose its Saturday service and Stuttgart will drop from 12 departures a week to just 6 for next summer. Hannover seems to have not lost anything though. They offer more flights from Heathrow to Cologne and Stuttgart than they do from Stansted now!

LTNman

5th Oct 2012, 19:56

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bigger%20and%20quieter.pdf

Stansted does not come out well in this report.

Location and connections, existing and possible, mean that there is no sensible economic case for making Stansted into Britain’s hub airport.
The future of Stansted largely depends on the other options chosen. If one
airport expands, we will have spare capacity somewhere in the system, and that will allow airlines currently operating at Stansted to consider moving to another airport.

It is very plausible that easyJet would decide to concentrate more
flights from Gatwick were more slots to become available, or that it would decide to move Stansted flights to Luton were that airport to be transformed

it has by far the weakest natural hinterland of any of
London’s principal airports, and the slowest connections to London. Furthermore those connections are hard to improve, given the nature of the rail line to London.

FRatSTN

5th Oct 2012, 21:32

This report, as well as being incredibly biased, is basing the long-term future on present situations. At the moment, Stansted may be the weakest of London's pricipal airports and we all know why that is. In a matter of months, BAA will no longer own it and more importnatly, it will be seperately owned from any other London airport and will be more committed to by it's new owners as a result. Stansted will no longer be viewed as second best by its owner.

This report says, what if Ryanair move to Gatwick or airlines moves away due to their being more capacity for them to have a choice between Stansted and somewhere else blah blah blah. Well by the time in god knows how many years, more airport capacity is added, Stansted may have transformed into a very attractive option and may well be chosen by more airlines. It's impossible to tell what the future holds in terms of demand, economic situations and competitive advantage in the long term.

In terms of transport, nearly half of all the people who use Stansted travel to/from it by public transport, the highest of any major UK airport, so it can't be all that disasterous! It already has great road access with the A120 further into Essex and Sufolk and the M11 which terminates a fair way into London (unlike the M23 from Gatwick which terminates just after the M25 junction) allowing for quick and smooth road access to the capital. As for rail services, yes they could be better but people do use them and plans ARE being considered to improve them. There are well established plans to improve the rail network in East Anglia, in which improved connections to Stansted are being considered in those plans. Furthermore, there is a campaign called "Stansted in 30", which, quite self explanatory, is a call for the airport to have rail times cut to 30 minutes. Clearly this can be done and is feasible to do or it would not be suggested otherwise!
The Rail Engineer | Stansted in 30 (http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/05/03/stansted-in-30/)

STN Ramp Rat

6th Oct 2012, 05:56

FR@STN

I have not read the report yet but I can pass comment on Stansted in 30, just because someone campaign for something does not make it possible, there is very little chance of Stansted in 30 ever becoming reality. The line between Stansted and Cambridge is already at maximum capacity between Broxbourne and Liverpool Street. The only way to increase speeds is to make it a 4 track line and this would require a significant amount of houses to be demolished along the line side. Those that have taken the painfully slow journey between Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street and heard the screeching of the train wheels will know about the curves that will have to be straightened if the speed is to be increased.
It never going to happen !!!!

ELondonPax

6th Oct 2012, 12:08

Actually, NetworkRail do have fairly detailed plans prepared to turn more of the route into four track, which would enable more chances for airport services to overtake stopping services. This work is not currently signed off, but I think it has a realistic chance of happening if STN expansion is sanctioned.
But the more pressing problem is the dreadful passenger experience of the current operation, which has stopped me using this airport.

insuindi

6th Oct 2012, 12:34

RE Germanings:

The Germanwings reductions CGN/STR -STN stem from the decision by LH to use 4U to serve LHR three times daily from those airports, which resulted in a capacity increase on those routes. May have to do with preserving slots at LHR.

In terms of HAJ, it will be interesting to see what happens on that route over the next year, as BA will more than triple capacity on the LHR-HAJ route as of end of this month.

FRatSTN

6th Oct 2012, 12:38

It's actually pleasing to see it's "passenger experience" that seems to be the problem at Stansted. Personally I've found it to be ok, with very good staff control of early morning check-in (moving passengers forward on flights that are close to closing etc.) and very sympathetic security staff who was very calm and helped out as much as possible when there was an issue with the clear bags we had toiletries in. If Stansted's problem was more to do with the size, layout, amount of facillities or something else infrastuctual, this would be more difficult and costly to solve and change of ownership would ultimately make little difference, especially in the short-term.

Hopefully, new ownership will improve passenger experience and do expect that to be the case. MAG for instance, who probably has the greatest chance of buying Stansted, is a great airport owner who run very successful and smoothly run airports. I trust an airport owner like MAG to push ahead for better rail connections also.

LTNman

10th Oct 2012, 03:34

From the BBC.

Ryanair has said it will not form part of any consortium to buy Stansted after saying the airport's owner BAA had excluded the budget airline from the sale process.

The carrier had said it was in talks with a number of potential bidders.

After the decision by Ferrovial, BAA's controlling shareholder, Ryanair said it did not want to "prejudice" any bid.

BAA finally decided to sell Stansted in August after losing its legal battle with the Competition Commission.

It had been fighting a 2009 ruling by the commission that it must sell Stansted because of the lack of competition between London airports.

"We regret Ferrovial's decision to exclude Ryanair from the Stansted sale process and the failure of the Competition Commission to restrain this anti-competitive and anti-customer behaviour by Ferrovial," the airline said.

"Since Ryanair does not wish to prejudice other potential investors in Stansted, it has written to all investors/consortia it has held discussions with to advise them that Ryanair will not participate in the sale process or seek a minority stake."

LGS6753

10th Oct 2012, 07:30

In his characteristically subtle manner, Mr O'Leary is reported to have mentioned that his plans for Stansted included:

- building a second runway as soon as possible

- ripping out most of the check-in desks

- dismantling the "noddy train" that connects terminal and piers.

Sounds like he wanted to encourage long-haul and legacy carriers (not).

Source - D. Telegraph

Dannyboy39

10th Oct 2012, 09:14

What were STNs pax numbers then? According to the Beeb they were due to be announced yesterday.

LGS6753

10th Oct 2012, 15:40

CAA are due to announce provisional September figures on Oct 15th

ayroplain

10th Oct 2012, 16:09

dismantling the "noddy train" that connects terminal and piers.
Funny you should post that reference. Saves me having to raise the subject first.
A more appropriate name would be "shoddy train". I hadn't been through STN in a good many years until very recently. Having got off the aircraft and walked the walk we eventually arrived at the dead end that is this train where a large queue had already formed. A display board on the wall indicated that the next train was due in 2 minutes but that it was a one-car train (so don't bother queuing beyond the first two gates). 5 minutes later it still hadn't arrived as the queue lengthened. After 8 minutes this hopelessly small carriage arrived with a mad rush from pax to get on. The sign still indicated 2 minutes. I was the last one able to get on. (bit like the Tube) OR so I thought. Pax still in the corridor and not willing to wait just began to push their way on to this already overloaded cattle-wagon. With no staff present to organise things it was a free-for all and soon we were all crushed together like no sardine would ever be subjected to. There were so many on board that all the hand-space on the hold-onto post was gone, not that it was really needed. I began to fear another Hillsborough. After a few more minutes waiting the doors closed and off we went. As we approached the next stop an announcement indicated that nobody should get off as this was a boarding only area. The train stopped but there wasn't even room for half a baby sardine to get on. Despite this, the train just stood at the platform for the computer-designated period while everyone held their breath. Finally, the doors closed and we were away again on this ridiculously long journey. At the point where the train terminated we could see that we were opposite the near end of the pier we had disembarked the aircraft from having done some kind of round trip. We could have walked it in three minutes. It was a relief to get off this thing and breath fresh air again.

In a country where schoolboys are not allowed to play conkers in school unless wearing safety glasses I'm amazed that this shoddy train has been allowed by the 'elf and safety brigade to continue to run .

Overall, I found STN to be looking very rundown. The area around the escalators to the trains looked as if it hadn't been cleaned or swept since 2011. The actual design of the Terminal, especially after security going out, is very poor and makes one wonder how it was ever sanctioned.

Tranceaddict

10th Oct 2012, 17:00

Stansted: Passenger numbers down as BAA confirms negative "Olympics Effect" (http://www.eadt.co.uk/business/stansted_passenger_numbers_down_as_baa_confirms_negative_oly mpics_effect_1_1649570)

BAA, which during August abandoned its lengthy battle against a Competition Commission ruling that it must sell Stansted, said its five airports handled a total of 9.52million passengers during the month.

Heathrow’s numbers were 1.9% down on August 2011 at 6.46million, following 4.4% fall in July, while the total at Stansted was 5.2% down as 1.88million, similar to the 5.3% fall seen the previous month.

However, BAA said the August reduction at Heathrow was due to a fall of 4.6% during the first two weeks which had been partially offset by growth of 0.3% during the rest of the month.

“This suggests a continuation of the ‘Olympics effect’ reported in July, with UK passengers staying at home as well as non-Olympic visitors from overseas choosing to defer their journeys,” BAA said.
Advertisement

“Overall, passenger traffic at Heathrow in July and August has been lower than originally expected and the shortfall is not expected to be recovered later in the year,” it added.

The further decline in numbers at Stansted during August means that the airport’s year-to-date total of 11.82m is now 4.7% down compared with the same stage last year while its rolling 12-month total of 17.46m is 4.8% down.

However, cargo tonnage at Stansted grew by 13.9% in August, taking year-to-date growth to 3.2% and the rolling 12 month figure into positive territory at 0.8%.

Elsewhere within BAA, passenger numbers last month were up by 9.2% at Aberdeen and by 3.1% at Glasgow but were down 6.4% at Southampton.

Powerjet1

11th Oct 2012, 06:40

September figs. Down 4% on Sept 11. 17.38m, down 4.8% yoy

pamann

11th Oct 2012, 07:29

Never had an issue with the transit train to/from to Satellites 1 & 2? In fact it's always been quite speedy and never uncomfortably overcrowded and I've used it dozens and dozens of times. :confused:

I would agree that the boarding station especially at Satellite 1 is looking particularly shabby and probably hasn't been updated since the terminal opened back in 1991?

FRatSTN

14th Oct 2012, 21:38

BAA has said today that Stansted could be run for £5 million cheaper per year! First-round bids are due next week.

It's said that freeying Stansted from BAA's ownership will produce immediate savings and reduce management costs. Passenger numbers are forecasted to grow to around 24.6 million by 2019. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, which are down from £117m in 2008 to an estimated £87.3m this year, are forecast to rise to £201m.

Stansted airport owner admits it could be run for £5m less - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9608307/Stansted-airport-owner-admits-it-could-be-run-for-5m-less.html)

It's looking like we may be starting to get a glimmer of light at the end of this very, very long tunnel!

davidjohnson6

14th Oct 2012, 22:13

24.6m passengers is only 3% more than STN's peak from 2007.
Would it really take another 7 years to hit 24.6m passengers ?

LGS6753

15th Oct 2012, 15:17

FRatSTN

15th Oct 2012, 15:48

The new owner may decide not to make quite that much profit by cutting landing fees further to stimulate growth in passenger flights and numbers, on the other hand, they may want to to make further developments and improve the airport and by then, maybe Stansted won't be so reliant on Ryanair and the fact is, Ryanair don't have anywhere else to go in London and will probably be pleased enough, certainly more than they are now, to see new and seperate ownership from Heathrow.

LTNman

15th Oct 2012, 16:28

Whoever the new owner is it won't be long before MOL has a falling out with them

All-The-Nines

16th Oct 2012, 09:48

Fancied a weekend in Tallinn (have seen it on the EZY list from STN for a while now and not been yet). Went searching for dates in November...guess what, only option is from LGW now!

So as of this Winter, where will EZY actually fly to from STN? It's starting to look like such a short list you wonder why they still bother.

Double Hydco

16th Oct 2012, 10:56

Fancied a weekend in Tallinn (have seen it on the EZY list from STN for a while now and not been yet).

I checked my logbook, and it's been a destination since 2004!

You're right though, and it is a concern to those easy staff based there.

DH

racedo

16th Oct 2012, 12:12

Quick sum:

£117m max profit made (2007) + £5m saving on overhead = £124m pro forma profit

£124m / 23.8m passengers = £5.21 profit per pax (2007)

£87.3m profit 2012 / 17.1m pax = £5.11 profit per pax (2012)

£201m profit projected (2019) / 24.6m pax in 2019 = £8.17 profit per pax

I can't see Mr O'Leary enjoying that kind of calculation.

Added to that, the new owners will have £1 billion to raise, and pay interest on - far more capital than BAA had invested.

Getting rid of BAA out of Gatwick has shown what can be done.

BAA only ever wants to spend money in LHR and Stansted not having to contribute to the bloated BAA overhead will do very nicely on its own.

As for the €1 billion needed to be raised well Stansted has its own debts courtesy of BAA and they able to pay those.

LGS6753

16th Oct 2012, 15:11

Stansted has actually received a lot of BAA investment, one way and another. The whole terminal complex is only 20 years old, and there have been many investments in it since then. Plus lots of additional roads, new hangars and aprons all add up. That is why BAA want £1bn, and that's the amount the new owners will need to service from operating STN.
It's one of Ryanair's complaints that the regulatory asset base (on which charges are levied to make a return) is both too high, and rising.

WHBM

16th Oct 2012, 17:07

£5.11 profit per pax (2012)

Having last week been charged £72 for 27 hours of parking at Stansted, I am just wondering what the costs of a parking space for a day are in the accounts, and what my profit contribution might be.

I notice the car park is significantly emptier than it was five years ago.

Skipness One Echo

16th Oct 2012, 17:23

Oh dear racedo. LHR pre 2008 was a disaster. Old terminals, cluttered layout, essentially bits falling down. Why would BAA let it go that far? Well they saw STN as the shining great white hope and sunk billions into making it work.

They built it on the back of LHR charges and profits, in effect BA paid for Ryanair's new base. It took a long time to turn that strategy around! LHR got the EuroPier in the 90s an that was pretty much it.

davidjohnson6

16th Oct 2012, 17:38

I might be naive here, but as long as the buildings are maintained in their current state, I can't see any obvious need for major investment at STN for quite a few years.
If the new owner wanted to significantly invest money in improving the airport in a value-for-money way rather than just normal maintenance, where would they spend the money ?
Since 2007, STN has lost between 6 and 7 million passengers per year, indicating that it's currently running well below capacity, so no need to call in the builders for the time being.

The only thing I can think of is the road between the terminal and the M11 which could maybe do with an extra lane, but not sure how costs for this would be attributed between Stansted and Govt and the local council may prefer passengers to be nudged towards using trains / coaches instead

LGS6753

16th Oct 2012, 18:10

David,

I think you are quite right, not a great deal of investment is likely to be needed. However, there will be ongoing maintenance and renewal (weren't the air bridges second-hand?) and I've a feeling STN's been getting tattier over the last 3/4 years while the uncertainty over its future was being resolved.

The biggest issue is the purchaser putting up £1,000,000,000 of someone else's money. That has to be paid for (interest + repayments) before dividends can be paid to the owner or profits re-invested in the facilities.

LTNman

16th Oct 2012, 18:18

BAA only ever wants to spend money in LHR and Stansted not having to contribute to the bloated BAA overhead will do very nicely on its own.

It used to be the profits from Heathrow that kept Stansted afloat.

racedo

16th Oct 2012, 18:36

Oh dear racedo. LHR pre 2008 was a disaster. Old terminals, cluttered layout, essentially bits falling down. Why would BAA let it go that far? Well they saw STN as the shining great white hope and sunk billions into making it work.

Why

Sheer stupidity and short termitis long beloved of UK / US managers serving their masters in the stock exchange.

racedo

16th Oct 2012, 18:53

I think you are quite right, not a great deal of investment is likely to be needed. However, there will be ongoing maintenance and renewal (weren't the air bridges second-hand?) and I've a feeling STN's been getting tattier over the last 3/4 years while the uncertainty over its future was being resolved.

The biggest issue is the purchaser putting up £1,000,000,000 of someone else's money. That has to be paid for (interest + repayments) before dividends can be paid to the owner or profits re-invested in the facilities.

Ongoing maintenance happens every year so assume there is not going to be a huge backlog as quite simply losing anything mechanical will have its own implications on safety on a day to day basis and DoT would be involved very quickly.

Getting a Billion to buy will be surprisingly easy (crazy as it sounds) as despite there being a recession there is and will always be cash available for good investments with good long term returns.

LTNman

16th Oct 2012, 19:01

They will soon be charging £2 a car drop off charge.

FRatSTN

16th Oct 2012, 19:15

What Stansted needs is an owner who can reduce landing fees, just enough in order to make Stansted a strong competitor to the other London airports (which is still probably a lot since BAA have been hugely over-charging there). You can't really go majorly wrong with a few small infrastructural improvements and a few new bits and peices will help the airport sustain it's value-for-money factor and customer satisfaction levels.

The most important and urgent infrastructural development by far is improved rail links with trains leaving every 10 minutes rather than 15 and/or even more importantly, to get to Liverpool Street in 30 or 35 minutes to make them competitive to the Gatwick Express and rail services from Luton Airport Parkway to the capital. Stansted has got the advantage of being connected to Liverpool Street, walking distance from the Gherkin, Tower 42 etc. and even Tower Bridge can be walked to. It's probably the most central out of Paddington (from Heathrow), Victoria (from Gatwick) and St. Pancras (from Luton) with better underground and particularly DLR connections throughout London with Bank only down the road, rather than just being super close to just the touristy bits round Westminster and Embankment.

LTNman

16th Oct 2012, 19:20

You are forgetting that Gatwick and Luton are both on the Thamelink line so in Luton’s case most trains cross London and don’t terminate there.

http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/static/pdf/network_route_map.pdf

FRatSTN

16th Oct 2012, 19:22

Yes but that has very little difference to the passenger who want to travel to London.

LTNman

16th Oct 2012, 19:25

Expect that Luton serves 30 London stations without changing trains while Stansted serves 2. Have a look at the PDF file 2 posts back.

FRatSTN

16th Oct 2012, 19:28

All the reason why it needs to be improved then!

LGS6753

16th Oct 2012, 22:07

There is absolutely zero chance of the Liverpool Street-Stansted line being improved substantially in the next 20 years or so. It doesn't feature on any future plans that I have seen, and it is a massive infrastructure project to increase the capacity of a rail line running through an inner city area serving an airport suffering a reduced passenger throughput.

FRatSTN - you seem to be expecting that a new owner of STN will be able to reduce fees whereas all indications are that it will need to raise them, as I argue above.

BAA are projecting future profit per passenger 60% higher than it is now - that looks like a price increase. So does the fact that the new owner will be servicing £1bn debt (= more than it does now) from operations.

Racedo is right in thinking that money is available for good investments with good long term returns. I'm not sure how good an investment Stansted is. The last 4 years have demonstrated that passengers and airlines prefer Gatwick and Luton (mainly for their locations), and Stansted suffers from 70% of its business being with Ryanair - an aggressive and formidable competitor and ruthlessly awkward customer!

answer=42

17th Oct 2012, 07:46

@LGS6753
It depends on what you mean by 'substantially'. There was an outline plan to add an extra track for a critical stretch in North London of the London Liverpool Street - Stansted rail line. This would have reduced journey times to Stansted Airport by approx 5-10 minutes and added the capacity for more trains. However, the plan has been shelved for the next 5 years, due no doubt to the decline in Stansted Airport passengers.

There is also the possibility to add a second tunnel and track into the airport, which would again decrease travel times marginally and add capacity. This would need funding from the airport.

Beyond that, there are pie / sky 'thoughts' for a hispeed rail line to Stansted / Cambridge. Not before 2050, I would think.

All-The-Nines

17th Oct 2012, 09:19

However, the plan has been shelved for the next 5 years, due no doubt to the decline in Stansted Airport passengers.

Did it not occur to them that the decline in passengers may be a bottomless pit if they don't start making the airport more attractive for people using public transport?

It's all well and good waiting 5 years....by which point I doubt we'll see any major improvements in the passenger numbers at STN and then they'll put it off again!

I fully understand the merits of STN for anyone living north of Stansted, because the driving options are fairly good and there are a lack of other decent airport options until you get to EMA. However, that catchment area is pretty much a finite resource, there's only so far people will drive before the costs of petrol and parking add up to more than the additional cost of a flight from a regional airport. I think that the real question is how are they going to tempt more foreign passengers in to using it as a viable London airport, with such a slow creaking railway line and return tickets now over £30?

davidjohnson6

17th Oct 2012, 09:44

The train tickets at Stansted being so expensive is probably down to the rail industry. A 1-week return between London and Stansted Mountfitchet (a few mins from the airport but on the main line to Cambridge and not a separate spur) costs £22.60
A 1-week return from Mountfitchet to the airport costs £4.90
A 1-week return from London to the airport costs £31.50

The reason for the price disparity is that the train company does not sell the cheaper offpeak tickets to/from the airport but sells offpeak tickets from London to Mountfitchet

I suspect that tickets to the airport are treated as a cash cow to effectively subsidise train services in rural parts of East Anglia. There are no votes to be had from foreigners, but residents of East Anglia can vote in the UK. Furthermore the only people travelling every day by train to Stansted airport can partake in the scheme for reduced fares anyway, leaving nobody to protest

WHBM

17th Oct 2012, 10:52

Stansted is the only London airport where road coach services to/from Central London continue to be a significant ground transport option, with two competing operators. This in itself reflects the perceived poor value of the train.

Meanwhile, when travelling out to STN last week in the evening peak hour, I had the carriage to myself for the final leg into the airport, and yet I was sat directly alongside the lifts exit at the airport. The train really doesn't get the usage you might expect.

vulcanised

17th Oct 2012, 21:30

BBC News - Manchester Airports Group to bid for Stansted (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19980042)

sunday8pm

23rd Oct 2012, 21:14

London's fourth largest airport?

pabely

23rd Oct 2012, 23:27

Who popped in at #3 then? Are things that bad in Essex?:}

davidjohnson6

23rd Oct 2012, 23:43

Surely you haven't forgotten that Luton will end up as a 4 runway airport, so leapfrogging all other London airports, and putting STN into 4th place....

Shed-on-a-Pole

24th Oct 2012, 01:09

The original article says UK's fourth largest airport (not London's). Hence Manchester is in the mix at number three spot.

SENFLYER

24th Oct 2012, 16:22

Feroman ... Will you be changing your name to MAGMAN now??

Seljuk22

27th Oct 2012, 13:05

EZY will cancel TLL (26th Oct), BCN (6th Jan) and ALC (16th Jun) but will launch RAK, SOF and SSH in mid February.
Latest news - easyJet plc (http://corporate.easyjet.com/media/latest-news/news-year-2012/26-10-2012-en.aspx?sc_lang=en)

G-APDK

2nd Nov 2012, 15:06

Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday? see Airbus A319-111, G-EZFP, EasyJet (U2 / EZY) (http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1374280/)

Serious responses only please.
Thanks in advance
G-APDK

2nd Nov 2012, 16:05

Captain retired - his last flight.

A4

EI-BUD

2nd Nov 2012, 20:43

Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday?

Not sure of the specifics on this one, but probably something to do with new route launched for the winter schedule. Didn't they launch Cagliari? Not sure if this is a new route, but looking at the list of routes, I think it is.

Luxembourg got its first Gatwick flight last week which was flown by a pilot who is from Luxembourg and it too got a water canon salute...

Double Hydco

2nd Nov 2012, 21:18

Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday?

Not sure of the specifics on this one, but probably something to do with new route launched for the winter schedule. Didn't they launch Cagliari? Not sure if this is a new route, but looking at the list of routes, I think it is.

No, A4 is correct, it was a Captain's last flight before retiring!

Cagliari has been operated from Stansted for several years since moving across from Luton.

DH

pamann

2nd Nov 2012, 22:17

A route moved from Luton! :eek:

Now that would've upset a certain thread! :D

daz211

3rd Nov 2012, 15:11

LONDON--U.K. airports operator Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd., formerly BAA, has short-listed four bidders for Stansted airport.

The shortlist includes,

Manchester Airports Group.

New Zealand investment management company H.R.L Morrison & Co. Ltd.

U.S. buyout giant TPG

Australian company Macquarie Group Ltd.

TSR2

3rd Nov 2012, 19:03

Let the 'Dutch Auction' begin.

racedo

3rd Nov 2012, 19:10

BAA said no one with connections with Ryanair were welcome and then announce TPG ............founder one David Bonderman as one of 4 preferred bidders.

Ah well its BAA where inconsistency is consistent.

johnnychips

3rd Nov 2012, 21:47

Boris Johnson island plans snubbed as George Osborne and David Cameron prefer Stansted | The Sun |News|Politics (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/article4625099.ece)

It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems.

(Yes I know. I picked it up in a cafe).

3rd Nov 2012, 21:51

For those wondering, Mr. Bonderman is Chairman of the Board of Ryanair and also a founding partner of TPG (short listed STN bidder).

This does seem to rather fly in the face of the statement about associations with RYR and the bidding process.

A4

PS With the news today that the PM and Gideon Osbourne "prefer" the idea of STN as a solution what influence is that going to have on the bidding process? I bet Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) are already foaming at the mouth! :E

A4

LTNman

3rd Nov 2012, 22:05

It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems.

Am I missing something here. Was Stansted not upgraded many years ago to become London's third airport and is half empty. So where is the problem except the airlines what more capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick?

The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen.

johnnychips

3rd Nov 2012, 22:14

The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen.

Quite. The only way it could be remotely competitive would be if a high-speed rail link were built (as I suppose would have to happen to Boris Island and all those other capricious ideas).

daz211

3rd Nov 2012, 22:36

BAA turned Stansted into a loco Airport and kept major Airlines out. Stansted under BAA has high fee's for what it is and the fee's keep going up as Airlines move out. BAA wanted Stansted to decline in all areas in the hope that this would aid its fight to keep Stansted and the only reason BAA wanted to keep Stansted is so they could keep the big players at Heathrow. in my opinion I think Virgin would do well at Stansted and people need to understand that not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London. American Airlines done very well out of Stansted but we all know they only came back to Stansted to bully Eos and Maxjet, who were damaging Transatlantic demand out of Heathrow I just hope the new owners of Stansted lower the fee's and work hard to attract new Airlines whilst keeping an eye out for those Airlines that only want to come and kill the threat to other London Airports.

johnnychips

3rd Nov 2012, 22:53

not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London

No, but I would think a lot of people who use Heathrow at present don't pass through London anyway as they live to the south or west of London, and these people have the money. I can't think why Virgin would possibly transfer to Stansted: and more to the point there is absolutely nothing preventing Virgin transferring there now if they so wished.

daz211

3rd Nov 2012, 22:59

So what about us that live north of London and there is a hell of a lot of us that travel past STN or LTN to get to LHR, both very good Airports that do not offer what we want or need.

johnnychips

3rd Nov 2012, 23:08

So what about us that live north of London and there is a hell of a lot of us that travel past STN or LTN to get to LHR, both very good Airports that do not offer what we want or need

I appreciate that, but obviously not enough people for airlines to think that your desired routes from STN or LTN are commercially viable; or they can make more money by using their equipment from LHR.

daz211

3rd Nov 2012, 23:19

I beg to differ, it worked for Ryanair and Easyjet on European routes and then the short haul Holiday market so the next step is long haul and if its not the flag carriers then it will be the low cost Airlines who will step in and fill the gap, I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or next month but it will happen and all because the flag carriers are stuck in their ways with blindfolds on its called progression.

And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted.

LTNman

4th Nov 2012, 00:52

BAA turned Stansted into a loco Airport and kept major Airlines out.

Rubbish. Major airlines have tried Stansted and all left. Was El-Al the last one to go when it moved to Luton?

Stansted under BAA has high fee's for what it is and the fee's keep going up as Airlines move out.

Only because they could no longer milk Heathrow of funds. They did this to take business away from Luton. Once this was stopped the good times were over for Stansted even though Stansted is a much better airport than Luton.

And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted.

So why have the left Stansted or gone bust then? An airline can fill an aircraft and still make a loss if they can't charge high enough fares.

Fairdealfrank

4th Nov 2012, 00:53

Quote: "It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems."

This is an airport that's losing pax and one that has plenty of capacity. So let's build another rwy there. Who's the imbecile who thought of that one?

If they can't persuade airlines and pax to shift from LHR to LGW, there isn't a cat-in-hell's chance of having them move over to STN.

Quote: "Am I mising something here. Was Stansted not upgraded many years ago to become London's third airport and is half empty. So where is the problem except the airlines what more capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick?

The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen."

Exactly, it's really is not a difficult concept to understand!

Quote: "Quite. The only way it could be remotely competitive would be if a high-speed rail link were built (as I suppose would have to happen to Boris Island and all those other capricious ideas). "

Even that would make no difference: there isn't sufficient connectivity at STN. In fact there isn't any, it's all point-to-point!

Quote: "in my opinion I think Virgin would do well at Stansted and people need to understand that not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London."

VS had to move its hub to LHR in the late 1980s just to survive. Had it not done so, it would have gone the same way as Laker, BCAL, BUA, etc.: it's that whole business of insufficient connectivity again.

Quote: "And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted."

Fill planes maybe, but not make money: they're not at STN now!

johnnychips

4th Nov 2012, 01:07

Agree with everything you say. Unless there is some massive Government edict, which would cost billions, you can't make airlines move out of LHR.

EI-BUD

4th Nov 2012, 08:38

If STN were ever to become the mega hub that is suggested, they have a job to reinvent the place. STN has a feel of the airport that I least would like to fly to for London now. Gatwick has reinvented itself, GIP have done a spectacular job, and I will often choose LGW now. BAA are not the company for the job IMHO.

Furthermore, in order for STN to become the hub for London, LHR would have to close, otherwise airlines will not move. Also given Ryanair's dominance there, what attraction would STN ever hold in terms of point to point traffic, airlines would be too heavily reliant on it for interlining passengers.

As an aside, in consideration of STN and the apparent power that FR holds there, in terms of bargaining power. Why should this be so? Where else as an airport for London can Ryanair go to facilitate the sheer size of its operation, and yes FR could scale back STN if they wanted too, but London is just too big a market for them and STN is just too big a proportion of their business. Little wonder FR want to buy it....

LGW- full and too expensive for their liking
LHR- full
SEN- runway too short and not big enough
LTN- would it be able to facilitate a significant portion of FR's ops...?? Some yes, but LTN hasnt been a great London airport for FR to date, outside of Dub and a few other routes.

Dannyboy39

4th Nov 2012, 08:53

The capacity at LTN is set to double.

Although they'd bring in a significant number of passengers; I really wouldn't want all those additional stands and slots to go to Ryanair. The airport really needs to reduce its reliability on the Big Two. Try and entice more overnighting from Wizz and a "non-base" (whatever the terminology is) for several other airlines.

Tranceaddict

4th Nov 2012, 09:16

Stansted Airport plans to land direct routes to China (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20191305)

Stansted Airport has revealed it is trying to secure a direct service to China as air links are being demanded by British business leaders.

A spokesman told BBC Essex routes to China was an issue the airport "needs to focus on for future growth."

Long-haul flights to emerging countries will be examined by the Airports Commission as it looks at all London airports' capacity over the next year.

Stansted serves 18 million passengers a year, but has capacity for 35 million.

Mark Souter, head of airline relations at Stansted, said: "I was recently at a routes development conference in the Middle East talking to prospective long-haul airlines - that really is our focus.

"There is a huge amount of growth with the Middle Eastern carriers in emerging markets like China, south-east Asia and Latin America.

"Given that we have a lot of capacity to play around with here, clearly that has to be an area we need to focus on for future growth and to satisfy our passengers.

"We don't have those [China] routes from Stansted at the moment and I'm keen to build relationships with those airlines."

The airport welcomed its first ever passenger flight from China in August.

A specially chartered China Southern Airlines A330 carried more than 200 Chinese VIPs, performers and artists from Beijing for a cultural event
as part of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games celebrations

LGS6753

4th Nov 2012, 10:28

The Treasury has an appalling record of picking winners. The less that politicians and bureaucrats have to do with airport strategy, the better all airports will be.

Why not abandon this latest enquiry and accept planning requests from anyone with the (private) money to build capacity? That would sort out the sensible proposals.

SWBKCB

4th Nov 2012, 10:34

Leaving aside the social/environmental impact, is there a purely commercial business case for substantial capacity expansion?

As a matter of interest, how are FRA, AMS, CDG etc funded? Suspect State rather than private funding.

LGS6753

4th Nov 2012, 10:36

is there a purely commercial business case for substantial capacity expansion?

At LHR - yes.
At LTN - yes.
At LGW - yes.
At SEN - yes.
At STN - no.

That's probably why the Treasury favours STN!

daz211

4th Nov 2012, 10:52

If Stansted is such a bad apple then why did BAA fight so long and hard to keep it ??? after all if what everyone on here is saying is true Airline don't want to fly to or from Stansted the ones that did could'nt wait to get out of it and only people south of London have the money to fly anyway.

I think the only reason BAA wanted to keep Stansted was to protect Heathrow and they did'nt mind making a loss for this to happen.

Im not saying that STN will ever overtake LHR but long haul out of STN will hurt LHR's Airlines.

STN Ramp Rat

4th Nov 2012, 11:27

OK this is winding me up now and it’s time to feed the trolls ...

Stansted has a bright future under new ownership; no one is going to invest billions in purchasing the asset unless they think they can provide a worthwhile return on their investment.

Stansted has a significant amount of real estate and underutilised facilities. There will be pressure to make a quick win to dilute Ryanair’sdominance, the easiest and largest available program is Wizz. The LTN crowd should not be under any illusions, Wizz don’t love LTN any more than Ryanair love Stansted. It’s all about the bottom line and Wizz will go to the location with the cheapest fees.
EL AL is a very conservative airline and it finally left Stansted after a concerted and long term courtship from Luton which I would assume included a financial offer that was difficult to refuse.

There is a market for European business flights outside Heathrow with both the City and Cambridge in easy travelling distance. Lufthansa have demonstrated that there is insufficent capacity for them at Heathrow by opening a Gatwick service (suspended for the winter) although this might have been a ruse to keep Frankfurt slots warm.

The BAA is largely the reason why Stansted has not done well and I would expect to see a wholesale clearout of management, once the sale has gone through, with the new owners bringing in their own people. Having a aggressive competitor is going to make it much more difficult for Luton and Southend. That said it’s not all going to go Stansted’s way any more than it’s all going to go Luton or Southend’s way.

Right I can get back to my Sunday now

Dannyboy39

4th Nov 2012, 11:35

At SEN - yes.
At STN - no.
There is no commercial viability to expanding Southend - absolutely not.

To be honest, not to sound like trolling, there is absolutely no point in Southend Airport.

Aero Mad

4th Nov 2012, 12:12

there is absolutely no point in Southend Airport

That is an ever so slightly ignorant point of view. Why not take some pressure off Gatwick and allow passengers to use Southend? From London, the south of London and also from Essex and the Thames Estuary, it is often an abundantly convenient airport. If you believe that it serves no purpose then I would urge you to look at the number of people using it, ask yourself why they are using it (would they do so just to safe a fiver if the pain-in-the-arse factor was very large?) and then rethink the conclusion to your hypothesis.

Please, think before you type.

4th Nov 2012, 13:38

One of the reasons people are using SEN is that they have had their choice constrained i.e. they've got to. When EZY moved aircraft to SEN they also took the FAO route from STN. As of next year ALC is moving from STN to SEN. I've no doubt that SEN does have a market but there is a little bit of "engineering" going on to ensure that market.

A4

LTNman

4th Nov 2012, 13:42

From London, the south of London and also from Essex and the Thames Estuary, it is often an abundantly convenient airport.

Go south or east from Southend and it isn't long before you hit salt water so it's catchemnt area is in 2 directions only.

A part time train service that is even slower than Stansted and 20 miles from the nearest motorway is not going to help the cause either but saying that getting through Southend's terminal is much quicker than most other airports but that will change as passenger numbers increase.

Always thought Stansted was a fine airport but the airlines seem to have issues with the place or it is issues with Ryanair?

FRatSTN

4th Nov 2012, 14:21

LTNman

The problem is that major airlines don't want to use the place and many low cost airlines have reduced or removed services. That won't change no matter how many runways are built unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen.

Always thought Stansted was a fine airport but the airlines seem to have issues with the place or it is issues with Ryanair?

You really don't get it do you? Just proves how much you know (or not) about Stansted. In a nutshell, the reason why it's losing flights and passengers is because BAA massively overcharge airlines, blatently just to use Stansted as a fundraiser for Heathrow, hence the reason they spent so long fighting to keep an airport losing passengers! This extreme mismanagement makes Stansted an uncompetitive airport serving London and therefore airlines choose to fly elsewhere.

So all your previous posts simply saying that nobody wants to use Stansted is very wrong. If you had the slightest bit of understanding you'd realise that Stansted has a very bright future under the right ownership and has nothing to do with people or the airlines prefering Luton or Gatwick, it's just that they have arguably better management at the moment and after the Stansted sale, that could easily change!

TSR2

4th Nov 2012, 15:02

blatently just to use Stansted as a fundraiser for Heathrow

I thought it was the other way round.

FRatSTN

4th Nov 2012, 15:16

It seemed to be the case prior to 2007/8, but since then it's evidently been Stansted only existing to fund Heathrow!

Dannyboy39

4th Nov 2012, 15:56

That is an ever so slightly ignorant point of view. Why not take some pressure off Gatwick and allow passengers to use Southend? From London, the south of London and also from Essex and the Thames Estuary, it is often an abundantly convenient airport. If you believe that it serves no purpose then I would urge you to look at the number of people using it, ask yourself why they are using it (would they do so just to safe a fiver if the pain-in-the-arse factor was very large?) and then rethink the conclusion to your hypothesis.

Please, think before you type.

The reason I say that, is because pretty much every route could be served at either Luton or Stansted, with no knock on effects for the passenger. There are no "new" routes, but just movement of aircraft from one place to another. I wonder how much Stobart's almost minimal fees persuaded McCall and Co?

2 million passengers a year is fairly worthless. London has too many airports already really.

Barling Magna

4th Nov 2012, 16:43

Stansted is indeed a fine airport, but it is in a sparsely populated rural area. Southend has a population of over half a million within a 15 mile radius reaching out to Basildon and Rochford. Push that closer to a million once you reach Thurrock and Chelmsford. So one of the reasons for Southend Airport is to serve the needs of its immediate catchment and prevent them having to trail across Essex or around London. Another reason is to provide employment for a region whose employment opportunities have declined in recent years. A third is to provide a convenient gateway to London for foreign visitors, especially from the Netherlands, Germany and eastern Europe. A fourth is to make money for Stobart Group who have bravely invested in a time of recession.

The rail connection from SEN is only a few minutes longer than from Stansted and the speedy passage through the terminal makes up for that. This may change as the airport grows, but I can't see it growing much above 2.5 million pax a year anyway. It is no threat to any other London airport and is perfectly viable.

Skipness One Echo

4th Nov 2012, 18:18

is because BAA massively overcharge airlines, blatently just to use Stansted as a fundraiser for Heathrow
Aside from Ryanair and easyJet, there's hardly anyone to overcharge!
Given the white elephant terminal was built on the back of LHR profits, if what you claim is true, then that's par for the course.

LTNman

4th Nov 2012, 18:26

You really don't get it do you? Just proves how much you know (or not) about Stansted. In a nutshell, the reason why it's losing flights and passengers is because BAA massively overcharge airlines, blatently just to use Stansted as a fundraiser for Heathrow,

I thought the reason why Stansted charges went up was because the airport was no longer allowed to receive money from Heathrow. This would also have stopped money passing the other way so your statement can not be true.

If you had the slightest bit of understanding you'd realise that Stansted has a very bright future under the right ownership and has nothing to do with people or the airlines prefering Luton or Gatwick, it's just that they have arguably better management at the moment and after the Stansted sale, that could easily change!

Think you are correct there but whoever buys the airport will be passing on the cost of the purchase to the airlines and their passengers so fees might not come down as you hope.

FRatSTN

4th Nov 2012, 18:53

whoever buys the airport will be passing on the cost of the purchase to the airlines and their passengers so fees might not come down as you hope.

No, they most likely will not immediately but in time they may well do. BAA did say however that there would be instant cost savings and management costs would fall when they admitted Stansted could be run for £5 million cheaper per year after the sale so there is the potential for landing fees to come down.

The new manemgemt and increased competition for Stansted is enough stimulate interest and potential growth from airlines very quickly though by itself. Even for the low-cost carriers, the lowest landing fees is not everything. Whatever happens, Ryanair is committed to Stansted and the fact is, they will work very hard with the new owners and as they say "Stansted's managment can't get much worse" so things will be looking up in the next few months/years whichever way you look at it. I very much doubt a new ownership will make things even worse than they currently are!

mrshubigbus

4th Nov 2012, 19:17

And you think Ryanair don't have anything to do with it???
You try competing on any route that Ryanair currently flies or would fly to if you tried to muscle in! Who do you think might win that battle?
It will be very interesting to see if EZY finish off BA shorthaul at Gatwick now they have more than 50 Airbuses based there! BA just dropped Manchester which was one of their primary routes for instance, a route which they have served for years.

Fairdealfrank

5th Nov 2012, 00:10

Quote: "EL AL is a very conservative airline and it finally left Stansted after a concerted and long term courtship from Luton which I would assume included a financial offer that was difficult to refuse."

This may have more to do with demographics rather than conservatism.

There is a large Jewish community in and around Hendon, many with links to Israel. It is much easier to access LTN from this area than STN (or LHR for that matter). Hendon-Luton is a few stops on the Thameslink and it's a few miles on the M1 motorway.

Several posters appear to be slagging off STN, but the point is that STN has a particular role as an airport handling mainly "no frills" (dominated by FR) and holiday specific or charter shorthaul leisure operations, with a healthy dose of cargo business. Longhaul operations have been tried, but have not been sucessful.

That said, it does "what it says on the tin", and cannot be criticised for it. However it is not an LHR substitute and never can (or will) be.

It is simple as that.

PS, suspect that it is highly unlikely that STN will land any direct routes to China.

davidjohnson6

5th Nov 2012, 00:51

Frank - digressing slightly, it's easier to reach STN from the Jewish areas of NW London than you might expect. National Express run a non-stop coach which originates in central London and runs from Golders Green to STN terminal every 15/20 mins during the day and every 30 mins at night. Coach takes about 55 mins from Golders Green to STN, while driving in a car takes about 45 mins.

Having said that, the fact that many of London's Jewish community live close to the train line between St Albans and West Hampstead does skew a Tel Aviv route in Luton's favour.

Fairdealfrank

5th Nov 2012, 01:36

Quote: "Frank - digressing slightly, it's easier to reach STN from the Jewish areas of NW London than you might expect. National Express run a non-stop coach which originates in central London and runs from Golders Green to STN terminal every 15/20 mins during the day and every 30 mins at night. Coach takes about 55 mins from Golders Green to STN, while driving in a car takes about 45 mins."

Thanks for the info, sounds better than the links to LHR!

pamann

5th Nov 2012, 10:24

If Stansted is so poorly connected, why does it have the highest percentage use of public transport of any UK airport?

And if it's that bad a place, why is it the UK's forth busiest airport? And please don't tell me it's because RyanAir offer cheap fares because their prices have gone up and up over the last two years often being more expensive on comparison to alternatives from Gatwick. They no longer offer 1p, £5 or £10 each way flights and haven't for some time.

And can we please remember... Not everyone using a London airport resides under the arch at Marble Arch in central London and/or travels to or from this point by train.

I'm sure the 'Trolls' will have an answer to this? ;)

FRatSTN

5th Nov 2012, 16:26

And you think Ryanair don't have anything to do with it???

Ryanair actually only have about 12 million passengers per year at Stansted now, down from 15 million in 2007 so Ryanair is not really that likely to be a reason for holding Stansted back. If Ryanair were growing at Stansted whilst the total traffic at the airport was falling, then Ryanair would be the one to blame, but Ryanair is just as much as a victim as all those other airlines which have been ripped off at Stansted, it's just that their operation there is too big to move elsewhere.

In a way, airlines are better off than they were 5 years ago (when Stansted had a good range of different airlines) as Ryanair have less less now than they did then. So I suppose yes, I think Ryanair has not got that much to do with the Stansted declines. Stansted has proved it can have the large dominance of Ryanair and still offer a wide range of services from other carriers.

Fairdealfrank

5th Nov 2012, 17:56

Quote: "If Stansted is so poorly connected, why does it have the highest percentage use of public transport of any UK airport?

And if it's that bad a place, why is it the UK's forth busiest airport? And please don't tell me it's because RyanAir offer cheap fares because their prices have gone up and up over the last two years often being more expensive on comparison to alternatives from Gatwick. They no longer offer 1p, £5 or £10 each way flights and haven't for some time.

And can we please remember... Not everyone using a London airport resides under the arch at Marble Arch in central London and/or travels to or from this point by train.

I'm sure the 'Trolls' will have an answer to this?"

Let's put this as simply as possible: there is nothing wrong with STN.

The point is that STN is not, and never, will be LHR. It will never become the UK's hub airport. It's a simple as that. Hope this helps.

PS Am not, never have been, and never will be a troll. It's just no fun!

LTNman

6th Nov 2012, 05:21

Thought London City has a higher percentage of passengers using public transport.

DaveReidUK

6th Nov 2012, 06:44

Thought London City has a higher percentage of passengers using public transport.

It does.

Stansted, however, claims on its website to be "the number one major airport in the UK for the highest proportion of passengers using public transport".

All-The-Nines

6th Nov 2012, 15:41

Stansted, however, claims on its website to be "the number one major airport in the UK for the highest proportion of passengers using public transport".

Sounds like some carefully worded statistics to me!

Maybe something to do with LHR/LGW being in more densely populated areas, more people arrive or are dropped off by car? Whereas STN being in a less dense area means that a higher majority of the pax are travelling to/from London, particularly Europeans looking for a cheap London gateway? I don't know the answer, but that's my guess.

Anyway, this morning I was on the Stansted Express at 07:37 from Tottenham Hale. Somewhere in the countryside near Harlow we had a complete power failure, where we sat for 90 minutes with no heat/no light/no working toilets, before finally arriving at the airport 2 hours 15 minutes late. I heard countless arguments between couples, or businessmen/women and their bosses, all cursing about how they'd never use Stansted again. The people I really feel sorry for are those on a tight budget, who are now going to have to spend a month's disposable income to book themselves on the next available Ryanair flight after they've missed it. I've said it before and I'll say it again (this happens approx every fortnight for me, although today was the worst this year), that poor excuse for a railway line is by far Stansted's biggest pit fall. Forget the bad management, forget the cr@ppy Ryanair experience....at least Ryanair tend to get you to your destination on time! That would of course count on you making it to the airport in the first place, and I seriously imagine that almost anyone on that train today would not choose STN for them or their families again.

commit aviation

6th Nov 2012, 15:58

From The Business Post:

Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has said he would rather London Stansted airport, his company's biggest base, was sold to an investment fund than an industry player such as Manchester Airports Group.

"It would be better for Ryanair if it was owned by one of the big pension funds," O'Leary said. "I think ultimately they will be the ones we'll be most likely to work with."

Last month, Ryanair dropped an offer to buy 25 per cent of Stansted as part of a wider bid group, saying it had been barred from the process by Spanish builder Ferrovial, the biggest shareholder in BAA Ltd, which runs the airport.

Manchester Airports has said it is interested in buying Stansted. Other possible bidders include New Zealand pension fund Infratil, Australia's Macquarie Group and Texas-based private equity firm, TPG Capital.

"Manchester Airport would not be a good buyer because they're just another airport-monopoly mentality," O'Leary said. "I think one of the big pension funds - Infratil or Macquarie - would be better. They'd take a longer view."

Is this more a case of MOL thinking he can influence a pension fund owner more easily than MAG? In my experience pension funds don't take a longer view - quite the opposite in fact. They are usually only in it for 5 to 8 years then they'll look to sell up & move on. Not necessarily a bad thing as they may well look to build the business faster however that may not necessarily be sustainable in the longer term.

LTNman

6th Nov 2012, 18:16

It is in Ryanair's interest to drive down the price Stansted sells for.

STN Ramp Rat

6th Nov 2012, 20:10

There is history between Ryanair and Manchester Airportsgroup and as a rule Ryanair have lost.

Way back when (about 20 years ago I think) ... Ryanair werearguing with Manchester Airport about the fees they had to pay and unilaterallydecided to refuse to pay some of them. The result was MAG went to court and gotpermission to impound a Ryanair aircraft which they did. Ryanair paid up andthe aircraft was released after one Dublin rotation was cancelled.... How weall laughed.

A little more recently Manchester Airport Group refused to givein to Ryanairs demands for lower fees I seem to recall the phrase “we were madean offer that it was easy to refuse”. As a result Ryanair withdrew from Manchesterwith the exception of the Dublin service. About a tear later they came backpresumably after paying the higher fees.

WHBM

6th Nov 2012, 21:36

Last month, Ryanair dropped an offer to buy 25 per cent of Stansted as part of a wider bid group, saying it had been barred from the process by Spanish builder Ferrovial, the biggest shareholder in BAA Ltd, which runs the airport..........Other possible bidders include .......... and Texas-based private equity firm, TPG Capital.
Somebody seems not to have noticed that the Chairman and biggest private shareholder of TPG Capital, David Bonderman, is also the Chairman of Ryanair, and TPG group is Ryanair's biggest investor.

TUGNBAR

7th Nov 2012, 21:41

[YOUTUBE]TU154, IL96, IL62, Saudi Boeing 777, Government Airbuses VIP Visits to London Stansted Airport - YouTube

What a great video seen on Youtube! during Olympic time! Stansted does see some great aircraft.

daz211

19th Nov 2012, 11:31

I'm sure I seen A Delta 767 over the business side of Stansted this morning anyone know why it was there ?

LGWAlan

19th Nov 2012, 13:04

Here you go Daz:

US Pop Artist Rihanna on Tuesday 14NOV12 embarked her 7-day marathon promotional tour, dubbed The “777″ Tour, which the record label charted DELTA Boeing 777-200ER aircraft to support her forthcoming album “Unapologetic”, which features current global hit “Diamonds”, due 19NOV12 in most countries worldwide.

The “777″ tour, which sees the artist performing 7 shows in 7 days in 7 cities, coinciding withthe forthcoming release of her 7th album in 7 years. The flight will be operating Mexico City – Toronto – Stockholm – Paris (CDG Airport) – Berlin (Schoenefeld Airport) – London (Stansted Airport) – New York (Newark).
DL8857 LAX1100 – 1615MEX 777 14NOV12
DL8857 MEX0125 – 0640YYZ 777 15NOV12
DL8857 YYZ2355 – 1355+1ARN 777 15NOV12
DL8857 ARN1100 – 1340CDG 777 17NOV12
DL8857 CDG1100 – 1240SXF 777 18NOV12
DL8857 SXF2355 – 0050+1STN 777 18NOV12
DL8857 STN0300 – 0555EWR 777 20NOV12
DL8857 EWR0800 – 1015ATL 20NOV12
DL8857 on 20NOV12, is a ferry flight. Flight information is appearing on DELTA’s flight status section on its website, as well as most GDS. However, flight schedule listed in most systems are estimated departure/arrival time. Registration of the aircraft is N862DA.
In the press release issued by the artist’s official website, the 777 tour is “sponsored by HTC Corporation and co-sponsored in the UK by River Island and in Paris by Microsoft, the “777″ tour will take a group of die-hard fans and a traveling international press corps of over 150 journalists representing 82 countries, aboard a chartered Boeing 777 twinjet to 7 concerts in 7 days in 7 countries. The “777″ tour will host an intimate gig in each of 7 cities in 7 different countries.”
The last highly-publicized tour on an commercial aircraft chartered by a US mainstream pop group was The Backstreet Boys in 2000, for their promotion of “Black & Blue” album.

Aero Mad

19th Nov 2012, 15:23

Ahh, that tour which sees no bounds to its endless success... slightly off-topic I know but FYI

Rihanna's 777 tour descends into 'anarchy' and 'chaos' as naked journalist streaks on plane - News - Music - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/rihannas-777-tour-descends-into-anarchy-and-chaos-as-naked-journalist-streaks-on-plane-8328973.html)

daz211

19th Nov 2012, 15:53

LGWAlan ... Thanks for the info

TUGNBAR

19th Nov 2012, 21:33

“Her team have been making frantic calls throughout the night to the airports. Every hour that goes by she has to pay for flight clearance on runways and also incurs costs of the private airport teams, customs, baggage handlers and security. The tour will end up costing her a fortune.”

So according to LGWalan its rolling out at 0300!:sad::eek:

Serving drinks at the Stockholm after-party - Rihanna 777 tour descends into chaos - Features | MSN Music UK (http://music.uk.msn.com/features/rihanna-777-tour-descends-into-chaos-2#image=6)

LGWAlan

20th Nov 2012, 13:20

I mistakenly forgot to add the source of my post - Airline Route - apologies all

colegate

23rd Nov 2012, 08:43

Went through STN late last evening. Needed to get to the mid stay car park. No useful signs around. Absolute shambles in the pouring rain. Was eventually directed to a blank notice board. And told to wait there in the pouring rain. the bus eventually arrived and the driver said that the problem of a complete lack of signage had upset hundreds of pasengers thatr evening alone. The problem had been reported to BAA but did they care that we were all soaking in the rain while they failed to provide ANY information to anyone. Of course not. It seems to be the norn at STN now.

FR-

23rd Nov 2012, 10:47

Have you taken the time to email/write into BAA and STN? When I use STN I use the valet parking, great service.

Fr-

FRatSTN

23rd Nov 2012, 13:45

Another call for rail improvements at Stansted

Stansted: Stansted launches manifesto calling for better and faster rail links (http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/stansted-launches-manifesto-calling-for-better-and-faster-rail-links)

STN Ramp Rat

23rd Nov 2012, 20:48

there was a CCTV car driving about at 0500 this morning, I assume it was looking for people stopping outside the car parks to drop off

LTNman

23rd Nov 2012, 21:36

So has the £2 drop off charge come in to force yet?

johnnychips

23rd Nov 2012, 21:45

From article in #1907

...to achieve future aspirations such as quicker journey times, more capacity on the route and more late night and early morning trains, will require significant investment in additional infrastructure.

It certainly will. Very crowded commuter line.

Fairdealfrank

23rd Nov 2012, 22:05

Crossrail to STN? Not a chance! It needs to be extended to Reading in the west and Southend in the east. Ending at Maidenhead and Shenfield is just crazy.

STN management appears to want a fast link, crossrail will be a commuter route.

LTNman

24th Nov 2012, 05:25

No replies so I looked it up. £2 charge was introduced on November 9th.

BBC News - Stansted Airport introduces terminal drop-off charges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20221125)

The airport said it wants to encourage more people to use public transport to reduce traffic emissions and discourage parking in nearby streets.

So there you are, as it has nothing to do with raising income.

http://www.stanstedairport.com/static/Stansted/Downloads/PDF/Set_down_and_pick_up_facilities.pdf

STN Ramp Rat

24th Nov 2012, 10:00

I have to take public transport to an airport where I can fly to the places I need to go, I get that public transport from Stansted and need to be dropped off .......

VC10man

24th Nov 2012, 11:59

I loath these drop off charges. They started at BHX were you had to get out of the car to go to a pay machine.
They came in at EMA, but at least you can chuck the pound in a funnel from your car seat.
Why on earth should you pay just to drop someone off?
Use public transport, you must be joking, we only have one bus per week past my place. It is this mentality which has ruined town centres. In France they advertise free parking in the town.
Now Stansted are charging two pound to drop off and they wonder why the place is half empty.
We are ruled by idiots!:ugh:

FRatSTN

24th Nov 2012, 15:48

Crossrail to Stansted is a great idea. Stansted to Central London in 25 minutes would certainly attract a huge range of new airlines and would be a great way to ease the pressure on airport capacity in the south-east. This, and an owner who knows how to run airports properly are the only things needed to add another 10-15 million airport passengers anually to the south-east.

Skipness One Echo

24th Nov 2012, 16:59

Stansted to Central London in 25 minutes would certainly attract a huge range of new airlines
Gatwick to Central London is struggling to deliver what you see happening at STN and it's had that same rail link decades. It's not transport links that are the problem at STN, it more to do with the fact it's the airport the market never asked for, won't use and still shuns. The Ryanair operation exists as a last throw of the dice from BAA after every attempt to get airlines to move from LHR failed.

pamann

24th Nov 2012, 18:10

Yes Stansted is a terrible place. Awful in fact. That's why 18,052,843 people chose to fly from there in 2011. Can we now move on from all those 'doom-and-gloomers' who clog this thread up when their 'favourite' airport's threads have ground to pure boredom. Stansted is a great facility and is convenient for a lot of people, it might not be on your doorstep as your local airport but for a lot of people it is. :ugh:

DaveReidUK

24th Nov 2012, 18:37

Yes Stansted is a terrible place. Awful in fact. That's why 18,052,843 people chose to fly from there in 2011.

Quite so.

Similarly, the traffic figures prove that the M25 is Britain's favourite motorway.

FRatSTN

24th Nov 2012, 18:40

I think that Stansted, as an airport, is by far the best in the UK let alone London. I think it is a fantastically modern, spacious and just a pure breeze to travel through and I know many will disagree with me. God knows how!

I simply just desire what's best for Stansted even though I live 100 miles from it! It stuns me when some say that people just prefer flying from Gatwick and Luton. They show very little expertise in aviation because as you say 18 million people flew from there in 2011 and that's only down from 24 million in 2007 since BAA have just done simply an appaling job at managing the place since the start of the economic downturn.

It's about time that Stansted fights back as a competitive airport and the investment of improved rail services, or even better, Crossrail were connected to the airport for it to have some major advantage over Gatwick, ultimately leading to further competition, particularly with the airlines that are not low cost carriers. And that may also lead to a greater variety in the type of services Stansted offers! For example, in the longer run you may get carriers like United Airlines or the return of PIA or American Airlines thinking "hang on, we could offer a lower-cost option for travel to/from London than Heathrow whilst travel times to the capital are still competitive".

LGS6753

24th Nov 2012, 18:49

When will you people "get it"? It doesn't matter how wonderful the architecture is, if an airport is in the wrong place, it won't succeed. And Stansted hasn't succeeded. Take away Ryanair and see what's left - not a lot.

Why take away Ryanair? Because they are at STN only because the BAA offered them a subsidy in the '90s and now they can't move out because the capacity isn't there in the London area.

The nicest airports to use are small, friendly ones that few people use. Teesside, anyone?

pamann

24th Nov 2012, 19:00

And when will some of you not get the fact that it is the UK's 4th busiest airport in terms of passenger figures, thanks to RyanAir and the fact that people do wan't to use it. No one forces anyone to part with their credit card number when they're making a reservation.

Just the same old cr@p regurgitated week after week, month after month on here by the same old faces. Oh hang on lets wait on some wise words and an uploaded picture of a bear... Yawn.

FRatSTN

24th Nov 2012, 19:01

Teesside??? And you say Stansted hasn't succeeded. Might want to take a look at Teesside's passenger stats. There's small and then there's small!

Stansted, being 30ish miles north east of London is not in the "wrong place." You can get to Embankment in less than 1 hour by road (it takes longer than that from Gatwick since most of the route is not motorway) and with rail improvements, Stansted would have better rail access as well. It doesn't matter how far an airport is from the place people want to go, as long as people can get to those places quickly and easily, and that is what the problem is at Stansted and needs adressing. I terms of the location, Stansted is no worse than Gatwick, Luton and Southend. Tbhey are all similar geographical distances from London and Stansted has a huge catchment area, all the way through East Anglia, London and the Midlands. Gatwick is in the "wrong place" for anybody who lives north of London!

FRatSTN

24th Nov 2012, 19:03

And also LGS6753, you may want to distinguish the difference between architecture and infrastructure. Two very different things and of which the latter is vital for an airport to "succeed".

jdcg

24th Nov 2012, 20:00

We've been using STN as our main airport for years (admittedly nearly always leisure) and have preferred it to all the other London airports (apart from LCY) for ease of use. For anyone living in NE and E London it is definitely the easiest airport to access (ignoring LCY) although this may change with Crossrail 1. It is looking a bit down-at-heel at the moment but I put that down to the whole sale palaver.
The London / STN / Cambridge artery has been targeted as a major growth area, so there is no reason why it shouldn't continue to flourish. It is quite a long way from the rest of the UK though and certainly the catchment area for LGW / LHR and possibly even LTN is more affluent for the time being.

It's highly unlikely that Crossrail 1 will be modified to include a spur to STN. This wouldn't make it more accessible anyway because there isn't spare capacity for faster trains. This will have to be built and indeed is planned (not budgeted) for some time in the medium term. Crossrail 2, which will be essential if HS2 is built to ease access to Euston, would probably include a link to STN. But I doubt that this will increase access speed much either, without the aforementioned infrastructure improvements.
From a personal point of view, the worst thing about rail access to STN is the price, not the speed. I could easily catch the train every time I go there but don't because it's too expensive. Coaches are half the price and only marginally slower. Even if the train was only 30 mins I wouldn't catch it. Not an issue for most business users but I suspect that most business users live further West and North, though that's changing as the East becomes more affluent.

FRatSTN

24th Nov 2012, 22:30

Well areas like Herfordshire and Cambridgshire, as well as parts of Essex are very affluent areas and with them all having Stansted as their local airport, they are faced with easyJet and Ryanair as their only choices. There is certainly enough demand for full serive and long haul services from Stansted, but the rail connections and BAA's managment of the airport has held it back.

I would say that the flag carriers, especially for long haul travel can do well at Stansted and we have seen some examples of it in the past. The major reason why the flag carriers find it hard to use Stansted is because of the onward travel to London. I'm sure that if Stansted was more accessible by rail from London than say Gatwick, we would start to see the shift of some traffic into Stansted.

pamann

24th Nov 2012, 22:37

Stansted is also in need of an airline that could feed services for connections if that was to happen. That is Stansted's biggest issue in my opinion when it comes to long haul. However it does seem crazy that the amount of people who live close to or have to drive past Stansted to catch a long haul flight can not any longer connect. Best option for this would be a return of KLM or LH to feed via Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Only time will tell. There will be no quick fix but I'm pretty certain things will improve after the sale.

Fairdealfrank

24th Nov 2012, 23:02

Quote: "The nicest airports to use are small, friendly ones that few people use. Teesside, anyone?"

Would love to use Teesside again when heading to the Middlesbrough area but "that particular avenue of pleasure" (to quote Basil Fawlty) has been cut off. Regretably there are no longer flights to/from Heathrow.

To those banging on about crossrail, which part of commuter line do you not understand? It needs a faster fast link, not a commuter line with several stops!

Stansted's "problem" is not being in the wrong place (although in some respects it is), or about looking shabby, or about bad surface links, or anything else. It does what it does well, and that is shorthaul no frills pax flights and cargo flights.

To those of you wanting it to be like a hub, or become a hub, you are expecting too much. Forget it, there isn't sufficient connectivity and never will be.

If you want a hub, go to Heathrow, it is as simple as that!

STN Ramp Rat

25th Nov 2012, 06:46

Malaysians join £1bn race for Stansted deal - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9700859/Malaysians-join-1bn-race-for-Stansted-deal.html)

This could shake things up a bit. They seem to be trying to tempt out asecond company with experience of running an airport whichmust demonstrate that they are not happy with the calibre of the currentbidders.

sxflyer

25th Nov 2012, 08:54

That is interesting news. I wonder if they will want to go down the KLIA route with STN? (Magnificant facilities in the main terminal, the large dominant LCC operating probably for a pittance out of a shed on a remote part of the airfield?!

widnowseat

25th Nov 2012, 10:50

From where I live in north London all of the 6 London airports are roughly equal in being pretty easy for me to get to.

I travel for work and for leisure but don’t work in aviation. As a punter I know the differences between all 6 and I pay my money and make my choices. As I say, from a door to door perspective I am spoiled for choice.

Aside from London City which is a sinch to get to, Stansted by road or train ought to be the most accessible in terms of distance and time and therefore my preferred choice– but for leisure travel at least, Gatwick wins for me.

Why?

Train wise as jdcg (http://www.pprune.org/members/308066-jdcg) has posted – it's expensive. Also, if something goes wrong on the lines in and out of Liverpool Street the service seems to shut down and you are stuffed. Stansted Express trains always appear rammed full.

Driving – Gatwick has a better choice of parking options, and the transfers to/from the terminal are less painful.

As a passenger I also think that Gatwick has improved massively because of the investment from the new owners – so scope for future improvement at Stansted when the sale goes through, but not guaranteed. Luton has never been owned by BAA, but various changes of owner/operator have never IMO positively impacted on the experience of using Luton as a passenger. Its not a foregone conclusion that removing BAA’s involvement at Stansted will see everything sorted for evermore.

As for Cross Rail. In just over 5 years time Cross Rail is going to be a game changer across London and the south east of England, and will reduce the time it takes to get to all sorts of places (and interchanges) for a very large number of people. Example - London City to Heathrow in not much more than an hour.

Cross Rail might mean that its easy for more people to get to Stansted – it will also mean that it will be easier for passengers who only currently use Stansted to fly from somewhere else.

LGS6753

25th Nov 2012, 10:58

If the Malaysians are indeed serious bidders, this is likely to increase the price paid for the airport. Good for BAA but not for STN. An increased price means increased borrowing/investment, which means higher interest payments/dividends, which reduces the amount of money available for further investment, whether in freshening the place up, making improvements, or incentivising new airline customers.

LGS6753

25th Nov 2012, 11:11

FRatSTN -

And also LGS6753, you may want to distinguish the difference between architecture and infrastructure. Two very different things and of which the latter is vital for an airport to "succeed".

Of course architecture and infrastructure are different. But infrastructure is no use if it's in the wrong place.

Well areas like Herfordshire and Cambridgshire, as well as parts of Essex are very affluent areas and with them all having Stansted as their local airport

Many of the most affluent parts of Hertfordshire are very close to, and easily accessible to Luton, rather than STN. Consider Tring, Berkhamsted, Harpenden, St Albans, Hemel Hempsted and Watford, to say nothing of Hatfield, Welwyn, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth.

toledoashley

25th Nov 2012, 11:22

Yes, youre quite right that most in the far west of Hertfordshire (Harpenden, Tring, Berkhamsted etc), would consider Luton and Heathrow as the nearest airports.

Fairdealfrank

18th Dec 2012, 19:54

Ho ho ho, finally Boris hoists the white flag over the sinking Silver Island, the plans clearly do not hold water!

Of course Stansted has most of the problems and disadvantages of Silver Island and as mentioned many times before: it does not address the issue of a lack of HUB capacity.

Look closely at the picture of the four-rwy Stansted (above), there's no activity there, nothing landing or taking off at the Essex airport: "the only way is Mirabel".

FRatSTN

19th Dec 2012, 19:40

Travel Service Airlines will now operate up to two weekly charter flights from Stansted next summer. They will serve Gran Canaria on Mondays from May 6th and will also add a Thursday service to Lanzarote from July 25th.

Also there will be a charter flight to Dalaman on Wednesdays starting from July 24th operated by Freebird Airlines. Not much I know, but anything that diversifies Stansted's mix of traffic and is not Ryanair would probably be welcomed by most at Stansted nowadays.

FRatSTN

29th Dec 2012, 17:06

I don't want to speak too soon but it looks like their could be a chance of the Stansted passenger declines dying out next year, even with the possibility of some small growth. During the summer holiday period of next year, there is about the same amount of traffic as there was last year and although we've lost another EasyJet aircraft as well as the departure of Atlasjet and Wow air, there seems to be a bit more in the way of Ryanair and that has about cancelled out the loss of around 5 daily departures collectively by EZY, KK and X9. I'm also worried that Germanwings may leave as they go through all the reform by Lufthansa but I really hope they do not. They are now the largest carrier at Stansted excluding FR and EZY. However, as we still have a few more months until the summer 2013 timetables kick in, I dare say Ryanair will add more flights as they usually do early in the new year so there could be a chance, fingers crossed.

STN Ramp Rat

29th Dec 2012, 17:24

Maybe German Wings will grow. the LHR slots are quite valuable and better suited to an increased FRA and MUC service rather than a CGN,HAM or BER service

FRatSTN

29th Dec 2012, 17:32

But they will open a new base in Hamburg for 2013 and haven't taken the opportunity to add London Stansted although that new base does seem quite small and very targeted for the leisure/holiday market. Maybe it will just be a seasonal base, I don't know.

Furthermore, the Cologne and especially the Stuttgart services have seen frequency reductions and now Heathrow has a lot more flights to those places than Stansted with Germanwings. I hope you're right but I still have a horrible feeling that a move out will happen, even if it's a move to Gatwick... or Southend:eek:

vectisman

29th Dec 2012, 19:09

Personally I feel that GermanWings may indeed consolidate at Heathrow and/or Gatwick. It will be working closely with Lufthansa to maintain high yield and connectivity. I can see Lufthansa still wanting all the main German cities connected to Heathrow to ensure that it does not give away high yield traffic to BA. Remember from next year only Frankfurt and Munich will have Lufthansa branded services on Short Haul. The rest goes to GermanWings as a 100% owned subsidiary. It will be interesting to see how Air Berlin responds.

V.

FRatSTN

29th Dec 2012, 20:11

Well Air Berlin are screwed. They are responsible for the largest declines in traffic over the years now with just up to 3 daily flights with a Dash-8 down from a good amount of A320/B737 sized jets a day. Clearly an airline is not going to be that sustainable with declines at a large European capital city like that and they couldn't make Gatwick work. I doubt they would add much if anything to Stansted if Germanwinhs pulled out.

vectisman

29th Dec 2012, 20:36

I believe when Air Berlin have recovered from their financial pressures we may see them expand at Gatwick alongside their OneWorld partner British Airways. Stansted does not figure much in their future plans. I am not sure if 'not making an airport work' is explanation enough. Lack of success at the moment is more to do with the dire economic situation and lack of passengers. Airlines do not want routes to fail or walk away from those that make a profit.
Unfortunately Stansted is going through a sustained, maybe long term decline. The dominance of Ryanair makes other airlines wary and has given Stansted a rather low cost down market image. (I am not saying I agree with that sentiment just pointing it out)
Both Heathrow and Gatwick have higher brand awareness. I can see Easyjet leaving eventually as Southend expands. Quite incredible that Stansted was once one of Easyjet's largest bases and now it has less than 10 based aircraft whilst Gatwick has over 50.
Easyjet has moved on and matured its product. Ryanair has not. Interestingly Ryanair now only has a marginal presence at Gatwick on Irish routes. This is to do with the catchment area being more prepared to pay for a higher quality service than Ryanair's business model allows it to offer.

V.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 11:36

I would have thought it's not so doom and gloom for Stansted considering it has sparked a lot of interest from potential buyers. Why would anybody be interested in it if it has such a dull future and "sustained decline". In fact, I regained some contribution to this forum after a couple of weeks of nothing to raise the point that there doesn't seem to be much decline next year at all as of yet.

Southend is not ever likely to be able to cater for even the reduced amount that EasyJet has at Stansted today so I think a complete pull out by EasyJet is not going to happen. I personally think that after the sale, they will actually consider some growth opportunites or putting back some of what they've taken out, but of course EasyJet is never going to offer the amount they do from Gatwick.

Also your anylsis would suggest that Gatwick is somewhat more restricted than Stansted in a sense as it would suggest it can only cater for something that has higher levels of quality and service. Funny that it's a low cost airline with fairly similar levels of quality and service to Ryanair that accounts for 40% of its traffic then, I would make that close to 15 million passengers a year. EasyJet still achives very good load factors for Stansted flights, but that doesn't mean lots of profit as the landing charges and operating costs are through the roof and that may be something a new owner may do something about.

Ryanair carries only around 12 million passengers annually from Stansted now, down from a peak of 15 million at a time when Stansted offered a good range of EasyJet flights as well as a range of services from a range of other airlines, something that is really a lack nowadays. I think the BAA ownership is solely to blame for the declines and things will start to look up after it's under seperate ownership from Heathrow.

LGS6753

30th Dec 2012, 11:59

I think the BAA ownership is solely to blame for the declines and things will start to look up

I'm afraid this is just blind optimism. The fact is, Stansted is in the wrong place. It's "success" in recent years was entirely due to the BAA cross-subsidising it from Heathrow, and its decline has resulted from the ending of those subsidies.

It's current role, and the only one it will have in the foreseeable future is to take the London area traffic that can't be accommodated at other, better-connected and better-situated London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, City and even Southend).

The BAA wants to raise as much £££ as possible from its sale, and has attracted expressions of interest from enough bidders to stimulate a competition. Hubris and ambition (both key attributes of senior directors) are likely to mean that the successful bidder over-pays. The more they pay, the less will be available to invest in and run STN. I would not be surprised to see it change hands again in about 5 years' time - especially if traffic does not increase, and especially if the buyer pays a "full price".

pwalhx

30th Dec 2012, 12:08

Gatwick attracts passengers from a much wider catchment area and is far easier to get to from further afield in the country and of course offers a wider range of services, in particular long haul. As a northerner I would much rather find a routing I can leave from my local airport but if I had to transit via the south (excl. LHR) I would choose Gatwick over Stansted any day as I find it quite a depressing place.

I am sorry but I cannot agree that Ryanair and Easyjet have comparable services, Easy by far offer a more pleasant passenger experience. I am not knocking Ryanair for that, you get what it says on the tin.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 12:38

LGS6753

It's current role, and the only one it will have in the foreseeable future is to take the London area traffic that can't be accommodated at other, better-connected and better-situated London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, City and even Southend).

Wow, blimey you need to do some more research mate. Perhaps you should look at a map and road networks for a start. How on earth can you come to such a general, uneducated and basically grim conclusion. What makes you think that Stansted is so appalingly situated and connected when compared to the other London airports?? Gatwick and Luton are about the same distance and similar travel times from Central London by road. Stansted is actually best by some margin (apart from City and Heathrow which are very different airports and not comparible to Stansted anyway) for many parts of north and east London. The rail services are slower than from Gatwick and Luton, but atleast you don't need to wait for a 5-10 minutes shuttle bus ride to get you to the airport to the station like you do at Luton, or cram into a monorail from Gatwick North Terminal to get to the station.

As for Southend, there is no motorway connection, it takes well over an hour to get into central London and has a less regular and slower rail service than from Stansted. Plus there is only 180 degress radius of cathment area at Southend as it's by the sea, Stansted has 360.

Since the last major infrastructural investments at Stansted (terminal expansion and the new Ryanair maintainance hanger) were around 2008/9 time whilst Heathrow is in the process of rebuilding terminal 2 and airport charges have doubled at Stansted, is it not clear that BAA are actually just using Stansted as an extra source of cash to invest further in Heathrow? Why else would they spend 3 years trying to fight for an airport that is in decline? Although in decline, Stansted still makes a profit and they only wanted it so that it would reduce competition and most importantly raise a little more finance in order to invest more at Heathrow!

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 12:50

I am sorry but I cannot agree that Ryanair and Easyjet have comparable
services

They are in the sense that they adpot very similar business models in that they are both low cost airlines who offer a basic service in return for a cheaper flights but have extra charges for bags, reserved seating, insurance etc. Yes it might be argued that EasyJet offers better customer service, but the general concept of each is very comparable.

The only major difference really is that Ryanair prefers the smaller secondary airports whilst EasyJet serves the large primary ones and with Ryanair now big at Barcelona, Budapest, Manchester... and EasyJet in Southend, even that gap seems to be closing in slightly. But the fact that EasyJet is Ryanair's largest competitor and vice versa shows that they are pretty comparable in any way shape or form.

DublinPole

30th Dec 2012, 13:13

Easyjet and Ryanair are comparable in a number of ways, yes they are not exactly the same but for sure many people will compare each of them to the other when looking for flights where possible, of course there are a decent sized percentage who also would not do that, but to many they are comparable. I quite like both airlines to be honest, although being in Dublin I rarely use Easyjet as they are simply not here.

Without doubt Ryanair are cheaper in my experience when it comes to raw price, but it is true that Easyjet offer better airports when it comes to business flights as they go to primary airports. However going to secondary airports isn't always that bad a thing as not everyone lives in the UK's biggest cities.

If someone has family south of London obviously Gatwick or Heathrow may be better, but a friend of mine has family in Essex and Stansted has always been by far the best option for them. I'd rather FR and other carriers fly to regional airports than us to just have 5 or so large airports in the UK. It always makes me laugh that such people who are against regional airports typically live in a large city and expect people to commute 2-3 hours plus to such airports and the moan at carriers for flying to regional airports which are far more quicker to access. Not everyone wants to travel to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, London or Birmingham.

Also what is often overlooked by many people who say that FR cram people in is that actually Easyjet has a lower seat pitch but that is rarely brought up which makes me laugh.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 13:25

I totally agree. I think all that's happening here is that Ryanair's poor reputation which the media has generated and influenced people's view of the airline is leading to the same impression on Stansted purely because it's the dominant airline. For example, remember that Panorama programme "Why Hate Ryanair" a few years ago? Although EasyJet are very similar in many ways, you would never get a "Why Hate EasyJet" would you? That is a classic example of the media trying to get people to dislike Ryanair and fly with the more expnesive airlines.

That fact is, Stansted is not disadvantaged by its location, size, accessibilty a great deal. Yes rail improvements would be beneficial but the airport has managed to attract 24 million people a year in its current form. What Stansted is effected by is people who still have a snobbish attitude and favouritism of the airlines with more service and the airports that they go from.

DublinPole

30th Dec 2012, 13:45

Of course, there are numerous examples in which Ryanair is sometimes heavily criticised for but the same, and in some cases, higher prices or charges exists on other airlines but they are never targeted, and the press give the impression that Ryanair are by far the worst. I happen to agree that some fees by Ryanair are over the top, but other airlines are not innocent in this regard but get far less attention from the media.

The Seat Pitch example is one area, where Ryanair is often accused of cramming people in like sardines but many others offer 30' seat pitch with no complaints, whilst other operators offer even smaller. Again no criticism for such carriers and I've even seen Easyjet passengers mock Ryanair passengers about being crammed in like sardines, despite the fact such passengers had in fact more room!

Card surcharges on Easyjet are another good example, I booked a one way flight to Belfast on one occasion and was charged £9 admin fee and another 2.5% on top. True it works out more expensive because it's a one way flight, but still paying over 10 euro in card surcharges for a 50 euro flight is too much. True, when booking for more than one person and a return flight it works out better value, but for a single flight it's very poor value.

Aer Lingus baggage is one where I've seen people get caught out before the website text was clarified last year. Your short haul baggage allowance is 15kg (UK) or 20kg (Europe) and you can add extra bags for I think it was 12 euro. The thing was that whilst you can add up to 8 extra bags, the total baggage allowance was the original limit shared between all the bags. At least with FR you have the chance of adding an extra bag that comes with it's own weight. I saw many passengers not able to believe that paying for extra bags does not entitle them to extra weight.

I am not saying that Aer Lingus, Easyjet or Ryanair, Jet2 or Wizz are any worse than each other when it comes to optional extra charges, but the fact is that the media often portray FR as fleecing everyone left right and center, when many of the tactics they use are employed by most other low cost airlines and even some flag carriers to some degree or other, but it's not widely reported in the media.

There are pros and cons to each airlines terms and conditions and the way they operate and they all suit people to varying degrees. There is not the huge gulf in difference between Ryanair and the rest of the field that some people claim in the media who seem to view FR as bottom of the league.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 14:41

I suppose it's mainly down to the... how should I put it... Unique? CEO. He likes to get his own way and get himself heard, and whether people like him or not, look what he has done for himself and what he has created. If only all people in business were like him. Stansted plays a big part in that success and Ryanair would not be the way it is today if it wasn't for Stansted.

compton3bravo

30th Dec 2012, 17:54

You are joking ´´If all people in business were like him´´ - all I can say is God help us - vile man and that is an understatement!

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 19:09

But if all business people were like him then the economy would not be in the state it's in. He runs one of the only highly profitable companies out there at the moment.

Facelookbovvered

30th Dec 2012, 21:44

I think STN is actually not bad for a BAA airport, sure LGW is now in a different league since BAA sold it, but STN works, what drags it down, how can i put this is the FR experience, it even has a "luggage repacking area complete with scales (€1 fee !!)" yes it caters for the horde of guest workers from Eastern Europe that pick our veg from Eastern England, to spend a couple of hours in the terminal is to watch a third world experience of low expectation & delivery in terms of customer service, with families putting extra clothes on, re packing and sharing out luggage to achieve the same average bag weight that they started out with!!

From what i can see the people who can afford to fly go with Easyjet, the rest go with Ryanair.

STN's problem is that FR call the shots now, will a new owner have the balls to say to FR that the fee take it or leave it? It will always be difficult to attract new business knowing that FR will jump on any competition in a flash, sometimes less is more.

DublinPole

30th Dec 2012, 21:56

with families putting extra clothes on, re packing and sharing out luggage to achieve the same average bag weight that they started out with!!

But that isn't exclusive to Ryanair is it?

Weight limits for hand luggage per person exist on many airlines.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 22:38

It will always be difficult to attract new business knowing that FR will jump on any competition in a flash, sometimes less is more.

I'm not even sure if that is even an issue. Ryanair likes the secondary airports generally speaking, so any airline that will offer a primary airport is not likely to get any direct competition from Ryanair. Remember also that Gatwick has more EasyJet now than Stansted does Ryanair and yet that doesn't seem to be an issue with loads of direct competition here, there and everywhere.

Furthermore, EasyJet have recently abandoned some of the most popular sun destinations in the last year or so because they are now going from Southend which leaves Stansted with Ryanair as the only option on a lot of those routes like Alicante, Barcelona and Faro. I don't the competition from Ryanair was to blame for this, they have had Ryanair alongside them on those routes for several years. Instead, it's just their interest in Southend, in which Stansted now pays the price.

If a new owner really wanted to get things going, they should try and get Jet2 in. I know Jet2 seem very reluctant to go to London airports but they do use Stansted for cargo flights and do compete strongly with Ryanair already and have tried taking on some of their routes elsewhere and have been successful. Also with EasyJet ditching those key routes creating a large slump in the capacity, what better time is there for Jet2 to try and get in and fill that space.

adfly

30th Dec 2012, 23:15

Easyjet's presence at Gatwick might be larger than Ryanair's at Stansted but the important thing to consider is the proportion of flights this makes up overall, around 35-40% in EZY's case and around 70% in Stansted's case. Easy are also directly competed with on far more routes out of Gatwick by BA, Monarch, Flybe, Thomson, Aer Lingus, Thomas Cook and numerous foreign airlines. Ryanair at Stansted have some routes that overlap with Easyjet and some where Thomson/Thomas Cook compete fairly indirectly, so the scale of the dominance is very different.

FRatSTN

30th Dec 2012, 23:33

And the proprtion of all flights from Gatwick that go to Alicante, Malaga, Palma, Tenerife etc. are a heck of a lot higher than all those from Stansted. The point I'm trying to make is that Gatwick is already overcrowded with many airlines offering the same routes. In a lot of respects, this is of course a good thing as it means more competition and more traffic and choice for passengers but at the same time, Stansted is very underserved and needs more competition from other airlines and most importantly, more competition with other airports, which is the whole point of the sale.

adfly

31st Dec 2012, 11:33

It does need the competition I agree, and the sale will help this but its also a case of airlines going where its most attractive. And I'm not so sure about the competition on the mentioned routes...

From Gatwick:

Alicante:

EZY - 31 weekly
BA - 21 weekly
Monarch - 11 weekly
Thomson - 2 weekly
Norwegian - 1-3 weekly
Thomas Cook - 1 weekly

Malaga:

EZY - 42 weekly
BA - 27-34 weekly
Monarch - 12 weekly
Thomson - 3 weekly
Norwegian - 3 weekly

Palma:

EZY - 36 weekly
Thomson - 19 weekly
Monarch - 14 weekly
Thomas Cook - 9 weekly
Norwegian - 1 weekly

Tenerife:

Thomson - 10 weekly
Thomas Cook - 9 weekly
EZY - 8 weekly
Monarch - 8 weekly
BA - 5 weekly
Norwegian - 4 weekly
Iberworld - 1 weekly (For Thomas Cook)

Now at Stansted we have:

Alicante:

Ryanair - 14 weekly
EZY - 12 weekly (Until 16th July)

Malaga:

Ryanair - 15 weekly
EZY - 9 weekly

Palma:

Ryanair - 11 weekly
EZY - 11 weekly
Thomson - 3 weekly
Thomas Cook - 1 weekly
Iberworld - 1 weekly (For Thomas Cook)

Tenerife:

Ryanair - 7 weekly
Thomson - 2 weekly
Thomas Cook - 2 weekly

Easyjet are the largest airline on a number of the routes from Gatwick but they have a lot of competition, so they probably only account for around 1/3 or less of the flights/passengers on each route. With Ryanair at Stansted that percentage is generally nearer to 1/2 or 2/3. I could see Jet 2 at Stansted though, the bigger question being, would they risk entering the London market especially being less known further south and having to compete with a much larger scale of MOL's army than anywhere up north?!

Barling Magna

31st Dec 2012, 11:53

I can't see Jet2 entering into the London market. If they did, I don't think they would choose Stansted because they wouldn't want to compete with Ryanair. They would be better advised to choose Luton or Southend, in my opinion. But it's unlikely to happen.

LGS6753

31st Dec 2012, 16:07

FR at STN

Perhaps I should explain why STN is in the wrong place, as you seem blinded by the intensity of your own support for the place.

STN has a poor rail connection with central London, in comparison with Gatwick, Heathrow, City and Luton. There are fewer trains, and the journey takes longer. I don't think the average passenger considers the shuttles at LTN and LGW in their calculations. There is only one intermediate station, and there are no trains to other destinations other than a slow, hourly service to Birmingham (that takes over 3 hours).
Gatwick has frequent and fast trains to London, the south coast and Bedford, as well as links through Guildford to Reading. Luton has frequent trains to London (24 mins), Brighton, Bedford, and the East Midlands cities all with intermediate stops. Heathrow and City have the best links to London.

STN is on the M11, a congested motorway that links London with Cambridge and nowhere else. It only joins one other motorway, and that's the M25. Southend is similarly poorly connected by road. Heathrow is very close to the M4, M25 M40 and M3. Gatwick is less well linked to the motorway system, but Luton is close to the M1, M40 and M25. It's as close the A1(M) as STN.

The most important measure, and that used by planners, is the 1- and 2-hour road travel catchment areas. By this important measure, LHR has the largest 1 and 2 hour catchment population, and Luton is second. Due to its position in sparsely-populated east anglia, STN ranks poorly.

Where SEN scores is shorter flight times for most destinations, less congested airspace, quicker taxying times, and an uncongested terminal. It is also hugely cheaper for airlines than STN. I suspect that its catchment area is larger than STN, but have not been able to confirm this.

In the light of these well-researched facts and conclusively-argued case, I reiterate my point:

It's current role, and the only one it will have in the foreseeable future is to take the London area traffic that can't be accommodated at other, better-connected and better-situated London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, City and even Southend).

FRatSTN

31st Dec 2012, 18:59

If the "average passenger" as you put it doesn't consider the shuttle times to/from the rail stations then I really don't think they would consider the aircraft taxiing times at Southend! In fact I think you will find that Heathrow is going to be worst in that case as it takes a heck of a lot longer to get out of the place. Gatwick's rail times may be 10 or so minutes faster than those from Stansted but you could easily save 10 minutes if you want to go to anywhere to the east London by an underground connection as the train takes you to Liverpool Street smack bang in the centre and a stones throw from Bank station with the gratest range of Underground lines. Instead, Gatwick goes to Victoria which is further west. Great if you want Westminster, Embankment and the rest of the typical stuff, but not so great with more central and eastern areas. I'm not saying that Stansted has better rail connections, it depends on the situation to some extent, but I agree that they need improvement, but they are not going to prevent the airport from growing in their current form.

As for Luton, their rail services are only a few minutes shorter most of the time with the exception of the very fast East Midlands Trains service which only runs once an hour. Furthermore, Stansted has a train every 15 minutes, whereas Luton Airport Parkway can have 2 within 5 minutes and nothing for another 20 or 25. That's great in terms of proving more capacity, but it's no good for the passenger who is unfortunate enough to wait 20 minutes after spending the last 15 waiting and catching a bus from the airport in the first place. Luton is also served on a more commuter type line, Stansted has the Stansted Express direct from the airport terminal and therefore is more suited for the needs of a business traveller in most respects.

Also, your point that the M11 is such a congested motorway compared to the others, ie the M1 and M25 in particular that are renowned for their congestion problems only weakenes your argument and I say was false information and/or instead a salvaged opinion in an attempt to further strengthen your view.

nt639

31st Dec 2012, 19:33

But LTN doesn't have a railway station, it is a bus journey from the airport, unless its snows of course! & then if the airport is actually open you are then cut off at the top of a hill & have to walk to the staion as the busses can't make it up the hill!:D

LTNman

31st Dec 2012, 19:42

And nor does Gatwick's North terminal have a station but that does not seem to do it any harm.

I seem to remember having to catch some sort of train to get from the piers to the terminal at Stansted which involved a long wait in a long queue but that was in the days when Stansted was popular.

Luton’s standard daytime rail service to and from London is 7 trains per hour.

1 non stop,
4 semi-fast (stops twice)
2 all station stopping service.

The advantage of Gatwick and Luton is the vast number of stations served directly without having to change trains or hop on the underground. I stopped counting when I got to 80 stations with various train companies that serve Luton directly.

I have no doubt that the only reason Easyjet have moved part of their Stansted operation to the inconvenience of London’s east coast airport and a rail service that runs only 18 hours a day in each direction is that savings were to be made. Time will tell if they stay there when the discounts end and no doubt Stansted’s new owners will be keen to get easyjet out of Southend.

FRatSTN

31st Dec 2012, 21:49

Stansted has satellite 1 serviced by a 2 minute monorail ride (which therefore never involves Ryanair flights) simply as a people mover as it's too far for passengers to walk. This is an issue at most airports and the majority tend to deal with it by cramming people on a shabby old bus that drives at 10 miles per hour that takes people to/from the terminal.

It's all well and good to say that Luton is served directly by rail services but at the same time, is it not more viable to catch a much more regular service to St Pancras and get to tube from there to your final destination anyway? I would imagine that it is.

Also on a final note:
HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody! Hope 2013 brings everything you want.

LTNman

31st Dec 2012, 23:30

Those 7 trains all serve St Pancras and its Underground network of the Northern line, Victoria Line, Piccadilly Line, Hammersmith & City and the Metropolitan

Some of those trains also have direct links to the District Line, Jubilee line and the Bakerloo line via stations at Blackfriars, Elephant & Castle and London Bridge.

The truth is all of Londons airports are well connected once you hit the Underground.

Musket90

3rd Jan 2013, 21:55

FRaSTN - I thought at STN the monorail/transit also served satellite 2 which does involve some Ryanair flights.

mikkie4

3rd Jan 2013, 22:18

ryanair fly domestic flights from sat 2

pamann

3rd Jan 2013, 22:38

As in Derry? As that (I think) is the only domestic route they now serve. I know that I have flown international on FR from satellite 2 at some point in the last couple of years.

canberra97

4th Jan 2013, 04:07

Muskett90

Ryanair do operate some flights out of SAT 2 with their domestics but the monorail does not serve SAT 2 as there is a direct walkway from the terminal building.

daz211

4th Jan 2013, 08:58

Sat 2 from what I remember has 2 levels an international level
And a domestic level.
The domestic level is served by a walk way to and from
The terminal building and the international level is served
By the transit system.

Tranceaddict

4th Jan 2013, 09:59

Correct, and FR use it for first wave departures, as there is not enough room on Sat 3, after first wave it is moth-balled for the day.

FRatSTN

4th Jan 2013, 14:28

In July 2011, we flew with Ryanair to Rhodes with a 07:20 departure and that went from Satellite 2, gate 80-something and we got there via the walkway from the departure lounge.

There is no seperate levels for domestic and international flights. The highest level (with the all the green tinted glass) is the DEPARTURES level and there is a level beneath it which is less visable from the outside which is beneath this and that is where the ARRIVING passengers go. Satellite 1 I beleive is the same.

Satellite 3 has no airgates which of course suits Ryanair's preferences so all arriving passengers walk off the plane via aircraft steps and walk into the arrivals area of Satellite 3 at ground level (which is what I did on the return from Rhodes).

I think that it is EasyJet who use Satellite 1 for international flights and Satellite 2 for domestic flights and where the monorail is concerned, I beleive that it serves Satellite 1 for arrivals and departures but only serves Satellite 2 for international arriving passengers since international arrivals is to the oppisite end of the main terminal building and too far to walk. That may explain why EasyJet use Satellite 2 for domestic flights as domestic arrivals is at the same end as the departure lounge, so no need for the monorail.

canberra97

5th Jan 2013, 21:30

I have taken a Ryanair flight to Carcassonne from Sat 2 before and that was a mid morning flight and I accessed the SAT 2 via the direct walkway from the Terminal

Skipness One Echo

6th Jan 2013, 09:36

Sat 2 departure gates upstair are monorail served from memory. I have the gate/stand tie up for the downstairs gates somewhere.

Captinbirdseye

9th Jan 2013, 09:20

There was a brief report on BBC Look East this morning to say that the Stansted Express Line was getting approximately 2 Billion pounds worth of funding which was announced by the Government yesterday. The funding was said to be going into the infrastructure of line to hopefully reduce Journey times to under 30 minutes.

STN Ramp Rat

9th Jan 2013, 09:59

the infrastructure is for new overhead power lines and a third track on the Stratford branch ... nothing for the liverpool street line other than a commitment to work with the lobby groups

LGS6753

9th Jan 2013, 13:13

From today's 'Telegraph':

Two main bidders for Stansted after Australasians pull out - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9789058/Two-main-bidders-for-Stansted-after-Australasians-pull-out.html)

This could be bad news for BAA, but better for STN's future if it reduces the eventual price paid. Interestingly, the requirement to make the deal 'investment grade' is £500m equity (= money) to £500m loans. This high hurdle is due to the dominance of one carrier (Ryanair with 70% of the current throughput) and the fact that STN is regulated.

FRatSTN

9th Jan 2013, 13:38

Regulating Stansted is surely a good thing overall. I know it's bad from Stansted's point of view but I don't see how it restricts growth. As Stansted is an airport for LCC's, then surely the owner wouldn't want to overcharge as it wouldn't interest LCC's.

I welcome to news, the lower Stansted is flogged for the better. It means that a new owner will have more to spend on future investments or if it prefers, allows it to reduce charges to airlines to attract more traffic that way and since MAG and the Malaysians are still committed, they clearly are not put off by regulation, suggesting that increasing charges were not their intentions. As for BAA or whatever they call themselves now, the worse it turns out for them, the better. They are a selfish, biased and a complete rip-off to their valuable customers (airlines and passengers). In my opinion, it's pay back time for them and they deserve evey single bit of bad news they get.

commit aviation

10th Jan 2013, 11:47

As I understand it, regulation means the landing price at STN is set as is the case at LHR & LGW.
If arguably Stansteds low cost competitor airports are SEN & LTN then how is regulation a good thing for STN? Part of the reason EZY have moved to SEN is precisely because SEN can undercut on price. Regulation is designed to prevent the alleged "big boys" from riding roughshod over the alleged (no offence meant LTN/SEN!) smaller airports.
New owners will almost certainly have the capacity to cut costs & other inhouse charges as LGW have done, but regulation from their point of view will curtail how much room they have for manoeuvre.

insuindi

10th Jan 2013, 12:41

Regulation doesn't at all mean a fixed price - actually more often than not it's a price cap (Among many things), which in a monopoly situation would lead to maximum price being charged, but in competition to SEN and LTN as a LCC airport and with a declining pax and airline base I wouldn't expect that.

FRatSTN

10th Jan 2013, 13:03

Regulation is a price cap not a given amount that they must charge. BAA currently charge the maximum they are allowed to and keeping the cap in place will mean that nobody can increase them further. Ryanair and EasyJet both welcomed CAA's announcement that Stansted should remain regulated for that reason as operating charges cannot go up and they hope they will decrease under new ownership, but in reality are probably more likely to stay the same.

Being regulated and currently charging at the maximum limit, increased charges cannot happen, therefore bad for Stansted as they are limited as to how much they can charge, but good for airlines as they cannot be affected by price increases so therefore will not increase their operating costs.

FRatSTN

14th Jan 2013, 10:11

Final bids for Stansted are due on Wednesday. It's possible that the preferred bidder could be appointed by the end of the week.

Final bids for Stansted airport (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2004666&c=setreg&region=2)

Throat

18th Jan 2013, 19:57

and the winner is MAG :-)

BBC News - Stansted Airport being sold to Manchester for £1.5bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21093783)

LGS6753

18th Jan 2013, 20:34

Rumours were of an enterprise value of £1bn or just over, so MAG have paid a "full price". The debt servicing costs will be higher than for BAA :eek: so I hope they know what they are doing.

I predict that there will be no price competition from STN - they can't afford it! Will the decline continue?

Bartek

18th Jan 2013, 20:35

The winner is indeed MAG ..... but will the loser be MAN? ....

MAN777

18th Jan 2013, 21:04

MAG are not stupid

Its not all about aircraft, its an airport with acres of prime development space.

Take a look at what MAG have done to EMA and Bournemouth and the £600 million Airport city to be built at MAN.

MAG will also hold the reins of the UK cargo market.

LTNman

18th Jan 2013, 21:05

Manchester Airport wins Stansted auction - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/825f95be-61b1-11e2-82cd-00144feab49a.html#axzz2ILZYcI4v)

The sale price is 15.6 times 2012 earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

ZOOKER

18th Jan 2013, 22:01

"MAG will also hold the reigns of the reins of the UK cargo market".

Shouldn't they be reported to the Competition Commission then?

davidjohnson6

18th Jan 2013, 22:18

Could I request people differentiate between a king or queen reigning over a country and a horse being guided by a rider through the reins.

MAN777

19th Jan 2013, 00:24

One of the most important business transactions of the year so far and all you can do is criticise a spelling mistake, are we here to discuss what actually matters in our industry or pick up people for bad use of our language:ugh:

By the way I have removed the "g" to make you happier:rolleyes:

aboveusonlysky

19th Jan 2013, 00:27

Re the king and queen comment......i think he is just splitting heirs.....re the business, easier to get Ryanair growing again there than maintaining easyJet's current traffic methinks

davidjohnson6

19th Jan 2013, 03:06

MAN777 - many thanks and much obliged.

One thought occurs to me, is that if MAG control both EMA and STN, is there a potential for some sort of less-than-competitive rivaly between the 2 leisure-centric airports ?
I suspect the absence of a rather hilly national park means that traditionally there has likely been some rivaly between STN and EMA.

With a more regulated STN and a less regulated EMA, but owned by the same controlling body, how would Ryanair likely react to how they schedule which routes are flown at which times ?

I know that STN and EMA serve different core markets (London versus East Midlands) but there's enough people in places like Cambridge, Peterborough and Northampton for whom both airports are viable that any overlap is significant.

Anyone have any thoughts on how much MAN and EMA effectively compete with each other in recent years ?

Helen49

19th Jan 2013, 05:56

So another UK airport returns to local authority ownership!!

STN Ramp Rat

19th Jan 2013, 07:27

So MAG is the winner and the bookiesfavourite won the race; what will this mean for Stansted?

Everyone has had time to size each other up and I am sure there have been some behind the scenes discussions betweenthe key players about what is planned. MAG has a good reputation with airportsbut they are significant differences between them. Manchester is the flagshipwith a good mix of scheduled traffic and is the second busiest charter airportin the country after Gatwick It also has a growing low cost business. EastMidlands is a primarily a cargo airport with a low cost passenger and charterprogram attached, when the runway wasclosed at EMA for resurfacing a few years ago it was done during the day toprotect the night time cargo program. Bournemouth has significant engineeringfacilities on site and it more about these than the flying program.

As has already been pointed out MAGhave a significant portion of the UK cargo market and this should not beunderestimated but I don’t see a significant increase in flights for Stansted; themain cargo flows to or from Europe operate from the continent where truckingdoes not involve a ferry or the tunnel. Thisleaves the possibility of the perishable traffic from Manston or the fewremaining cargo flights from Heathrow. DHL’s operations are focused on WestLondon and they operate the evening out bounds from Heathrow and the morningarrivals into Luton; it would take a lot of time effort and planning to refocusthe entire distribution effort to the East and all the other package operatorsare already at Stansted.

It will be interesting to see ifthey can develop the charter traffic from Stansted, it has been on a gradualdecline for a long time now; given that the main tour operators sell a year inadvance don’t expect any quick move in this area. It is possible they couldattract the likes of TUi or Thomas Cook to move their entire London program to Stanstedwith the likes of a dedicated satellite lounges dedicated parking etc etc. Thistoo is a long term project.

The scheduled service market willbe a very tough nut to crack; there are deep seated and unwritten laws on aviation in the South East; scheduledservice full service traffic goes from Heathrow and charter from Gatwick; whenthe low cost carriers came they had to find themselves a home this has provedto be Stansted and Gatwick, encouraging scheduled service traffic into Stanstedwhen it is configured for the low cost market is going to be tough.

This leaves the low cost segment;Easyjet are moving closer to the full service model and have shown no signs of wantingto expand at Stansted whilst Ryanair have stayed true to the low cost model andfocused on Stansted. MAG and Ryanair have “history”; this history is all aboutManchester never about East Midlands or Bournemouth so it remains to be seenhow Stansted will fit into this. If Manchester think they can change Stansted’splace in South East Airport’s hierarchy they may try to reduce the Ryanairdominance by raising prices and improving facilities. If they do this expect tosee histrionics from Ryanair, expect to see them pull out aircraft and cancelroutes. Based on previous history Manchester will win and Ryanair will quietlycome back. If they don’t think they canchange Stansted’s position then expect to see them chase Wizz and other Lutonoperators.

Time will tell what they have planned and I amsure there will be press releases in the next few hours and days indicating their thinking and the plans they have.

pottwiddler

19th Jan 2013, 07:34

The whole idea of the sell off was to increase competition around London, I would expect a change in the profile of STN. More business, more long haul applying pressure on LHR and reducing the need for a third runway.

FRatSTN

19th Jan 2013, 08:49

I would expect to see Ryanair and MAG building a very strong relationship. Despite the history, Manchester is now Ryanair's second largest UK airport with the third being East Midlands. The top three Ryanair bases in the UK this summer are all now MAG airports. Bournemouth is Ryanair's smallest UK base, but Ryanair account for a much greater percentage of it's passenger traffic, even more than at Stansted!

I would be surprised to see Ryanair pulling back at Stansted. BAA are already charging the limits they are allowed so I doubt we will see any significant rises in landing fees and other airline operating costs. I think for now, Ryanair will be very open to further expansion as in their eyes, the BAA ownership couldn't get much worse. I would hope that because Stansted already has very good infrastructure, a large airy terminal, lots of natural light, lots of space, a good layout, good range of hotels, car parking etc. that they recofnise it's an airport for LCC's and can afford to lower landing fees to a degree as less needs to be spent on infrastrutural improvements at Stansted.

For a time, I can see them using Manchester's profits to help Stansted get on the right track, but doubt it will last. In terms of what Stansted could, or certainly should attract are the non-based carriers at Luton (Blue Air, El Al, both of which used Stansted in the past), I would be surprised if Wizz moved as Luton is a lower cost airport, smaller and less direct Ryanair competition, the dream airport for Wizz I would imagine.

In terms of Gatwick's operators, FlyBe is the big opportunity who are currently unhappy with Gatwick's pricing structure. Stansted currently lacks domestic services and I'm sure MAG would want FlyBe at Stansted to operate some of the key domestic destinations like BHD, IOM, JER etc. Southend may also start to feel a bit of pressure if MAG can attracy EasyJet to grow again but I think that will be a much longer process.

All in all, I think the future now looks a lot brighter for Stansted.

pwalhx

19th Jan 2013, 09:46

Not quite correct helen49, partial council ownership as MAG will become partly owned by IFM to finance the deal.

Barling Magna

19th Jan 2013, 11:56

Majority local authority ownership; a 35% private capital investment. That's four UK airports for MAG now - is it time for the Competitions Commission to act...?
:)

G-APDK

19th Jan 2013, 12:02

The growth at MAN has partially been though the area being a designated as an Enterprise Zone and the investment benefits that come with it must help. Stansted has no such EZ designation.

I hope the opportunities for Stansted are grasped, with routes like Frankfurt brought back.

aboveusonlysky

19th Jan 2013, 12:12

mart901

19th Jan 2013, 12:15

The trouble with Stansted is its like one big shrine to Ryanair. That does have some advantages and it wouldn't be a good idea to bite off the hand that feeds it but the downside is masses of routes to really random places as opposed to major hubs. That said, does Stansted have to try and be a clone of somewhere else? Could it shore up its position by attracting some additional carriers, maybe Flybe, some of the european carriers too?

Fairdealfrank

19th Jan 2013, 12:28

Quote: "The whole idea of the sell off was to increase competition around London, I would expect a change in the profile of STN. More business, more long haul applying pressure on LHR and reducing the need for a third runway."

Maybe that was the plan of some politician or policy wonk who has no idea how the aviation industry operates.

The profile of STN will not change dramatically: it will remain a holiday and charter operators base, a no-frills airlines base, and an important cargo base. Indeed it's future may lie in cargo, cargo, cargo.

More long haul business at STN is so unlikely it can be discounted. Premium business is where airlines make money, and premium business is at LHR, 10-20 times as much as at other UK airports. Carriers that cannot get LHR slots will sit in the LGW "waiting room" or go outside the UK to airports with premium pax: AMS, CDG, FRA. It is as simple as that.

So, no, a change of ownership at STN does not reduce the pressure for a third rwy at LHR. It has no impact whatsoever and the urgent need for a third and fourth rwy at LHR remains.

Quote: "In terms of what Stansted could, or certainly should attract are the non-based carriers at Luton (Blue Air, El Al, both of which used Stansted in the past), I would be surprised if Wizz moved as Luton is a lower cost airport, smaller and less direct Ryanair competition, the dream airport for Wizz I would imagine."

Not LY, it is at LTN for one very good reason: proximity and good links between LTN and Hendon and its surrounding area. Other LY services are at LHR, there is no reson for LY to move to STN.

Suzeman

19th Jan 2013, 12:38

You would think the Competition Commission might be concerned re Cargo, Barling Magna...aren't EMA, STN and MAG the 1,2,3 in the UK for cargo traffic? And given the importance of airfreight to the UK eceonomy....but maybe cargo just doesn't get people excited the way passenger traffic does..

LHR is the biggest cargo airport in the UK - it handled more airfreight than all the rest of the UK airports put together. Without doing the accurate sums it is over 60%. EMA is second, STN 3rd and MAN 4th with LGW 5th using the CAA 2011 annual statistics. MAN was below 100,000 tones in 2012 not sure of the other figures.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2011Annual/Table_13_2_Freight_2001_2011.pdf

As far as the Competition Authorities getting involved, I'm sure that MAG would have checked this position with them as part of compiling the bid.

daz211

19th Jan 2013, 12:43

Ryanair is one of the Worlds biggest and fastest growing Airlines.

Why people see this as a bad thing for Stansted and its new owner is beyond me. Ryanair would make a great feeder Airline for any transatlantic flights from Stansted and this would also work the other way round as a easy route into Europe for passengers arriving from the states.

But forget long haul ! Ryanair brings millions of passengers through Stansted and forget about out of the way destinations Ryanair fly to many more main city airports than you think also they are flying to the main short haul holiday destinations.

At the end of the day Ryanair is a great Airline at doing what it does.

pwalhx

19th Jan 2013, 13:24

pwalhx

19th Jan 2013, 13:27

Majority local authority ownership; a 35% private capital investment. That's four UK airports for MAG now - is it time for the Competitions Commission to act...?

And if I am correct Heathrow, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Southampton is also four, so as the competition commission are happy with that number one would anticipate they would have no problem with the same number under MAG?

racedo

19th Jan 2013, 13:43

G-APDK The growth at MAN has partially been though the area being a designated as an Enterprise Zone and the investment benefits that come with it must help. Stansted has no such EZ designation.

Not quite true that is it, the Enterprise Zone is a recent event and the Airport City which it comprises has only just gone through planning phase.

I can see an enterprise zone developing there given the right amount of political arm twisting.

Getting BAA out of it is a great way forward and if Gatwick is anything to judge by then it will only get better.

Burnie5204

21st Jan 2013, 09:41

Of course the competition commision have no problem with MAG buying STN.

MAG has had 4 Airports for years - MAN, EMA, BOH, HUY. Recently MAG sold HUY to Eastern Airways in order to partially fund the STN bid.

But look what MAG now has.

MAN serving the north
EMA serving the Midlands
STN serving the South East
BOH serving the South West

Also to the poster that thinks EMA is all about the freight you can think again - every year the runway get closed 4 times for maintenance (though they're doing 8 is FY12/13) and they are always on nights. 2 weekends of nights in November and this year another 2 weekends of nights in March for runway maintenance and improvements.

There's only 1 operation affected by that and its not the Pax... It hits UPS, TNT, RM and DHL (i.e. all the freight operators) and doesnt touch the Pax operation. Closes after the last Pax lands, opens for the first pax to depart.

MAG is also pumping £14 million into terminal refurbishments at EMA but if they wanted to focus on Freight operations they could have easially pumped that into pouring a new ramp that UPS want and still have change.