STANSTED - 2 [Archive] - Page 9

FRatSTN

1st Mar 2013, 08:14

Sale is complete. Website has now got the MAG logo but still the old BAA design at the moment.

Sad news of course is the Ryanair cut backs although still yet to see any changes on the booking system as of yet. I hope MAG will be able to recover this last minute loss promptly.

A few bits and pieces below:

Ferrovial/Baa Hikes Stansted Fees By 6% From April 2013 In A? (http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ferrovial-baa-hikes-stansted-fees-by-6-percent-from-april-2013-in-a-parting-gift-to-manchester-airport-group-and-a-parting-slap-to-stansted-s-airlines-and-passengers)

New owner sets out Stansted’s growth plan - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2743f87a-8194-11e2-ae78-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2MEbwGGFL)

j636

1st Mar 2013, 10:55

Sad news of course is the Ryanair cut backs

Serous? There will only be a 4% cut back as they say they will cut 9% but planned to grow 5%. I bet there will be zero affect on traffic as Ryanair's bark is worse that there bite.

daz211

1st Mar 2013, 11:07

The new owners of Stansted today launched a battle of the skies as they vowed to take passengers from Heathrow and Gatwick after competing the £1.5bn purchase of the Essex airport.

They promised to take the airport, traditionally a stronghold of budget airlines, into the premier league with flights to 40 new long-haul destinations including the US, Caribbean and the Middle East.

Owners Manchester Airport Group (MAG) pledged to double annual passenger numbers 35 million, build new stands for the A380 superjumbos and spend £40m on new shops.

By 2018 they aim to boost annual passenger numbers by 5.5m to almost 23 million per year. There will be an extra 40 destinations, mainly long-haul flights to the US and the Caribbean and the Gulf. Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, Air France, KLM and Virgin are all set to fly out of Stansted which has been traditionally dominated by budget airlines Ryanair and easyJet.

Skipness One Echo

1st Mar 2013, 11:44

By 2018 they aim to boost annual passenger numbers by 5.5m to almost 23 million per year. There will be an extra 40 destinations, mainly long-haul flights to the US and the Caribbean and the Gulf. Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, Air France, KLM and Virgin are all set to fly out of Stansted which has been traditionally dominated by budget airlines Ryanair and easyJet.
Can you link to where you are getting this BS from please? This is SO far off the planet I need a source. A380s and long haul LGW can only dream of in under *five* years? Someone's been smoking something. This is a fanboys's wet dream not a serious proposition to take to market in such a timescale. The only thing missing is Concorde. If it's the (pay to read) FT link, they should know better.

Barling Magna

1st Mar 2013, 12:09

A simple Google search shows this comes from that highly reputable journal, the Evening Standard (!):
Manchester Airport Group seals Stansted airport takeover deal - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/manchester-airport-group-seals-stansted-airport-takeover-deal-8516031.html)
:)

Skipness One Echo

1st Mar 2013, 12:29

It's good manners to always quote one's sources.....
Stansted takeover: Manchester Airport Group pledge sky battle as they seal £1.5bn deal - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/stansted-takeover-manchester-airport-group-pledge-sky-battle-as-they-seal-15bn-deal-8516031.html)
From the ever excitable Charlie Cornish.
“If we get the right level of customer experience and the right product, which is the right airlines flying the right planes at the right price, we will start to move volume around London. Some will always go to Heathrow and Gatwick but if it’s a strong product we hope to take volume not just from the north but the south”
That "IF" is big enough to be seen from space. How is GIP's plan at LGW going to do exactly the same? They've lost Korean, US Airways, Hong Kong Airlines and Delta in the space of a year, yet MAG is going to do all of the above in a five year timescale. Not being funny but that is so misleading there's a case for it being blatantly dishonest, unless he actually thinks he can achieve this in which case he's an amateur and out of his depth.
Charlie Cornish - United Kingdom | LinkedIn (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/charlie-cornish/3a/a59/28b)
This bloke's background is Thames Water where we have enough leaks to refloat Belgium, his aviation background appears limited. Anyway back to A380s at Stansted :)

daz211

1st Mar 2013, 13:32

Sorry the source was from the London evening standard.
I agree it is a bit of a tall order but at least they have an aim
Something BAA were lacking :ugh:.

EI-A330-300

1st Mar 2013, 13:41

I can just see funding these plans will keep Ryanair happy at STN....but I suppose they have nowhere else to go in London so they will just have to put up with it.

compton3bravo

1st Mar 2013, 15:33

Dream on Mr Cornish (MAG CEO) - does he honestly think airlines like Emirates etc are going to fly from Stansted - you have only got to look at Gatwick where long haul only waits for slots for Heathrow - except for some Caribbean and bucket and spade services. Well it sounds good but absolutely no chance!

rutankrd

1st Mar 2013, 16:31

MAG might be the management team but those Ausi Speculators will be looking for quick results for their money one imagines.

These guys aren't know nothing amateur local councillors !

Buster the Bear

1st Mar 2013, 21:17

MAG calculates that 50 million people live within two hours’ drive of the Essex airport.

Chuckles from Whipsnade!

Stansted takeover: Manchester Airport Group pledge sky battle as they seal £1.5bn deal - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/stansted-takeover-manchester-airport-group-pledge-sky-battle-as-they-seal-15bn-deal-8516031.html)

Aero Mad

2nd Mar 2013, 09:08

BBC News - Ryanair threatens to cut Stansted Airport flights (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21631597)

Excellent news for Stansted

STN Ramp Rat

2nd Mar 2013, 09:16

there will be a lot of posturing by Ryanair in the next few months.... dont believe everything you hear.

Ryanair have no new aircraft on order so they need to think about where they put theor existing fleet to make the most money and to fulfill the commitments thay have made to airports.

avturboy

2nd Mar 2013, 13:20

As a resident of Stockport, a rate payer and therefore a part owner of MAG I am more than a bit concerned that within days of MAG's acquisition of STN their largest customer at STN makes an announcement about reduction of service.

Ryanair's overly dominant position as a customer of STN was often cited as a reason not to be interested in buying STN.

Ok we all know about the high profile posturing that Ryan's get involved in in order to exert pressure and reduce costs, but for this to happen before the ink is even dry on the MAG acquisition is a real concern for me.

I want to see MAG prosper but I'm not sure that the STN deal was a good deal, especially now that now that they are in bed with a financial aprtner who will no doubt be looking for a quick return ... at any cost.

chaps2011

2nd Mar 2013, 15:38

I think FR have reacted to BAAs last move which was a strange one and up charges days before the takeover happened.
I am also from Stockport avturboy.

Chaps

FRatSTN

2nd Mar 2013, 15:59

The Ryanair cuts are probably a fairly short term issue. Can't see MAG keeping the charges as high as they are for any length of time if they really want to grow passenger traffic.

They've built bridges with Ryanair at Manchester (not litterally otherwise FR will be straight back out again:rolleyes:), so I'm sure that they can entice Ryanair in some way or another, unless of course they want Ryanair to cut back to help get other airlines in???

wowzz

2nd Mar 2013, 20:52

The issue is that Ryanair have no-where else to go. Yes, they can cut a few movements from STN, but the only economic hub that they have in SE England is STN, and there is nowhere else with sufficient capacity where they can move to.
Like it or not, Ryanair and STN are stuck with each other - but at least STN/MAG have the possibility of attracting more customers, whereas Ryanair can posture, but cannot easily move, say 50% of their flights to another airport.

crewmeal

3rd Mar 2013, 05:26

Like it or not, Ryanair and STN are stuck with each other

You're probably right, but once the toys have been picked up, I wouldn't be surprised if FR start sniffing around Southend and are probably looking at increasing flights out of LTN to compensate.

MAG calculates that 50 million people live within two hours’ drive of the Essex airport.

Again with a UK population of 59.8 million (at the last census) then all carriers should be scrambling to operate from there :ugh:

LTNman

3rd Mar 2013, 06:29

You're probably right, but once the toys have been picked up, I wouldn't be surprised if FR start sniffing around Southend and are probably looking at increasing flights out of LTN to compensate.

Don't think Southend will ever be an option until Ryanair start to replace their fleet due to runway limitations.

Expressflight

3rd Mar 2013, 07:35

LTNman

You are absolutely right, there is no possibility of FR operating from SEN's runway. I for one am very pleased that this is the case.

yeo valley

3rd Mar 2013, 08:17

well it sure cuts down where he can go. thats if they want to put pressure on stn. as was said sen would be better off without them.

mikkie4

3rd Mar 2013, 21:50

The last thing we want at SEN is MOL and his rotton airline!!!

LTNman

4th Mar 2013, 04:50

There is some spare capacity at Luton to take based aircraft and no issues with non based aircraft outside the 2 hour morning peak but Luton has never gone beyond 4 Ryanair based aircraft as Luton and Ryanair have never been able to agree terms.

There is not even a hint that this is going to change so Ryanair will have to put up with Stansted.

Dannyboy39

4th Mar 2013, 06:17

FAO mikkie4:

I'm sure Stobart and the other airport bosses share your views - NOT! You'd be crazy to turn an airline like Ryanair down; they bring millions of passengers through airport doors that you wouldn't have expected in the past. Look at the "outpost" airports in Europe. They rely on Ryanair. Its better to have one hub airline pulling the strings rather than no airline.

Expressflight

4th Mar 2013, 07:47

Dannyboy39

You are quite wrong in that assumption as far as SEN is concerned.

You have to remember that SEN is capped at 2 mppa so isn't chasing volume in quite the same way as other airports.

cumbrianboy

4th Mar 2013, 07:48

Crazy to turn Ryanair down? I really don't think so. Yes they bring passengers, but to the small regional airports it's usually at a cost and often a cost that the airport is just not able to recover ....

FRatSTN

4th Mar 2013, 16:12

Couple of links here with some short video clips from Matthew Hudson and Simon Caldar from ITV Anglia news about Stansted new ownership:

Promise of new investment at Stansted airport | Anglia - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2013-03-01/promise-of-new-investment-at-stansted-airport/)

Stansted now 'unshackled as Heathrow's poor relation' | Anglia - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2013-03-01/stansted-now-unshackled-as-heathrows-poor-relation/)

Some interesting objectives it would seem...

Buster the Bear

4th Mar 2013, 19:51

Various commentators in the past have suggested that without airport subsidies, Ryanair would not make a profit.

racedo

4th Mar 2013, 20:22

Various commentators in the past have suggested that without airport subsidies, Ryanair would not make a profit.

Really

Please do list them.

SWBKCB

4th Mar 2013, 20:38

According to Wiki, RYR have over 300 a/c and in 2010 had a turnover of €3,013 million, with a profit of €339 million. All from airport subsidies?

Various commentators in the past have suggested that Bears should steer clear of green-eyed monsters....

Suzeman

4th Mar 2013, 21:46

Again with a UK population of 59.8 million (at the last census)

63.2 million according to ONS
Population (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population)

Skipness One Echo

4th Mar 2013, 21:47

Various commentators in the past have suggested that without airport subsidies, Ryanair would not make a profit.
Ryanair take people to where they wish to got to at an affordable price. Making money from the aerodrome is the responsibility of the airfield operator. It is that simple. Some can do well with FR, some couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag, those, not doing so well.

It's business, and it meets local government(!)

pabely

4th Mar 2013, 23:56

racedo, just google 'Ryanair subsidies', you will find hundreds of articles which show 'local' european airports give their public money away to attract Ryanair. It's great for thier local ecomonies but that is the way things work, or don't work in europe.

LTNman

5th Mar 2013, 04:54

A subsidy could be seen as a backhander, bribe or even blackmail in some eyes.

racedo

5th Mar 2013, 20:08

A subsidy could be seen as a backhander, bribe or even blackmail in some eyes.

So would you say the Govt and Local Authority subsidy in investing in infrastructure around Luton Airport is a bribe ?

FRatSTN

17th Mar 2013, 21:34

It's gone awfully quiet regarding Stansted for the last couple of weeks, but you know what they say, no news is good news. My assumption is that MAG must be very busy talking to a number of airlines.

One thing that I will point out is that FR's cuts don't seem to be taking affect until 1st July. I'm sure they said April initially but that might be my mistake.

LTNman

18th Mar 2013, 05:42

So would you say the Govt and Local Authority subsidy in investing in infrastructure around Luton Airport is a bribe ?

The investment directly benefits the whole local area and population by keeping the traffic moving and is no different than any other town.

My assumption is that MAG must be very busy talking to a number of airlines.

Can't see airlines queuing up to move out of Gatwick, Heathrow or Luton.

Bagso

18th Mar 2013, 18:57

quite how MAG target their resources will be interesting !

The US looks a non starter so growth can only be toward Asia.

By way of example with all Emirates flights full there are strong rumours of a 4th daily pax flight and dedicated cargo service at Manchester, would they seriously try scupper that and lure these flights to STN ?

Where would that leave the new MAN CEO ?

FRatSTN

28th Mar 2013, 10:14

It is sad that I once remember not too long ago the 13 or 14 EasyJet aircraft at Stansted with routes to Alicante, Barcelona, Faro, Fuerteventura, Madeira, Tallinn and Geneva operating all-year not to mention up to 3 daily flights to Copenhagen, 2 to Munich, 4 to Amsterdam with Glasgow and Edinburgh up to 6 flights a day and up to 3 flights in the summer to Alicante, Faro, Malaga and Palma.

Now there's a much smaller choice of routes, a base half the size of Luton when it was once nearly on par and now has really poor timings and frequencies on many of the remaining routes. For example, for Malaga I now either have to be at check-in at 4am or passport control at 1am. There was once a midday flight leaving 12:30ish, perfect! What a classic way of throwing customers away! Looking at their winter 2013/14 schedule, there better be some big expansion plans in consideration to make the Stansted netwrok half descent!

Yes they recently opened new routes to Marrakech, Sharm El Sheikh and Sofia, but these are clearly an attempt to utilise aircraft for a longer period so it looks to consumers that they are expanding and introducing more routes when in fact they are replacing effectively two or three shorter flights with one much longer one, reducing the number of a/c movements and more importantly, passengers numbers and choice for consumers. A clever way of doing business some would say, but I for one feel a sly move like this insults the intelligence of those who have some knowledge about the industry and really makes me wonder what kind of customers they are trying to attract.

The best of it is that the CEO Ms McCall categorically said that Stansted would lose 3 aircraft in summer 2012 as a result of the new base in Southend, but more efficient use of the fleet would mean capacity would not necessarily be lost at Stansted. A bare faced lie of course as only 2 years after, not only 3 but 5 or 6 aircraft have been removed! Essex overall is actually worse off than it was before!

The main problem is that I don’t think enough people are aware of the volume of EasyJet traffic that has been removed from Stansted. If a 4 a/c base at Southend really damages Stansted to the extent of close to 20 fewer departures per day in the summer of 2013 compared to summer 2011 and the loss of 5 or 6 aircraft, they really have got themselves a serious problem. Either that or the CEO intentionally lied to its customers!

Of course we can’t realistically expect EasyJet to publicise a big cut back in Stansted (although of course Ryanair does) but the fact that EasyJet don’t have the decency to even give reasons for possible Stansted cut backs and most atrociously lie by saying there won’t be any really is a disgusting way of doing business. Not telling is different from lying. I for one never appreciate a company that lies. I just hope for their sake that they don’t continue to fool their customers and risk losing their trust and their custom once and for all in a forever shrinking catchment area they have!!!

All-The-Nines

28th Mar 2013, 10:49

FRatSTN, you've made it quite clear in the past that you have a steadfast loyalty to Ryanair and an issue with easyJet, so maybe you should leave it there?

Do easyJet operate Public Service Obligation routes from Stansted? No. Are you an easyJet shareholder? I doubt it.

Therefore, moan as much as you like, but I honestly don't know what you expect to achieve. How about all of the times Ryanair have opened bases, thrown a fit at the airport authorities over high charges, and then left a load of passengers in the lurch? I'm thinking Belfast City as one good example. Just because Ryanair have been loyal to Stansted for a long time, and Stansted happens to be your preferred airport, does not mean that they haven't lied to and shafted people at many other airports across Europe in their time.

You may feel that easyJet have let us down at Stansted, but the last time I checked they were a private company in the business to make a profit. The last time I checked, they also made it in to the FTSE 100, and so they are quite clearly doing something right and keeping lots of passengers + shareholders happy. Unfortunately it seems that their future business plans do not involve Stansted as much as we'd like to, but running an airline is an ever evolving strategy and involves years and years of meetings/negotiations/forecasts/agreements between hundreds of different parties that me and you will never know about.

It's just one of those things - we should be pleased that easyJet are quite clearly doing very well in these difficult times and after all is said and done, move on and get over it.

FRatSTN

28th Mar 2013, 13:53

FRatSTN, you've made it quite clear in the past that you have a steadfast loyalty to Ryanair and an issue with easyJet, so maybe you should leave it there?

Whether or not I like EasyJet is a irrelavent, but FYI I don't dislike EasyJet, I just prefer Ryanair. The "issue" I have with EasyJet is their continued reduction at Stansted.

How about all of the times Ryanair have opened bases, thrown a fit at the airport authorities over high charges, and then left a load of passengers in the lurch? I'm thinking Belfast City as one good example.

A case like every other where it hits the headlines, even the BBC, and people know about it. Why are EasyJet so affriad to do the same here? Perhaps because this actually has nothing to do with profit and Stansted fees being too high, if that were the case then EasyJet would have cut right back in 2007 when BAA doubled the landing fees but instead it continued to grow. I doubt they would have waited four years before deciding that Stansted's fees were really hitting profits.

Just because Ryanair have been loyal to Stansted for a long time, and Stansted happens to be your preferred airport, does not mean that they haven't lied to and shafted people at many other airports across Europe in their time.

Far from it! Ryanair have cut back at Stansted aswell, albeit to a smaller degree. Did you not hear about the 9% reduction in traffic this summer? Of course you did, because Ryanair publicise it! I can't see how stating how many passengers will be lost and informing passengers which routes will be axed/reduced at what time and offering full refunds or an altenative FR route is lying and shafting people??

The EasyJet way of "we're not neccessarily going to cut back" followed by a 40% reduction in 2 years and leaving people questioned as to whether a route has been axed or just not yet put on sale is a far cry from truthfullness and customer good will. If that is not lying and shafting people then I really don't know what is. It seems to be there's one rule for Ryanair yet another for EasyJet!

You may feel that easyJet have let us down at Stansted, but the last time I checked they were a private company in the business to make a profit.

The primary aim is to make a profit of course, but it is also to build and good reputation and provide a service that people want to use again. Axing popular routes from a major UK airport shows them clearly failing to see this. In some respects, you are probably right... perhaps they are pushing so hard for profit, hence why they are doing well financially, but the number of existing customers they will be losing as a result will in time damage their reputation to those in the Stansted catchment. They are pratically giving customers away to Ryanair. That's unquestionable!

Fairdealfrank

28th Mar 2013, 18:38

It's fairly obvious what's happened, U2 is dominant at LTN and LGW, FR has a relatively small operation at these airports. FR dominates at STN and U2 is progressively running down its operation there.

U2 is at SEN and FR isn't, so there's another reason to reduce its presence at STN. Neither is at LCY and LHR.

The alternative would be go head-to-head at three London airports and see who blinks first! What's the point?

LTNman

28th Mar 2013, 19:19

Whether or not I like EasyJet is a irrelavent, but FYI I don't dislike EasyJet, I just prefer Ryanair. The "issue" I have with EasyJet is their continued reduction at Stansted.

Stansted has been in decline for years. Easyjet has only played a very small part in that decline. I think they only came to Stansted in the first place when they bought Go so maybe their heart has never been in the place.

Maybe Ryanair get bigger discounts than easyjet and easyjet has had enough?

STN Ramp Rat

28th Mar 2013, 20:21

I think they only came to Stansted in the first place when they bought Go so
maybe their heart has never been in the place

you are correct, If I recall they held an auction with Luton and Stansted Airports to see which would stump up the most cash to have the airline based at their airport. Luton came up with more cash and never looked back.

STN Ramp Rat

28th Mar 2013, 20:56

Stansted: Free Wi-Fi from 1st April - that (http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/free-wi_fi-from-1st-april-_-that%E2%80%99s-no-april-fool)

FRatSTN

28th Mar 2013, 22:06

I still don't buy the fact that the strong FR presence, EZY's strong presence in LGW and LTN and the opening of the SEN base or the fact that EZY are only at Stansted because of taking over Go has resulted in a sudden sharp reduction of traffic in just 2 years, after years of EasyJet increases until 2011, 8 years after Go!

As it stands, I'm still fuming with the management of EasyJet, once a realistic alternative for many many thousands of us to Ryanair, Jet2 or Monarch. They throw all those years of success building such a strong network in a major UK airport with a wide customer base in the bin to maximise success from Southend, a small local airport that will never attract a high volume of passengers from long distances and inbound visitors travelling onwards to London.

Im sure of it, one day EasyJet will regret this if this trend continues when they realise they've lost out to the competition as Stansted WILL return to growth in the future, potentially without them being part of it!

We can only hope that MAG will make a difference in the near future and hope that they can see just how outrageous their operation at Stansted has become! Perhaps BAA deliberately enticed them to leave as the new they had to sell soon and didn't want to help the competition??? We will have to just keep our fingers crossed. EasyJet can at the moment easily put back what they've removed, but to simply say easyJet's heart isn't in Stansted is very wrong!

LTNman

28th Mar 2013, 23:46

Easyjet were once a strong player at East Midlands and pulled the plug so the writing could well be on the wall for Stansted.

I have to say I am somewhat surprised with Southend's appeal over Stansted. Easyjet can only operate 18 hours a day with 3 aircraft and 17.5 hours a day with all other aircraft based at Southend due to night restrictions. Southend has no public transport links for the first departures and last arrivals of the day which is affecting passenger numbers and Southend’s catchment area is even worse than Stansted. When trains are available the travel time to Liverpool St is even longer so Easyjet must have an exceptional deal at Southend to make it worth while.

Expressflight

29th Mar 2013, 08:32

LTNman

I agree with almost all that you have just said regarding SEN, although I don't think that the slightly longer train travel time to SEN is likely to deter anyone.

What has surprised me is the large number of leisure travellers using SEN from outside of its natural catchment. I personally know of three parties from North Norfolk who have done so, the most recent having mentioned it just this week. They said they found SEN "a wonderful experience compared to Stansted" (her exact words to my wife) and liked the fact that all the facilities there were run by one entity (not completely accurate but that was their perception). From their home to SEN is a 2hr 50min drive, 40min longer than to STN, yet they still prefer it.

Perhaps easyJet are finding this is a common occurence as they have that data available, so perhaps that partly explains their continued love affair with SEN. I don't doubt they got an extremely good deal from Stobarts, but that is only any good to them if they can achieve good yields over time.

FRatSTN

29th Mar 2013, 09:08

This is the issue with Southend. It still has that "new" factor to a lot of passengers and when that wares off in a few years, people will naturally go back to the most convenient option, which for many as both Expressflight and LTNman have somewhat agreed to, is Stansted.

It's a bit like our village. For years it had a Co-op only. Think of that as the Stansted, the more expensive but easier, slightly more central location in the village. Eventually an Aldi opens a 1/4 of a mile down the road. Think of that as the Southend, the cheaper and quieter option but slightly more diffucult to get to. When Aldi opens, the Co-op loses a lot of its customers for several weeks/months but customers do and have returned for the convenience, even if they prefer the Aldi. I think it's exactly the same principal here but just on a much larger scale, and that transfer of passengers back to their original (Stansted) will take several years as opposed to months. Of course for some, Southend is more convenient and a number of people will continue to use it into the much longer term future.

That's why I think in time, EasyJet may well regret ever cutting back at Stansted. The only explanation to them axing such popular routes from Stansted like Alicante, Barcelona and Faro is because they want to limit the competition and maximise the potential of those routes that now go from Southend. I don't think they suddenly became unprofitable after around a decade of flying.

Already the Belfast route has been drecreased to a once daily flight from Southend, clearly they aren't getting the response they wanted from business travellers, and if ALC, BCN and FAO were still at Stansted, I think EasyJet will not be performing half as well as they do at Southend. I think the cuts are purely to maximise the potential of Southend by limiting the competition from the bigger and more powerfull Stansted.

Barling Magna

29th Mar 2013, 10:51

Southend’s catchment area is even worse than Stansted.

I presume you mean because Southend has only a 180 degree catchment due to the Thames Estuary to the south? If that is the case that's too simplistic. Stansted is in the middle of some lovely Essex/Suffolk/Hertfordshire countryside where few people live. Southend's urban area stretches west to Basildon, east to Shoebury and north towards Woodham Ferrers and contains over 600,000 people. So there's a viable local catchment. Add to that Thurrock and Brentwood districts and you get another quarter of a million. Then there's Chelmsford district with its 175,000 people. And there's always eastern London, of course. Stansted's immediate catchment is far smaller. The extensive district councils of Uttlesford and Braintree, which include Stansted, amount to less than 240,000 between them. The even larger district council of East Hertfordshire can muster only 140,000.

I too have been surprised by the distances people travel to get to SEN. It's understandable that East Enders should choose SEN since Southend has always been seen as East End on Sea, but for people from Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk to travel to SEN seems slightly bizarre, yet I've met examples from all three in my infrequent visits to the airport. I still think SEN's biggest appeal will be for inward travellers from Europe once the word gets around.....

FRatSTN

29th Mar 2013, 12:38

But a lot of areas in the local area you describe are similar distance from both Southend and Stansted. Lets take a look. This is the journey times by road according to Google Earth:

LONDON
SEN: 41.7 mi, 1hr 4 mins
STN: 37.5 mi, 51 mins

BASILDON
SEN: 11.9 mi, 23 mins
STN: 38.9 mi, 46 mins

BRAINTREE
SEN: 34.3 mi, 55 mins
STN: 18.8 mi, 25 mins

BRENTWOOD
SEN: 19.9 mi, 32 mins
STN: 28.2 mi, 33 mins

CANARY WHARF
SEN: 37.8 mi, 54 mins
STN: 35.6 mi, 43 mins

CHELMSFORD
SEN: 19.8 mi, 30 mins
STN: 18.9 mi, 34 mins

COLCHESTER
SEN: 40.8 mi, 51 mins
STN: 32.6 mi, 45 mins

DARTFORD
SEN: 28.7 mi, 44 mins
STN: 39.9 mi, 45 mins

GILLINGHAM (South of Thames Estuary!)
SEN: 45.3 mi, 1 hr 1 min
STN: 56.5 mi, 1 hr 3 mins

HARLOW
SEN: 38.1 mi, 53 mins
STN: 16.6 mi, 24 mins

ROMFORD
SEN: 25.8 mi, 39 mins
STN: 30.5 mi, 37 mins

This is just the local area, going further afield...

CAMBRIDGE
SEN: 72.3 mi, 1 hr 24 mins
STN: 32.3 mi, 40 mins

IPSWICH
SEN: 56.8 mi, 1 hr 8 mins
STN: 48.6 mi, 1 hr 2 mins

KETTERING
SEN: 112 mi, 1 hr 59 mins
STN: 70.9 mi, 1 hr 15 mins

PETERBOROUGH
SEN: 108 mi, 1 hr 54 mins
STN: 66.8 mi, 1 hr 9 mins

NORWICH
SEN: 99.2 mi, 2 hrs 9 mins
STN: 84.3 mi, 1 hr 39 mins

Note also that Cambridge and Peterborough serve Stansted with direct rail links and although some places like Stevenage, Luton, Northampton etc. are closer to Luton Airport, they still come into the Stansted catchment area and a lot further to Southend.

All in all, I think it's fair to say that Southend's catchment area is signficantly smaller than Stansted's. Yes some of the locations are a bit of a distance from Stansted, but for somewhere like Peterbrough for instance, Stansted would be the first choice of airport in terms of distance, despite being not far off 70 miles away.

So I keep my view. EasyJet are shrinking the size of their catchment area by moving traffic to Southend from Stansted, as for most major places outside of Essex and East London, it's significantly further in distance and longer in travelling times to get to Southend Airport. Effectively, EasyJet are losing all those customers in these areas as most will switch to Ryanair services from Stansted, not EasyJet from Luton or especially Southend.

Barling Magna

29th Mar 2013, 12:56

Yes, I'm just making the point that SEN has a viable catchment of its own within a short distance (600,000 from Basildon eastwards). SEN won't climb above 2 million maximum. Surely other operators would move into STN if EZY were to pull out? Maybe it really is simply a desire to get away from Ryanair on EZY's part....?

GAZMO

29th Mar 2013, 13:11

I can see the benefits of both SEN and STN

BFS to SEN has not worked due to the difficulty of getting tomSEN for the 7.15 flight therefore poor LF. The daily flight is geared to suit the BFS pax, morning departure on Mon and Tues with late evening returns on Wed , Thurs and Fri etc

STN is still very popular with the NI pax, and I recently flew BFS to STN and the flight was full both ways.

SEN /BFS can only work double daily if aircraft is BFS based and maybe operated as a through flight to European destination (now that would be something for EZY to consider)

Both airports are good but I feel EZY should be looking at connections as well, recently flew back LYN, STN to BFS. Don't think SEN has that many.

Many pax use FR as they have good connections at STN, EZY should be looking at the same. Not all of us live in London, Birmingham or other large populated areas and have to use London for connections

FRatSTN

29th Mar 2013, 13:44

Surely other operators would move into STN if EZY were to pull out?

EasyJet I don't think will ever pull out of Stansted entirely since as said before, Southend doesn't have the room for all its capacity.

The whole thing still doesn't make sense to me. I can't think honestly what is going through easyJet's mind with everything taken into account. Like I say, the only explanation that makes any sense is that easyjet have axed the popular med routes from Stansted in order to maximise their success at Southend. This Leaves the dangerous threat of another carrier like Jet2 or Monarch for instance filling in Easyet's space at Stansted as MAG said they will be talking to them about a possible base at the airport. And like you say, EasyJet cut backs will encourage this.

For consumers, especially in Essex, it would be good to see this since they would be served by a greater variety of airlines, but on EasyJet's part, they will be trampled on all over at Southend by the competition Stansted would build up and easyJet would have given a huge volume of it's customers away to it's rivals. Stansted won't decline forever, perhaps the new ownership should be a wake up call to get into MAG's good books before it's too late!!!

STN Ramp Rat

29th Mar 2013, 13:53

Easyjet have their own issues, their argument with Stelios who has restricted their growth as they can’t get board approval for new aircraft. Asa result of this they have to get the best yield on their current fleet. If thedeal at SEN gives a better yield than STN they will take aircraft there. They cantreplace the units at Stansted because they don’t have any more units. The goodnews is they are still “UK Eastern region” units and the capacity in the area is not lost.

There have been a number of posts aboutcatchment areas, I have frequently flown back to Stansted and been sat next topeople from as far away as Manchester and Sheffield. Catchment area is onepiece of the puzzle but people will drive a long way for a cheap ticket.........

gilesdavies

29th Mar 2013, 14:13

KETTERING
SEN: 112 mi, 1 hr 59 mins
STN: 70.9 mi, 1 hr 15 mins

Note also that Cambridge and Peterborough serve Stansted with direct rail links and although some places like Stevenage, Luton, Northampton etc. are closer to Luton Airport, they still come into the Stansted catchment area and a lot further to Southend.

I was really surprised and interested by your comments about Northamptonshire coming under the Stansted catchment area...

While it might be one of the airports target markets, I'd be extremely surprised how successful it is attracting people to the airport from this far away, unless you are one of the bargain travellers flying on a £10 Ryanair flight.

Getting to Stansted from Northants is fully reliant on the A14/M11 to get the airport. While in theory that means traveling on nice open dual carriage ways and motorways. The A14 is so unpredictable (especially around the Huntingdon and Cambridge area, and seems to be horrendous accidents, delays and tailbacks on this road several times a week and just makes travelling for a flight so unpredictable!

Stansted is practically ruled out for getting to via public transport, unless you are willing to make several connections.

Nearly everyone I know, including myself in the county considers Luton as our nearest and most convenient airport, followed by Birmingham. Simply because of the connections via the M1... I very rarely hear people saying they are flying from STN.

Public transport wise, Northampton has trains departing for Birmingham every 15 mins. Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby have direct half hourly intercity trains to Luton Airport Parkway which only takes 25 mins. BUT like Southend, early morning connections and late night arrivals are an issue, however both airports do have good connections with National Express to the county overnight.

I would even go as far to say Heathrow and Gatwick attract more traffic than Stansted from Northants with the better National Express links. Also just by changing platforms at Luton or Bedford, it is possible to get FCC trains to Gatwick.

As we are sort of up in the Midlands, Manchester Airport is a similar distance as Southend, of about 120 miles away!

FRatSTN

29th Mar 2013, 14:47

Well even in Leicester, we have a lot of people who have and do use Stansted. A6, A14 and M11 and you're there.

The A14 has a bad reputation due to a high level of lorries using it going to and from the port at Felixstowe. I've used it many times and only had traffic problems once, and that was back in 2005. Unfortuneately, the same can't be said for the M1, especially round the Luton J9 and 10 area. Although recently improved vastly, congestion still occurs.

If a number of people in Leicester go to Stansted when we have East Midlands (FR's 2nd or 3rd largest UK base), Birmingham and Luton closer, I'm sure those from Northampton will also use or at least consider Stansted.

LTNman

29th Mar 2013, 17:17

STN Ramp Rat wrote

Catchment area is onepiece of the puzzle but people will drive a long way for a cheap ticket.........

I think there is alot of truth in that statement. There was a story in the local rag this week of a couple who live in Wales and missed their easyjet flight after getting stuck in a hotel lift at Luton for 90 minutes.

LGS6753

29th Mar 2013, 17:46

This debate all comes back to the fact that STN is in the wrong place, as I have said on this forum frequently:)

It serves few nearby towns of note (there is Harlow, but Bishops Stortford & Dunmow are small market towns), whereas SEN serves Southend itself, Leigh/Basildon/Rayleigh, Canvey Island, Billericay, Grays & Brentwood. Luton is in close proximity to Luton/Dunstable, Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harpenden & St Albans.

The debate about rail access is a bit of a side-show too. Most travellers (over 50% in all cases) arrive by car. SEN scores by having parking close to the terminal, whereas at STN, long stay parking is at a significant distance from the terminal, and expensive. That makes a real difference to travellers, and those in the know will choose airports with cheap parking close to the terminal.

EZY are quite correctly acting in the interests of their shareholders, and if they can operate with similar yields from an airport with significantly lower costs, less ground and airspace congestion and good access to 'airways', they are right to do so.

FRatSTN

29th Mar 2013, 18:16

This debate all comes back to the fact that STN is in the wrong place, as I have said on this forum frequently

And don't we all know it, and how much pride you take in that obsessed belief of yours, with your little smiley.

Well unless Stansted has suddenly moved it's location in the last 2 years I really don't think it "comes back to the fact that STN is in the wrong place".

You're ignorance of other posts and past presence by the airline at Stansted is yet again quite frankly making you look stupid. I know people like you, they ignore the information they don't want to hear and just pick out the points that are on your side.

If all you can seriously blame this EasyJet situation on Stansted being in the "wrong place" then you need to analyse this situation much more deeply before you post. As is happens it appears EasyJet seem to be dissapointingly low at Luton as well as it stands. Perhaps that's not quite so well located after all???

Dannyboy39

29th Mar 2013, 18:46

... capacity is severely constrained at Luton, hence the Council can charge high operating fees (supply and demand). easyJet as been fairly open of late by saying they'd be happy to base more aircraft if there was space available. Luton can only really increase passenger numbers from airlines that base their aircraft abroad.

However, I believe 10-15 new stands will soon be in full time use for passenger services.

LTNman

29th Mar 2013, 20:23

Yes but no new terminal capacity for at least 2 or 3 years

Fairdealfrank

30th Mar 2013, 15:06

It's not necesarily and only about catchment areas, SEN has a unique selling point as a small airport that's easy to get through with minimal hassle, a bit like LCY. That can be a big attraction for many. As mentioned above, SEN will not go above 2,000,000 pax/year, so will always have this advantage over STN.

Suspect that if NHT was up and running as a small regional airport, there would be those who would prefer it to LHR (even if it was further) for exactly the same reasons.

As for catchment areas, those of STN, LTN, LGW and LHR all overlap. If U2 lose East Anglia based pax by reducing their STN operations, it could be repaced by pax from the south coast (LGW) or from parts of the Midlands (LTN).

Many pax could probably go to all three of U2's large "London" bases, so if one is run down, it is not the end of the world. Doubtless U2 have sound commercial reasons for its decision.

LTNman

30th Mar 2013, 15:45

So SEN reaches 2 million passengers. That's less than 2% of London traffic, big deal.

LGS6753

30th Mar 2013, 19:24

FRatSTN -

And don't we all know it, and how much pride you take in that obsessed belief of yours, with your little smiley.

Gotcha!

STN Ramp Rat

31st Mar 2013, 09:31

The first new passenger service since the takeover .... from the Air Moldova website

28 March 2013

Starting with April 29th Air Moldova airline will operate scheduled flights Chisinau-London-Chisinau to the airport London Stansted (http://www.stanstedairport.com/). Flights to London will be operated on comfortable aircraft Embraer-190, twice a week, every Monday and Friday, according to the following schedule:

Departure from Chisinau (local time)Arrival to London (local time)Departure from London (local time)Arrival to Chisinau (local time)17:5018:5019:3000:30+1
Therefore, the flight schedule is suitable for business trips (Monday-Friday) and for the weekend trips (Friday-Monday).
One way tickets start from 159 EUR with all taxes included.
Air Moldova operates direct flights to 20 cities across Europe, offering two classes of service - Business and Economy.

nt639

31st Mar 2013, 10:00

Waiting for the "should of gone to Luton"' from LGS & the Lutonites:E

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 10:16

nt639 - just beat me to it, well said!

Falcon666

31st Mar 2013, 10:18

Guys get real,
Should have gone to SEN

davidjohnson6

31st Mar 2013, 11:44

The Luton gang still have a route to Bacau in Romania which, if it weren't for the lousy roads, would be only about 2 hrs drive from Chisinau.

Are higher airport charges the reason why the airline is switching away from Gatwick, or is there some other cause ?

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 11:51

The new owners of Stansted have probably offered them a better deal perhaps? It's the first time in many years that an airline has moved from Gatwick to Stansted, there's been a lot of cases being the other way round recently. Hopefully this is the start of many.

Wouldn't be too surprised even to see Blue Air back in Stansted in a few years time. I would have thought it's purely lower costs keeping them in Luton. I can't see them being keen on Wizzair in direct competition on the LTN-OTP route twice daily. If Blue Air can settle a better deal with MAG, I'd say it's more than likely to happen. We will have to wait and see.

globetrotter79

31st Mar 2013, 15:28

For years Tarom used to serve MAN-OTP, it has been gone a while admittedly but you can't help feeling the market it served is probably still there? Since (if I remember correctly) there's no other Bucharest service from anywhere outside London then surely Blue Air should be a strong contender for an MAG "group" deal to coax them into serving both STN and MAN. There are probably a few others on the fringes of Europe a la Air Moldova who have monopoly routes into London who might be pursuaded similarly (perhaps Belavia?)

boeing_eng

31st Mar 2013, 16:40

My hunch is that the Air Moldova move from LGW is slot related. Their current service at LGW is a late evening affair and the STN times are far more sociable!

STN Ramp Rat

31st Mar 2013, 16:50

Air Moldova used to fly to Stansted when they first went to London then they transferred to Gatwick, I assume that they are coming back because of the fees at Gatwick. Adria also left Gatwick for Luton before quitting the UK altogether. the Tarom service goes back to the day when the government dictated which airport an airline would serve in London and Eastern Europe was allocated Stansted. Tarom stayed after everyone else went back to Heathrow if I recall correctly.

If its all about fees them maybe Flybe can be persuaded to move as they have taken GAL to court and lost on the Gatwick pricing policy.

j636

31st Mar 2013, 17:11

My hunch is that the Air Moldova move from LGW is slot related. Their current service at LGW is a late evening affair and the STN times are far more sociable!

As the route continues onto DUB from end of the month I don't see a major changes. Expect that there is some sort of discount operating from DUB late at night. Blue Air, Air Baltic and S7 all have late flights from DUB so there has to be some sort of positive reasons for the poor timing for passengers.

davidjohnson6

31st Mar 2013, 17:47

Moldova as a country has one of the lowest per capita GDPs in all Europe - usually indicates passengers originating in Chisinau will be price sensitive. While I went to Moldova as a tourist and enjoyed it, I do not expect there will be much inbound tourism.
An E190 has rather fewer seats compared to an A319 or B737 - making Gatwick's airport fees much more painful per passenger compared to Easyjet or Ryanair.

FRatSTN - don't hold your hopes up too much about airlines willingly switching from Gatwick to Stansted - I suspect this is simply a case of an airline being squeezed out of Gatwick by economic factors and needing to find a new airport in London

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 18:06

I don't agree. Remember there is a new owner and they are going to be making some changes, attracting more airlines is one of them! BAA never made a real effort at Stansted since the economic downturn, MAG will and are doing more so and I think a lot of the carriers that were orginally at Stansted that have gone to Gatwick and Luton (with the exception of Norwgain) could be quite realistically tempted back to Stansted if they get a price and deal that is right.

It only takes a look round Gatwick to see what new ownership has done and there's no reason really why Stansted can't do the same. Yes it may have slightly longer rail times but it has better motorway access and slightly faster links by road to Central London and Stansted has the benefit of being a modern and good quality airport which doesn't suffer from major flight delays and capacity constraints like Heathrow and Gatwick. That along with an owner who can offer competitive deals to airlines will in time attract more carriers in the future.

whitelighter

31st Mar 2013, 18:16

Work already underway on the terminal - which is badly needed. Bigger airside areas with separate check in areas aimed at premium carriers.

Dannyboy39

31st Mar 2013, 19:56

I'd be interested to see a list of airlines that have moved "around the London airport circuit" in recent years. I bet the list isn't that long.

Airlines don't up sticks for no reason. Financially, there are consequences to moving from airport to airport. I dare say its not something done on a whim. Obviously its far easier and cheaper to increase/reduce routes.

Off the top off my head...

El Al - Stansted to Luton - A big Jewish presence in North London. Far better transport links to Luton from that part of London.
Blue Air - Stansted to Luton
Air Berlin - Stansted to Gatwick to Stansted
Aer Lingus Regional - Luton to Southend?
Air Asia X - Stansted to Gatwick to Outside London

easyJet and Ryanair rotate routes on a regular basis.

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 20:29

But not all the airlines/routes that were at Stansted in the past 5 years or so have moved to another London airport. Some have simply been axed all together, some have gone bust or others have closed for other reasons outside Stansted's or any other airports control.

Aegean Airlines - moved from Stansted to Heathrow

Air Arabia Maroc - Stansted, then left London, resumed but from Gatwick

Air Berlin - Still serve one route 3x daily with Dash 8 but heavily reduced in recent years, Gatwick tried out but no longer served

Atlantic Airways (Faroe Islands) - moved from Stansted to Gatwick

Cyprus Airways - Both Stansted and Heathrow, axed Stansted, then resumed, now gone again

EasyJet - Still serve Stansted but lost aircraft post Southend base opening

Norwegian - Gradually pulled out of Stansted for Gatwick, now has base in Gatwick

Sun Country Airlines - moved from Stansted to Gatwick, now left UK

Turkish Airlines - moved from Stansted to Gatwick (also Anadolujet axed)

Transavia - axed Stansted, restarted but from Luton, moved to Gatwick, left UK altogether

WOW Air (Iceland) - moved from Stansted to Gatwick, then took over Iceland Express

Admittedly some of the above is virtually permanently lost from Stansted an virtually impossible to replace but the problem is that BAA never pushed hard enough to replace these services lost. For instance, since the BmiBaby closure (completely outside Stansted's control), Belfast-City has now become unserved, yet there is certainly a strong demand for this route. I think the uncertainty of Stansted's ownership for several years has also pushed carriers away.

Only Air Berlin, Aurigny, Germanwings and Pegasus have stayed at Stansted throughout the entire duration of Stansted's decline since 2007. You then have to ask yourself why these airlines chose not to move?

There are also a countless number of airlines out there who could potentially serve Stansted in the future. Perhaps some traffic that has never been at Stansted could be attracted, for example... Air One, FlyBe, Vueling or even some long haul eg, Emirates, PIA, United Airlines could be possible. MAG have loads of routes to go down!

boeing_eng

31st Mar 2013, 20:35

FRatSTN.....Whilst your unstinting optimism about MAG and STN is laudable, as I mentioned a few months ago it has to be the market that decides the future of STN. Routes that are unsustainable or that do not currently exist cannot suddenly be made to work from STN just because of a change of ownership.

There are many factors that contribute towards the success of any given route. In today's economic climate, many airlines are not in a position to take excessive risks just to see if a route is viable. Indeed, as your favorite orange airline have proved, carriers will simply move aircraft around to achieve the best given return for that asset.

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 20:58

It's not simply the change of ownership, although a new management will make a difference to the appeal of the airport to some airlines depending on what changes they make. The key thing though is that Stansted is now seperately owned from Heathrow and it's ownership is no longer in doubt and is stable for the forseeable future. That itself will encourage more long term commitment from more airlines. So actually, the change of ownership does make a huge difference in a variety of ways.

Aegean Airlines
Air Arabia Maroc
Atlantic Airways
Blue Air
Cyprus Airways
El Al
Norwegian
Turkish Airlines
WOW Air

These are examples of carriers that no longer serve Stansted but still serve London. None of these carriers moved airports because they couldn't get enough bums on seats at Stansted, they left because they could see better potential financially elsewhere. Others have been and gone, some of which moved around a bit before going, but that doesn't mean they won't come back. Stansted's new owners spent £1.5 billion because they clearly believe they can bring more traffic back. It's not simply the case that the market decides the future of Stansted, that could apply to any airport. It's the people within the market that decide and MAG is a big part of the market.

In today's economic climate, many airlines are not in a position to take excessive risks just to see if a route is viable. Indeed, as your favorite orange airline have proved, carriers will simply move aircraft around to achieve the best given return for that asset.

Contradicting yourself there a bit aren't you?

EI-BUD

31st Mar 2013, 21:25

FRatSTN; you provide a very comprehensive description of the various airlines that have come and gone at STN.

You mention some airlines who have not left, such as AirBerlin, GermanWings etc. I'd suggest that the airlines who can fly routes ex STN that are not head to head with FR on routes to primary airports, these will have a sporting chance of success.

STN has potential, but to what extent is FR's scale at STN a deterrent to airlines starting up services?

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 22:07

STN has potential, but to what extent is FR's scale at STN a deterrent to airlines starting up services?

I'd say it's more of an issue to the airport than to the airlines who use it, hence why MAG will push to diversify Stansted's mix of traffic, although the scale of Ryanair will certainly be a deterrent to some airlines.

The reason why it may not be so off putting to some airlines is as you say, they may not be going head to head with Ryanair. Since Ryanair often flies to smaller secondary airports and small towns and cities (some of which many would probably not even have heard of) which are soley served by Ryanair from the UK market, that will somewhat reduce the competition on the bigger European cities/airports that European carriers that could serve Stansted are likely to originate from.

There is also the same scenario with EasyJet and Gatwick although the difference is that they only account for about 35 or 40% of Gatwick's total, as opposed to Ryanair having 70% of Stansted's. Having said that, EasyJet serve the large European airport/cities of which many routes are flown by either another Gatwick based carrier eg. BA, Monarch and Thomson or a European carrier such as Vueling or Norwegian. In many cases if not the majority, there's direct competition from at least one other airline on EasyJet's Gatwick routes, unlike many of the Ryanair routes from Stansted. Take Barcelona as an example. BA, EasyJet, Monarch, Norwegian and Vueling all serve the route from Gatwick with close to 15 departures a day in the summer months, compared to 2 Ryanair departures from Stansted. I think the sheer volume of traffic on the LGW-BCN route would be more of a deterrent than going in direct competition with Ryanair on the 2x daily STN-BCN route.

Therefore I don't think it would be such a big drawback to any European or long-haul airline wanting to serve Stansted as a destination airport, especially if their home market is not served, or indirectly competes with Ryanair, which is most likely going to account for much of the future growth at Stansted anyway. It would be more of an issue for an airline like FlyBe, Jet2 or Monarch if they were to set up a base at the airport.

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 22:12

Airlines like EZY will not take huge risks in today's market

I'm sorry, but do you not consider EasyJet setting up in Southend as a risk? As successfull as it might be now, it still comes with it's risks.

I'm sure even if you asked the management of EasyJet personally, they would admit it comes with its risks. It wouldn't work if eveybody played it safe. Running a successfull company is about taking risks, that's why business is business.

LN-KGL

31st Mar 2013, 22:31

EI-BUD, I think you hit the nail with your comment about FR being a deterrent. Norwegian moved away from STN partly to distance themselves from FR (DY isn't such a low sevice airline as FR is), but there were other reasons like different socio-economic profile (10% higher share of A/B at LGW), larger base of potential passengers with UK citizenship (22 million vs. 10 million), and we may also add the differences between the two regarding public transport in to London.

gilesdavies

31st Mar 2013, 22:34

With all the talk of new owners and trying to attract new business to the airport, I was wondering on what you guys thought of the possibility of the new owners of Stansted trying to attract a major new customer like Wizzair to the airport and stealing them from Luton as the airlines London hub...

Im sure if some of the Luton Fanboys are frequenting this forum, they will be telling me to shut up and say this has been discussed by me in Luton forum, but was interested in getting a balance opinion.

Being more of an LTN fan myself, I hope they don't leave, but trying to keep the discussion balanced. It does make me wonder if MAG have an airline like Wizzair on their wish list as a potential customer they would like to attract.

With the airline having no aircraft based at Luton and only night stopping a single A320 in the summer months to cover the Spilt and Dubrovnik services, any move for the airline would be painless. While at the same time bringing around 25-30 extra flights a day to the airport and boosting passenger numbers by around 2.5 million a year.

Due to the number of flights a day and Wizzair turning the airport pink and purple between the hours of about 7.30 and 8.30 every morning with around twelve A320's on the ground, I doubt there are any other London airport other than Luton and Stansted that have the capacity to handle this at present.

Wizzair is a very price sensitive airline, and if they could be offered a financial deal, which LTN couldn't, I reckon the airline wouldn't hesitate to move if the price was right, this has been demonstrated in the past by them moving their Warsaw ops to Modlin and similarly in Bucharest and Kiev.

The only thing I can think of, that could possibly deter them is flying head to head with Ryanair on a number of routes... But Ryanair flies head to head with them out of Warsaw and Budapest on numerous routes and Wizzair seems to be holding their own and recently Ryanair announced they were cancelling a number of routes out of Budapest, while Wizz are basing another A320 their from this summer.

Be keen to know all your views...

FRatSTN

31st Mar 2013, 23:06

My view is that I would like it, being more of a STN fan myself, which I'm sure many of you will already know HOWEVER being an analyser of airline and airport routes and timtables, I see it as being a fairly unlikely move.

It goes back to the situation discussed above about Ryanair being a deterrent to some traffic. Perhaps what I should have said in in my earlier post is that any airline that wants a base OR would fly high frequency into Stansted may be put off by the large Ryanair presence. Airlines flying say 2 or 3 routes with up to only a few flights a day may not be so bothered about Ryanair, especailly if where they would serve is not served by Ryanair. (That's why I think Air Berlin, Aurigny, Germanwings and Pegasus have not moved away from Stansted because Ryanair doesn't serve their home markets, only FR's Weeze route competes indirectly with AB Dusseldorf route).

Therefore I think Wizzair would be one of those put off by Ryanair since a lot of the routes they serve, especially to Poland and the Baltic states, are already frequently operated by Ryanair from Stansted. I know Wizzair do compete directly with Ryanair across many airports in Europe, but Stansted is Ryanair's home turf.

However, since the Romanian market is unserved from Stansted and Bulgaria virtually unserved, another option may be to only move routes to those coutries, splitting services between both Luton and Stansted, like they do in Rome for example. For operational reasons however, I would find that move surprising although since they don't have a base at Luton that may make it more feasible but I'm not so sure on that, you'd need to ask somebody with a little more knowlege on operations. I aslo think Wizzair would have to give up the huge influx of traffic between 7:00 and 8:30am as slot usage at Stansted is very high already at those times. Flights would probably have to be spread out more throughout the day or in the quieter afternoon periods which may not be ideal for some passengers.

At most, I think you'd get a split between both airports with Bulgarian and Romanian routes going to Stansted and the others staying at Luton but there would probably have to be a heck of a good deal they virtually cannot turn down for them to even consider that in my view.

LTNman

1st Apr 2013, 06:20

Wizz have dipped their toe into Stansted but didn't stay long. Can't see much has changed since then.

So what are passengers reaction to the £2 drop off fee at Stansted? I hear that Luton might be about to charge the same.

STN Ramp Rat

1st Apr 2013, 06:42

So what are passengers reaction to the £2 drop off fee at Stansted? I hear
that Luton might be about to charge the same.

Very poor with the locals but for those further afield I have no idea, more importantly would be the reaction of the airlines that the airport is targeting. The idea works at an airport where the (low cost) airlines don't care, airlines like EK will not operate to an airport where there is a £2 charge to drop off.

MAG have this charge at EMA and BOH but not at MAN, what MAG do with this charge at STN will give a big clue about the sort of airport they want to be.

SWBKCB

1st Apr 2013, 06:59

EK will not operate to an airport where there is a £2 charge to drop off.

But EK will fly to airports where there is a £1 for 10 mins charge (BHX), £1 for 15 mins charge (NCL) or £1.50 for 10 mins charge (GLA)

STN Ramp Rat

1st Apr 2013, 07:22

I stand corrected !

Bagso

1st Apr 2013, 08:52

Manchester and Stansted are two totally different markets !

Just because airline X operates into Manchester does not mean there is a better than even chance that it will be persuaded to operate from a strip of concrete with tumbleweed blowing about the apron !

Whilst your optimism is laudable, trust me, the feeling is not shared by Mancunians "upt North", who think the decision to buy Stansted is
the most ill-conceived decision since...... ( deleted due abundance of swear words)

PS ...however now that we have found bonds with our East Anglian cousins can we have all your long haul freight traffic ... shifting all Fed Ex traffic to MANCHESTER will do nicely for starters !

sdh2903

1st Apr 2013, 09:23

Just to correct you GLA is free to drop off/pick up.

boeing_eng

1st Apr 2013, 09:48

Just because airline X operates into Manchester does not mean there is a better than even chance that it will be persuaded to operate from a strip of concrete with tumbleweed blowing about the apron !

Exactly the point several of us have being trying to make. Unfortunately STN's No1 fan can't seem to fathom that this is not 2003 with much lower fuel costs, a reasonable economy and low APD. Instead, ten years on, things are very different!

Cue a lengthy missive about how MAG are so different and that the sun always shines in Essex now!:ugh::ugh::}

racedo

1st Apr 2013, 10:22

but there were other reasons like different socio-economic profile (10% higher share of A/B at LGW), larger base of potential passengers with UK citizenship (22 million vs. 10 million), and we may also add the differences between the two regarding public transport in to London. Live in Surrey

Base of potential passengers being bigger at LGW ?
Base means nothing unless there is a propensity to fly and solely use the airport?

Live in Surrey so supposedly am in LGWs catchment area as are friends and neighbours. Of those who actually fly, they are just as likely to fly from any London airport and include Bournemoth into that calc as well.

I would say LHR is the airport most use despite LGW being a lot closer then LGW just above STN with LTN and BOH coming behind but even BOH does ok.

I must admit not to knowing anybody who flies more than once a year who will soley use one airport.

LN-KGL

1st Apr 2013, 10:58

racedo, well the most important airport for Surrey according to the UK CAA survey for 2011 was LGW with 2.2 million passengers with LHR in second place with 2.0 million. Third is LTN with 0.8 millon and fourth is STN with 134,000. Since BOH had only 690,000 passengers in 2012, I don't think for Surrey it will reach the STN levels. I think it's better to know than just will guessing.

LTNman

1st Apr 2013, 11:15

Third is LTN with 0.8 millon and fourth is STN with 134,000

LTN has a direct rail link with Surrey which must help

Buster the Bear

1st Apr 2013, 11:18

Unless the UK economy starts to grow reapidly, the cost of aviation fuel decreases hugely and APD is axed, passenger growth at most UK airports will continute to stagnate or decline.

racedo

1st Apr 2013, 11:43

racedo

1st Apr 2013, 11:44

Unless the UK economy starts to grow reapidly, the cost of aviation fuel decreases hugely and APD is axed, passenger growth at most UK airports will continute to stagnate or decline.

APD is a cash cow and Govts need cash.

Fairdealfrank

1st Apr 2013, 17:45

Quote: "Live in Surrey

Base of potential passengers being bigger at LGW ?
Base means nothing unless there is a propensity to fly and solely use the airport?

Live in Surrey so supposedly am in LGWs catchment area as are friends and neighbours. Of those who actually fly, they are just as likely to fly from any London airport and include Bournemoth into that calc as well.

I would say LHR is the airport most use despite LGW being a lot closer then LGW just above STN with LTN and BOH coming behind but even BOH does ok.

I must admit not to knowing anybody who flies more than once a year who will soley use one airport."

All depends on the part of Surrey. For much of Surrey LHR is the nearest and the airport of choice, particularly in the west (straight up the M3 from Camberley), or the north (490 bus from Richmond for instance).

On the other hand, from Croydon, its a short train ride to LGW. Those on the same railway line can also access LTN quite easily. From Woking, SOU is an easy train ride away.

STN is not an easy journey from any part of Surrey.

Much depends on availibility of destination which favours LHR and LGW, as well as price, timings, convenience, etc..

Burnie5204

3rd Apr 2013, 20:13

MAG have started their plans to re-colonise STN

Air Moldova (Moldovia's Flag Carrier Airline) have announced that they are moving their entire operation from Gatwick to Stansted on the back of better deals, more flexibility and better slots.

It's only a twice weekly service on Mondays and Fridays but, as Tesco keep telling us, Every Little Helps

Routes News - Stansted secures Air Moldova with "more attractive" offer (http://www.routes-news.com/news/1248-stansted-airport-attracts-air-moldova-with-more-attractive-offer)

Buster the Bear

3rd Apr 2013, 20:49

I thought Air Moldova moved out of Stansted a while back to Gatwick?

FRatSTN

3rd Apr 2013, 21:48

Indeed they did, along with a list of other airlines in recent years so this certainly is good sign. Hopefully the list of airlines moving into Stansted will continue to grow, we shall see.

daz211

15th Apr 2013, 14:15

The new owner of Stansted Airport has kickstarted major expansion of the security area in the main concourse to speed passenger flow-through and improve the travel experience.
The £45 million revamp over the next two years forms the first phase of a five-year, £230m investment programme by Manchester Airport Group, which bought Stansted in the BAA London portfolio breakup.
Stansted managing director, Andrew Harrison said MAG didn’t pay £1.5 billion for the airport in January to let it stand still. Having battled a protest group called Stop Stansted Expansion for several years, Stansted was on the front foot and Harrison said a new campaign was underway – Stop Stansted Shrinking.
He said MAG was determined to engage more passionately with the business community in the East of England region and build on Stansted’s midway point between Europe’s leading technology cluster – Cambridge – and financial centre (London). The airport was also stepping up dialogue with global carriers about bringing sustainable long-haul services to Stansted, especially to the US and Asia.
Harrison said: “We have strong credentials both as the leading low fares hub for pan-European passengers and also as a major player for regional traffic. We intend to build on those strengths and also step up the dialogue which is already underway with airlines that can bring long haul services to Stansted.”
The existing security area will be moved and expanded with more lanes to avoid congestion. The plan will entail some of the retail and food outlets in the main concourse being shifted to other slots with a concentration airside.
“We want to speed passengers through security so they can enjoy their shopping, eating and relaxation time while they wait for their flights. It is vital that we improve the entire experience of using Stansted for existing and new customers alike.”
While it is early days for MAG, Harrison said it was clear that Stansted had “loads of potential.” Formerly MD at Manchester Airport, Harrison was moved to Stansted following the acquisition to maximise that potential.
He said: “This acquisition is arguably the most important thing the group has ever done as a business so it is vital that we get the growth strategy right. It is also the most exciting mission I have ever undertaken.
“The infrastructure at Stansted is fantastic and primed for growth but the experience for passengers is not as good as it should be, so changing that is an absolute priority. We need to make it efficient as well as enjoyable for the user – and scaling up the security allied to subtle changes to the check-in, retail and refreshment areas will play a major part in that aspect of our strategy.”
Harrison said the move would double the space available in the security area, which would have extra lanes and be generously staffed. The mix of shops and calibre of business lounges will also form part of the revamp.
“Firstly, only around 50 per cent of people using the airport physically use check-in desks these days – they are increasingly checking in online. So we can take some of that capacity and channel it into the enlarged security area which is the first port of call for most passengers.

daz211

15th Apr 2013, 14:20

Sounds like the security search area will be relocated to the landslide food court
And the food outlets will move to to areas where check in desk are now located all sound good but guess this means disruption of some sort for the next year or two.

FRatSTN

15th Apr 2013, 16:01

Sounds like the security search area will be relocated to the landslide food court
And the food outlets will move to to areas where check in desk are now located

Firstly, I think you meant "Landside", just to clear that up.

Secondly, I beleive the security area will be extended forward, closer to the front, replacing some of the main concourse area, hence:

The existing security area will be moved and expanded with more lanes to avoid congestion. The plan will entail some of the retail and food outlets in the main concourse being shifted to other slots with a concentration airside.

I'm unsure though if they will retreat the exist of security further back as well to allow for a larger departures area to accommodate more shops and restaurants airside.

But the main thing is that there is a committed owner who want to invest and make it a better airport to use and ultimately help attract new airlines and passengers. Never would we have had anything like this in line at Stansted with BAA.

I think MAG have really hit the right nail on the head with this one, will be great if/when it's done since I have noticed the main concourse emptying over the years but the departures still remains busy, especially before the early morning rush!

vctenderness

16th Apr 2013, 09:07

I am a very frequent passenger out of Gatwick and Heathrow and am using Stanstead for the first time in May.

I am looking forward to comparing with Gatwick for ease of use and quality of facilities.

My own problem with Stanstead is journey time to airport which means a overnight hotel stay to ensure I don't miss flight.

I will post my comments on my return and hope they will be positive.

Barling Magna

16th Apr 2013, 10:02

Presumably your destination is not available from LHR or LGW?

vctenderness

16th Apr 2013, 11:38

Well it is but I took advantage of very good fares to Izmir on Pegasus airlines ex Stanstead.

Even with a nights accommodation at Stanstead it works out much cheaper than flights ex LGW. Also getting 15 days parking included in room rate.

So this trip is a test bed all round, new airport and new airline for me!

ATNotts

16th Apr 2013, 11:48

What is the problem with people and the spelling of this airport's name.

It's STANSTED - not Stanstead! :ugh:

Buster the Bear

16th Apr 2013, 15:25

They also probaby spell easyJet as Easyjet!

bhx bod

16th Apr 2013, 15:38

I know it's irrelevant to any thread in particular,but spelling and punctuation in both txtng and emailing has made us all a little lazy.Even when spell checker is available it sometimes doesn't recognise airline names or airports for that matter.:rolleyes:
anyway I'll crawl back to where I came from.C ya!

vctenderness

16th Apr 2013, 16:58

God how will I ever hold my head high in airline circles again I added an a to Stansted!

I've heard many, many people talk about heefrow over the years though.....

rowly6339

17th Apr 2013, 00:53

A comic way to hand your notice in

BBC News - Stansted Airport worker bakes resignation 'letter' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22168676)

A Border Force worker from Stansted Airport quit his job by baking a resignation 'letter'.

Burnie5204

17th Apr 2013, 13:22

It went viral on Twitter and Facebook leading to his website crashing as too many people were tryi g to access it.

Fairdealfrank

18th Apr 2013, 19:41

Quote: "Stanstead
What is the problem with people and the spelling of this airport's name.

It's STANSTED - not Stanstead"

Indeed, and those of you who have seen BA's moving map may have noticed that Stansted is also a village in Kent!

Stanstead is in Suffolk, near Sudbury.

Musket90

20th Apr 2013, 19:46

They had an advertisement slogan in the 80's "Use Stansted Instead" which didn't help.

canberra97

22nd Apr 2013, 07:20

It totally annoys me as well when you see 'Stantead' rather then Stansted especially by so called aviation enthusiasts as well as the general media.

Another one that seriuosly annoys me and yes you can probably forgive most for spelling it as Stanstead but when you see 'Thompson' or even 'Flythompson' rather then just Thomson that gets my back up even more!

Sorry about the rant but after the last few posts I felt I needed to get it of my chest :ok:

WHBM

22nd Apr 2013, 07:42

when you see 'Thompson' or even 'Flythompson' rather then just Thomson
That's entirely the fault of the commercial organisation for choosing a trading name which is so readily mis-spelt. It is based on a common name but with a less-common spelling.

Likewise Easyjet. Proper nouns are spelt with an initial capital letter. If some marketing type likes it done differently, so be it, but the rest of the world does not have to follow the mistake.

canberra97

23rd Apr 2013, 23:44

But the Thomson brand has been in existence for many years.

Thomson Holidays were origionally owned by the Canadian publishing giant Thomson before being sold to Tui AG in 2001.

Thomson publishing also own and print amongst many others the OAG schedules as well the Thomson Local directorys.

FRatSTN

29th Apr 2013, 18:45

The new Air Moldova service from Chisinau scheduled at 18:50 landed this evening at 19:03.

And since it's of some discussion on several airport threads, Thomson's Summer 2014 timetable from Stansted will be exactly the same as this year except there is no 22:55 departure on Monday evenings to Corfu in the peak summer hoilday period. Instead Thomson will fly to Gran Canaria on Monday afternoons for the whole summer since there will no longer be a W pattern from Minorca to Doncaster/Sheffield with the Stansted aircraft.

FRatSTN

2nd May 2013, 17:07

No news, no rumours, no mention of it in fact, but just an idea that popped into my head during this spell of warm spring weather we're all enjoying.

I know this is not a spotters thread but I'm trying to see the benefit to MAG by providing such a facility since they offer similar facilities at East Midlands and Manchester Airports. There are a few locations they could have an official spotting area. I'd say between Apron Z (cargo apron) and the Ryanair Hanger is best.

Whilst I would never expect it to be much, MAG could benefit from a bit of extra cash each year by opening an official spotting site at Stansted and charging a small entry or car parking fee.

A small car park (which there seems to be a few isolated ones already around that area if you look on Google Maps), perhaps a few picnic benches, ice cream van in the summer... nothing too fancy, and I think MAG could get themselves an extra source of income.

If people pay £2 to drop someone off at various airports across the UK, I'm sure they would be happy to pay at least that to spend a day out with family/friends at their local airport, and it's a small price for enthusiasts to pay. You only have to look at the Aero Park at East Midlands Airport to see how busy that gets in the summer!

Plane spotting is quite big in Britain and the airports should use that to their advantage, rather than telling them to p*** off as it can often be. Providing an official area also makes the airport more community friendly, which is always a good bonus to have.

ATNotts

2nd May 2013, 18:06

Not a chance; if anyone did suggest it it would almost certainly been shot down with the UK mantra "security is paramount"!

Security is, I'm sure, paramount across Germany, Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands etc - but that doesn't stop them providing enthusiast facilities.

As the old saying goes, where there's a will, there's a way, trouble is there is no "will" to do anything else in the UK than fleece the punter - and your average spotter clearly isn't "fleeceable enough"

pamann

2nd May 2013, 18:14

TSR2

2nd May 2013, 18:46

Don't forget MAG have provided a 'Runway Visitors Park' at Manchester, probably the best viewing park in the country. If the demand is there, I do not see why a similar facility could not be provided at Stansted, although I agree that it would not be high on the agenda.

STN Ramp Rat

2nd May 2013, 19:47

you never know. MAG invest in working with the community and take a different view to the previous owners. they may see a spectators area as a benefit.

carbootking

2nd May 2013, 20:58

the council had granted planning permission many years back part of the increase to 35 mp the spootter area was going to be a mound by the hilton hotel , but the best area is arounf burton end near the ash pub

terrain safe

2nd May 2013, 22:15

FRatSTN. The area you mention will not be used for that purpose. It has been tagged for a different purpose (or indeed two different reasons) as so if not available. An area for people to watch aircraft, for any reason, however would be a good idea at any airport.

johnnychips

2nd May 2013, 22:53

You can spot until your heart's content round the back of the runway. I'm not sure that a 'Spotters area' is high on MAG's or any UK airports agenda as I can't see it pulling in any revenue from the spotters with their packed lunches.

I wonder if it makes money at Manchester? Parking at £3 hour brings in revenue and despite some people bringing packed lunches, the cafe seems to do good trade. However it is close to a big city, unlike Stansted, and has a certain pointy-nosed attraction in a hangar with restaurant popular for wedding receptions etc. And A380 passes twice a day. I think it does bring in a lot of goodwill to the airport.

Not sure who pays for exhibit maintenance though.

Bagso

3rd May 2013, 06:18

Re MAG it is a very simple formulae.

IF they suspect it can make money they will build one.

If they don't, they won't.

Manchester has a massive population on its doorstep but Stansted is surrounded by fields, plus all you have is procession of diminishing RYRs , would that keep interest going ?

I suspect not personally.

The AVP at Manchester is franchised out, the operators TAS pay for a licence which in turn is paid for by the hefty parking, restaurant licence and educational visits etc.

I do have another thought however if you have any aprons you could always turn it in to ..........................(deleted):eek:

Blimey O Reilly

11th May 2013, 05:16

From this weekend's Herts & Essex Observer -

UTTLESFORD District Council has agreed to write off more than £1m in business rates owed by a luxury company at Stansted Airport – but is pressing ahead with legal action aimed at winding the company up.

Eighteen Aviation Ltd, which trades as Aero Toy Store, defaulted on its 2012-13 liability of £1,155,066.48.

The council took recovery action and legal proceedings against the firm, which is the second largest business ratepayer in the district, providing VIP accommodation and garaging facilities for private jets and their owners at its 18-acre Diamond Hangar site.

But the local authority has been advised that as there is no prospect of recovering the debt, it is necessary to write it off. The decision was taken "reluctantly" at a meeting in Saffron Walden of the council's cabinet last night (Thursday).

UDC is continuing with legal action aimed at winding the company up to stop it trading and prevent further irrecoverable funds becoming due.

The council says that writing off the debt will not result in any direct financial implications for council tax payers or for the authority itself.

However, the firm’s failure to meet its financial obligations will result in less money being available to UDC, Essex County Council and Essex Fire Authority in 2013-14.

Stephen Joyce, the council’s assistant chief executive, said: “This is a massive loss to the public purse, but because the money is from 2012-13 it affects central Government funds rather than our own budget.

“What it does mean is that public services and Government spending will be affected. It will have an effect on Uttlesford, but not a significant one.

“The Government has a safety net scheme which ensures district councils do not lose a significant amount of money.

“The most we could lose is about £100,000, so it protects us from a large loss, but nevertheless it is still a loss to the taxpayer and that’s very disappointing.”

Mr Joyce added: “This is a genuinely unprecedented case – we’ve never had anything like this before and will be taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Cllr Robert Chambers, UDC’s portfolio holder for finance and administration, told Thursday’s cabinet meeting he intended to raise the case with the Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government.

Richard Elliott, an associate in the corporate department of west London law firm Davenport Lyons, which is acting for the business, said: “Eighteen Aviation is aware of the decision of Uttlesford District Council and is working with its advisers on the matter and is in touch with the council.”

UPDATE Council legal action to wind up Stansted aero firm over £1.15m debt | Uttlesford village headlines (http://tinyurl.com/ckxwly9)

foamer

11th May 2013, 12:25

No expense is being spared on passenger and crew safety. Most professional emergency service I have worked within in 24 years. :ok:

New Panthers join Stansted Airport's fire-fighting fleet - YouTube (http://youtu.be/_z8sKwkcEfg)

grobble

11th May 2013, 15:15

BBC catches up on story........

BBC News - Eighteen Aviation at Stansted owes council £1.12m tax (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-22483078)

Flightmech

16th May 2013, 22:27

The Aero-Toys plan was never going to work and apparently isn't. They (BAA) should have bulldozed the diamond hangar when they had the chance!

boeing_eng

17th May 2013, 13:30

Or moved it 30 miles to the West where it would soon be filled!!:}:}:}

MAN777

17th May 2013, 21:17

The AVP at Manchester is franchised out, the operators TAS pay for a licence which in turn is paid for by the hefty parking, restaurant licence and educational visits etc.

Sorry Bagso but you have got this totally wrong. However you are not alone in thinking this.

Actually TAS ( The Aviation Society) do not run the AVP or RVP as its now known.

TAS hold the concession for "The Aviation Shop" and provide the Education and tour guides directly to MAG who operate the Concorde visitor centre, MAG also own and run the Runway visitor park. Car parking is provided by MAG car parks. The restaurant is another separate concession not connected to TAS.

TAS have no say or influence in setting the car park admission prices.

I hope that clears it up.

I do hope MAG do eventually provide a viewing area as the back fence isnt really ideal, no toilets, shops etc. But as already mentioned whatever MAG put money into has to make a return, sadly apart from special event days, Stansted has little to hold the enthusiasts attention.

STN Ramp Rat

24th May 2013, 09:41

With the news that Flybe have sold all of its LGW slots to Easyjet from Summer 14 will this mean a pull out of Easyjet from Stansted? looking at the Investor relations power point from Flybe they look to be expanding their Southampton base so not much chance of a move to Stansted.

ArtfulDodger

24th May 2013, 13:48

RAF Typhoon jets have been launched to investigate an incident involving a civilian aircraft within UK airspace, the Ministry of Defence has said.......

Story here...... Manchester Bound Pakistan Flight Escorted in to Stansted by Typhoon Jets: BBC News | The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-I6)

LGS6753

31st May 2013, 15:37

Worst airports for flight delays revealed (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rvY!s~m&w_id=9002&news_id=2006632)

FRatSTN

1st Jun 2013, 13:51

Is Ryanair reaching some sort of agreement with MAG at Stansted? The winter schedule has been released on many routes now and there are some increased frequencies. Some of the most notable ones are:

Milan-Bergamo and Rome-Ciampino up to 4x a day.
Dublin is 53x per week (7x Tue-Thu, 8x Fri-Mon).
Budapest and Bremen are both up to 16x per week.
Pisa is 13x per week, even Thessaloniki is 4x for the winter season!

Madrid and Barcelona are both twice daily (I'm sure they have only gone once on some days previously)
Canary Islands have 13 flights a week which I think may also be up? (2 FUE, 2 LPA, 4 ACE & 5 TFS).

Jack1985

1st Jun 2013, 14:18

Cork also up from 14PW to 17PW. (Extra flights on Fri, Sun)

FRatSTN

1st Jun 2013, 14:23

Cork is 16x per week and I thought it has been for a while, could be wrong though.

Jack1985

1st Jun 2013, 16:15

It sure has been but has been reduced to 14PW the last two winters.

FRatSTN

1st Jun 2013, 20:10

Thanks for that Jack1985, I wasn't aware of that.

I have just come across a really strange Ryanair flight schedule.

On Wednesday's through the winter season, Ryanair flight FR8321 departs from Stansted to Valencia at 06:45. Of course you'd think obviously a Stansted based aircraft... but no!

Ryanair flight FR8322 gets into Stansted at 06:20 after departing from Valencia at 04:45 (local time)!!!

I highly suspect this will be changed in due course, it's incredibly unlike Ryanair to fly at such times (and I don't think many passengers will want to get to the airport at 02:30am for a Ryanair flight!) but interesting as to why they've done it anyhow.

Seljuk22

9th Jun 2013, 07:20

FR will launch flights to Comiso (Sicily) in mid-September.

jdcg

9th Jun 2013, 11:09

Anyone know when FR flights to SZG for winter 13/14 are going on sale? Nothing scheduled as yet.

FRatSTN

9th Jun 2013, 11:51

There's still quite a few routes still not yet on sale. None of the Scandinavian routes are released yet as well as several others.

Salzburg and Turin both tend to get extra flights from December since they are ski routes, along with the addition of Grenoble. They tend to release Salzburg at the usual frequency (about 4x per week) initially then add extra flights when the ski flights are released. If you wish to fly between mid December and April, you may want to hang on until the full winter ski schedule is released, which could be a little bit later in the year, in order to get the best choice of flights.

jdcg

9th Jun 2013, 16:46

Thank you!

STN Ramp Rat

13th Jun 2013, 06:41

I assume that this is connected with the expected large aircraft order at the Paris Air Show.

Stansted agrees deal with easyJet to reverse decline - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10116735/Stansted-agrees-deal-with-easyJet-to-reverse-decline.html)

Manchester Airports Group (MAG), which bought the Essex airport for £1.5bn in February, has signed a long-term agreement with easyJet that will see the low cost airline increase its passenger numbers out of Stansted from 2.8m to 6m over the next five years.

The partnership is a major coup for MAG, which is aiming to restore confidence in Stansted after customer numbers collapsed under its previous owner BAA, the group now known as Heathrow Airport Holdings.

Passenger numbers reached a peak of 23.8m in 2007 before the financial crisis but have since slumped to 17.5m.

The reversal was blamed on a decline in leisure travel during the recession - upon which Stansted is heavily dependent - but airlines also pointed a finger at BAA’s pricing structure. BAA fought a three-year legal battle to keep hold of Stansted but was told last summer that it would have to hang a “for sale” sign on the asset.

MAG is hoping to restore Stansted as a serious player in the London market by attracting an extra 5.5m passengers a year over the next five years. The airport, which is distinguished by its Norman Foster-designed terminal building, has plenty of spare capacity and believes it can play a significant role in satisfying demand for flights to and from London.

However, Andrew Harrison, the new managing director, of Stansted, said there are currently a lot of misconceptions about the airport, which might have discouraged airlines and passengers from choosing it over rivals Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton in the past.
“There’s a lot about Stansted which is misunderstood,” Mr Harrison said. “There’s a perception that it is hard to get to. There are trains every 15 minutes out of Liverpool Street and Tottenham Hale.
“This [deal with easyJet] will hopefully give confidence to other airlines that Stansted is a real option.”
Over the next two years MAG will invest £50m to improve facilities for passengers, including speeding up the security process.
EasyJet had reduced capacity at Stansted over the last 2-3 years in favour of Southend, which had a more competitive pricing structure. At present, it operates eight aircraft from Stansted, which can serve up to 27 routes, but it intends to more than double its customer base at the airport over the next five years.
In February, Stansted’s biggest customer Ryanair threatened to cut capacity by 9pc in response to an increase in charges but is now in talks with the new owner about its operations.
Stansted has planning permission to accommodate 35m passengers a year without building a second runway
Mr Harrison said the airport could help “bridge the gap” in capacity in the South East over the next 10 years, while the Government-appointed Airports Commission decides where additional runways should be built.
The airport is also hoping to attract long-haul carriers that will offer direct routes to the Middle East and Asia.
“There’s only really Stansted that has got spare capacity [in the South East],” Mr Harrison said. “We could add 130 flights a year. We believe that will go a long way to bridge the gap in terms of spare capacity.”

Wycombe

13th Jun 2013, 06:59

"130 a year"......that'll really help!

FRatSTN

13th Jun 2013, 09:38

Currently they have about 180 or 190 a day in the summer and so I think it's supposed to say 130 per day?

Either way, and can't say LGS and the other Luton fanboys will be happy by this. I don't usually like the say "I told you so!" but I take great pleasure in making an exception to you LGS .

Andrew Harrison, the new managing director, of Stansted, said[I] "There are currently a lot of misconceptions about the airport, which might have discouraged airlines and passengers from choosing it over rivals Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton in the past.

There’s a lot about Stansted which is misunderstood.” There’s a perception that it is hard to get to. There are trains every 15 minutes out of Liverpool Street and Tottenham Hale."

Perhaps it's time for us all to have a bit more faith in Stansted. And Luton fans, and LGS in particular, it looks like us who have kept faith in Stansted are not the only ones you are being told by!

Perhaps it's time for you take wake up and smell the coffee and never again lecture me on ridiculous analysis on where is the "wrong place".

It looks like I'm not so unaware of the pressures in the industry after all and it's in fact you who has embarrassed their intelligence and knowledge in the industry by being so dismissive to any potential growth at Stansted simply for your support of Luton.

Without being sour, I hope this news comes as a right slap in the face to you, and may even finally place into the world of reality!

LTNman

13th Jun 2013, 10:36

That's not a very nice thing to say.

Nothing wrong with Stansted and in my opinion it is a much better airport than Luton is.

Stansted has issues like it can't attract that much Biz jet traffic but then high flyers don't want to catch a train from deepest Essex.

I wonder where all the London airports will be in 5 year time? I guess time will tell and we will all still be talking about it here:ok:

Barling Magna

13th Jun 2013, 10:39

You're right LTNman. What will the 2015 Airports Review say? Expand LHR of course. Will it happen? Well..................... not with a Lab/Lib coalition......

FRatSTN

13th Jun 2013, 11:14

The last part was more aimed at my good friend LGS! I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise:( There has been a huge conflict in opinion between us an I can't help feeling a little bit arrogant in a way when news like this turns out, I suppose because I can imagine the shame they must be feeling when its a time to be hopeful and optimistic.

Assuming EasyJet start this growth by summer 2014, I can't see any other London airport really losing out. Remember EasyJet is known for flying to larger and quality airports and in my opinion, their main London bases being Gatwick and Stansted is long over due, yet Luton and Southend will still remain important to them and continue to grow in the longer term.

There could be an element of route switching, and I do think Luton may be more effected by this than Southend (as somebody suggested in the Luton thread, a route like Tel-Aviv is a good example of one that could be switched). What's important to remember is that Gatwick is totally safe where EasyJet in concerned.

Southend serves a sort of niche and more local market (that's why migration of routes from Stansted to Southend rather than operating from both airports highly angered me, and couldn't see that as a widening catchment area). And their recent commitment and promotional efforts there would make them highly stupid to move away now.

Luton could see a small amount of route switching to Stansted and frequency cuts, but at the end of the day, Luton is by some margin already the 2nd largest base for them and with it being their home airport, it's always going to be special and an important part of EasyJet's business.

The airport perhaps most in question was Stansted until today, and this move only emphasises EasyJet's desire to operate a growing route network and volume of traffic at all four of the London airports they serve. And of course the new aircraft order expected to be announced soon gives EasyJet huge potential to do this.

commit aviation

13th Jun 2013, 12:04

FRatSTN

It is good news that STN is seeing signs of positive development & I am sure there is more to come.

However, please don't turn this isn't a slanging match / "willy waving" contest with other London airports! I don't think most people here want to wade through a load of "my airport is better than your airport" guff to get to the real news. :=

Thank you!

LTNman

13th Jun 2013, 12:07

El-Al tried Stansted but the North London Jews live close to the M1 and easyjet has just followed El-Al.

As for London bases I would think that operating out of 3 airports is cheaper than operating out of 4.

If Easyjet did pull out of Southend would they lose any passengers? probably not

Are easyjet diluting their loads from other London airports by operating out of 4 airports? probably yes.

Competition rules and no airport has a divine right to succeed. The battle has begun with Luton and Southend looking like the weak players at the moment.

FRatSTN

13th Jun 2013, 12:29

commit aviation

I think you are missing my point completely. I'm doing the exact opposite of what you accuse me of. I'm saying all the London airports have a chance to grow in EasyJet traffic in sympathy with one another and that very few reductions I think will be made in Luton and Southend in light of this news, unlike what a lot of other people on this forum are concerned about. Never at any point did I specifically site Stansted as "my airport" or better than any other.

sxflyer

13th Jun 2013, 12:41

LTNman, if the price is right the pax will vote with their feet. They coped with getting to STN for many years longer than the current LTN operation, Israir and Sun D'or also drifted in and out during that time.

I think the expansion will play to some of STN's traditional strengths which have dwindled in recent years, and where they aren't directly head to head with FR. As I mentioned on another thread Scandinavia could be one of these (the main capital airports and the likes of Bergen, Stavanger and Keflavik) which could be a retaliation against Norwegian at LGW, and Turkey which STN really is the favoured airport in terms of ethnic population and for which there are still opportunities since the demise of KTHY, most notably Antalya, which still haven't really been picked up.

LGS6753

13th Jun 2013, 20:36

From Travel Mole:

EasyJet signs deal for major expansion at Stansted (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rvY!s~m&w_id=9036&news_id=2006814)

But I will quote two paragraphs direct:

But it is not certain that easyJet will take advantage of the deal's full potential, as it has also struck similar deals with Edinburgh and Gatwick airports since they were sold off by airports operator BAA.

An easyJet spokeswoman said: "It is too early to say. The deal gives us the framework to do so but we won't take decisions on capacity for next year for some months.

It would have been odd if EZY were not talking to the new management at STN. They are acting as a well-run commercial business, securing themselves as many options as possible in the south-east market. They seem keenest on Gatters at present - yields are highest there - but now they have the ability to play the other three bases off against eachother.

If a new aircraft order is forthcoming, they may make full use of their newly-negotiated capacity at STN. They could move 3 or 4 aircraft from LTN to STN, but moving established routes would seem like taking unnecessary commercial risks. Any capacity freed up at LTN would quickly be taken by other operators - perhaps that's a risk they don't want to take at their home base.

PPRuNeUser0178

13th Jun 2013, 20:47

As a both a pilot and a passenger in recent years if I had to go to one of our London airports I would pick STN. LTN is a hole, always has been, always will be with a terrible road network/rail link, although I am told EasyBus is the way to do it from LTN these days in to town.

Gatwick is Gatwick. Good rail links but waaaaaay to busy to be a pleasant experience. SEN - never been so cannot comment.

STN's negative points - it has the most expensive rail link out of any of our London bases into London. As a passenger I have found the security staff in the terminal to be among the worst in the UK, rude an abrasive to non - english speaking elderly pax who have had the nerve to turn up at STN and not know the security search procedures inside out and not have their belts off and then dare not to understand English or what a loud TUT and rolling of the eyes means! AWFUL experience and the only security area to have my kids in tears when they were 5! It's funny but I never experienced any of that at STN staff search! Not enough seats in the terminal once you make it past the gestapo either, very difficult to get a seat until your gate is called air side.

STN could be a great airport, I've always thought that and kicking out BAA is the best thing that will ever happen to it! Too many BAA staff ( and I know I am generalising and stereotyping ) think they have a job for life and don't have to try. Gatwick used to be like this and although its far too busy for my liking the difference is obvious for all to see now. I know BAA staff don't like this kind of chat as I dared to engage some ex BAA staff at EDI recently about what a difference new attitude makes and they all seemed very stuffy and grumpy about this topic, probably because they now feel threatened by having to try! ( to be fair EDI BAA staff were never as bad as STN BAA staff experiences I have had, and all places have their angels and demons ). The STN staff now just need to take pride in making STN theirs instead of BAA's and it will once again shine, I have no doubt and look forward to seeing it grow and not be too dependent on Mr O'Leary, which is never good for any business, just check the tumbleweeds blowing around PIK these days if you need proof of that!

Now get the STN express priced more competitively please!!!!!!!

Skipness One Echo

13th Jun 2013, 21:24

I have no doubt and look forward to seeing it grow and not be too dependent on Mr O'Leary, which is never good for any business, just check the tumbleweeds blowing around PIK these days if you need proof of that!

Prestwick's air traveller figures rise 14% in May | Evening Times (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/prestwicks-air-traveller-figures-rise-14-in-may-127213n.21327421)
Ryanair having a busy summer. The key issue at PIK is they've gone partly seasonal on sun routes rather than year round city breaks. This may be an option for EZY at SEN. Ryanair play EDI and PIK off against each other but they're far enough apart and the markets are settled and slightly different. EDI more focussed on city breaks and PIK taking Weegies to the sun. There is an analogy in there for other airports.

PPRuNeUser0178

13th Jun 2013, 22:04

PIK's rise is only due to the fact that RYR took it to the brink the year before in his usual political game with contract renewals and playing one airport of another.

PIK is also up for sale and not too many buyers waiting the wings with ££££££'s to invest in the place.

ScotsSLF

13th Jun 2013, 22:48

Good to see EZY supporting PIK today by circuit bashing today along with a fair amount of general and military non FR traffic - not a tumbleweed in sight. Anyway this is a STN thread - I do notice a change in attitude from the STN staff now that they are free from BAA lthough some way to go to be truly customer focused. Security can still be a nightmare at peak times so I look forward to the proposed new and expanded security area when it comes to fruition. Might even get some smiles to go with it.

FRatSTN

13th Jun 2013, 23:12

LGS

Oh, so that' it then. It amazes me that people with your attitude to what is evidently an exciting prospect, actually exist! Why would EasyJet publicly announce this news if they had very little intention to actually go ahead with it?

May I actually point out that Gatwick and Edinburgh have seen/will see significant EasyJet expansion. There's no reason why Stansted with it's huge spare capacity and £50m development cannot do the same. The press will always stir things up a bit as per usual. The source just tries to challenge the news to grab readers attention and cause debate, seems quite successful to me!

As for the quote by EasyJet spokeswomen, that will simply be because their plans are commercially sensitive information and they are not yet willing to or nearly ready to give a list of how many new aircraft, routes or passengers they will add at this stage. That will be in "some months" when they roll out their summer 2014 schedules, where more specific details will be announced.

Now I will quote some of your say:

now they have the ability to play the other three bases off against eachother.

Why would they ever want to play off three of their own bases? Yes you could argue Gatwick has the highest yields for them and may want to increase the pressure for other airports to cut fees, yet there's only so much more capacity Gatwick and Luton can take.

Also, important to EasyJet's strategy, it serves a large area of the London market by serving a variety of London airports (precisely their reasoning for adding Southend to their route portfolio). They will certainly not try to squeeze into one as much as possible by playing off the other three, where they already have many "established routes"...

Talking of which, you also say:

moving established routes would seem like taking unnecessary commercial risks.

Wow, what a contradiction!!!

I would also like to ask why receiving an attractive financial deal (and one which you except) would make expanding there or shifting some traffic from elsewhere an "unnecessary commercial risk"?

Any capacity freed up at LTN would quickly be taken by other operators

Er, would it? Who do you have in mind?

Wizzair... No. Eastern Europe is not EasyJet's key market at Luton.

Ryanair...Probably would not want to hurt their Stansted operation now. They are currently in similar talks with MAG themselves and will want to fight to keep their share of Stansted passengers.

Monarch... perhaps very minimally, on and off (and seasonally)

Thomson... A different market altogether (Package holidays, not LCC).

A new operator... I highly doubt it. Who would be so eager to invest in Luton to jump in and fill a gap of around 3 or 4 aircraft moving 30 miles away to a growing competitive rival?

Get over it LGS. Put up all the excuses you like, EasyJet will grow at Stansted in the coming years and even then you will probably still be dismissing the reality of it. Luton may suffer, it may not. Just wait and see though how Stansted grows in success before shrugging off any expansion announcements!

STN Ramp Rat

14th Jun 2013, 05:25

I don't see any extra for Stansted in Summer 14, EZY have all the Flybe slots to use at Gatwick next summer and they are a “use them or lose them”commodity. EZY don’t have a significant number of aircraft on order at the moment and both the Boeing and Airbus order books have a long backlog. In short they don’t have the aircraft to commit to Stansted.

IF the deal is a legally enforceable deal and the expansion does come then it will be after the aircraft that are allegedly to be ordered in Paris next week are delivered.

FRatSTN

14th Jun 2013, 07:54

That's true and I too don't expect anything massive for next summer.

But I could perhaps see them moving just one aircraft from Luton to make a start. That amount would probably not effect Luton too badly, but could have great effects on Stansted.

PlymSpotter

14th Jun 2013, 09:13

Don't easyJet still have a number of options to convert and further purchase rights?

ericlday

14th Jun 2013, 09:14

Sorry FR I do not understand the mathematical logic - one plane decrease from Lutons yearly pax figures is a greater percentage than one addition to Stansteds yearly figures.

FRatSTN

14th Jun 2013, 09:38

Sorry but I don't understand yours! If Stansted increases from 8 to 9 aircraft, that is an increase of 12.5%.

One aircraft being pulled out of a 16 aircraft base (which I believe Luton is, or very close to), that's only a decrease of 6.25% and EasyJet passenger numbers would reflect these figures (if you are referring to total passenger numbers then that is totally irrelevant really).

With 15 other aircraft to play around with and the possibility of using more away-based aircraft, they could perhaps adjust the schedule to try and add the 3 or so flights this could potentially move away.

Plus that's not really the point. IF Stansted can offer a more attractive deal than Luton does, I don't think EasyJet will hesitate to move one aircraft over there, potentially more and probably not worry too much about 3 or 4 daily flights they may lose at Luton as a result!

ericlday

14th Jun 2013, 10:41

Don't disagree with maths on percentage of aircraft, I chose percentage gain/loss on passenger figures over the yearly total that one aircraft would make to each airport. Just like politicians we can make figures look good or bad.

14th Jun 2013, 10:49

But the announcement said it would increase pax numbers from 2.8 mppa to 6 mppa over the next 5 years. I doubt this will be done exclusively with based aircraft - more "W" patterns or STN being a destination rather than originator. If one aircraft = approx 260,000 pax per year then an increase of 3.2 mppa is 12 extra aircraft (based on A319) or 9 A320's....... I would love STN to be a 20 or 17 a/c base by 2018 but I would be massively surprised if it is.

I would also love a big Airbus order to be announced at Paris next week....interesting times!

A4

FRatSTN

14th Jun 2013, 10:56

I see, but as I say, it's irrelevant to EasyJet really what impact moving one aircraft from Luton to Stansted would make on the total passenger numbers for each of those airports.

If you think like that then maybe if Luton's total traffic took a bit of a tumbling (whilst EasyJet are still maintaining their capacity through Stansted), that could be good for EasyJet. It may become an incentive for the owners of Luton to offer a better deal to reverse decline.

To reiterate the point I was making, in case it wasn't clear (and I apologise if it wasn't)... Moving one aircraft from Luton may only result in a few frequency reductions, possibly making load factors increase as the demand stays the same or losing very few passengers in the worst case. Yet at Stansted, it could be used to offer new destinations and ultimately cater for new passengers (as well as putting back some of what they've removed in the last 2-3 years). Therefore, for EasyJet, it "would probably not effect Luton too badly, but could have great effects on Stansted."

FRatSTN

14th Jun 2013, 11:00

I would love STN to be a 20 or 17 a/c base by 2018 but I would be massively surprised if it is.

So would I, but I think you could realistically get say 12 or 13 by then, about the 2011 levels.

LGS6753

15th Jun 2013, 19:03

nt639

15th Jun 2013, 19:14

Oh dear :E

LTNman

15th Jun 2013, 19:26

There was an easyjet spokesmen on local TV talking about the deal.

With easyjet moving 3 aircraft from Stansted to Southend by moving 3 aircraft back into Stansted they will be where they were a couple of years ago.

Given time I can't see any reason why Stansted could not become another Gatwick in terms of passenger figures and airline diversity.

STN Ramp Rat

15th Jun 2013, 19:32

I think LGS6753 might not be far from the truth. I was speaking with people from the Manchester Area this week, they were not that happy with the deal because MAG have apparently made it clear that their focus, and money, is on STN at the moment.

Easyjet have made it clear that Gatwick is their preferred airport in the South East. the best thing about the deal from the Stansted point of view is that it means there will not be the total withdrawal of Easyjet that was feared after the flybe Gatwick slot deal

EI-BUD

15th Jun 2013, 19:55

IF the deal is a legally enforceable deal and the
expansion does come then it will be after the aircraft that are allegedly to be
ordered in Paris next week are delivered.

STN Ramp Rat; reading your post and re the above, my understanding is that there will be no decision on future fleet until the end of the summer at least. That said new units are joining the fleet at the moment.

This summer EZY will have Titan operate a 757 ex LGW for the peak summer months, with one cabin crew member from easyJet.

My money is on a move away from traditional low cost airline thinking, i.e. by ordering a second type. The C Series most notably.

Why?

Smaller aircraft
Lower fuel burn
Key weapon for competing on thinner routes operated by regional carriers, eg Flybe
A big order with Bombardier could secure very strong pricing
Lead time on airbus

easyJet management are watching with great interest the orders placed by Tui for 737 Max, FR large order about to be confirmed by shareholders, Norweigan orders also. This all leads to show the sheer scale of plans for LOCO airlines in Europe in the coming years.

Sorry if off topic.

In terms of demand for aircraft, an open skies agreement is in place now for Israel and this will be key point of interest for easyJet, so I would be expecting additional routes....!

EI-BUD

FRatSTN

16th Jun 2013, 08:59

Interestingly, this mega announcement has only come from one side of the deal - MAG. There is no mention of it on the EZY website, just on MAG.

That clearly indicates who was driving the deal, and it isn't EZY. I suspect MAG wanted a 'big' announcement, and EZY took the opportunity of fixing costs in case they have a change of heart over STN some time in the next 5 years.

Perhaps MAG are beginning to realize how seriously they have overpaid for Stansted.

And a "Mega announcement" it seems indeed with the level of discussion it's caused. There's nothing really from EasyJet at the moment because as we've already discussed, they haven't committed themselves to any specific expansion plans yet, such as new routes, aircraft and frequencies. Come to a time when they do, EasyJet will have plenty to say!

I can't recall anytime really when EasyJet have publicised stuff like this about new deals etc. only when something it confirmed such as when new routes appear or passenger milestones are hit etc. do they tend to put it on their PLC media page.

It has nothing to do with change of heart either, they haven't just gone off or got bored of Stansted. BAA ran the place horrifically and halted the airports ability to compete. A new owner is being successful in rebuilding the bridges that they destroyed, or let crumble away. If MAG and Stansted can offer EasyJet a fresh start, a better deal and offer an airport now seeing new investment (which EasyJet supports) and added value to it (unlike Luton may I emphasise), then they will take the opportunity to benefit from that.

I think LGS6753 might not be far from the truth. I was speaking with people from the Manchester Area this week, they were not that happy with the deal because MAG have apparently made it clear that their focus, and money, is on STN at the moment.

Easyjet have made it clear that Gatwick is their preferred airport in the South East. the best thing about the deal from the Stansted point of view is that it means there will not be the total withdrawal of Easyjet that was feared after the flybe Gatwick slot deal

Well of course people from Manchester are bound to think that! They of course fear that MAG is losing focus from Manchester due to the whole idea of Stansted joining their portfolio of airports. Plus, the positive effects that EasyJet expanding at Stansted doesn't concern or effect the Manchester area! Ask people in London and East of England, where the market lies, and I'm sure the vast majority will be much happier!

Yes, EasyJet do have a preference in Gatwick, but after they've utilised Flybe's slots, when will the next opportunity for major expansion be? It could be years! EasyJet seems to be one step ahead of the game it would seem, opening up opportunities for expansion in the London market when Gatwick can no longer give it to them.

Stansted will undoubtedly see EasyJet expansion. Ok, there may not be that much in the way of next year, but I think post 2015 is when you'll start to see the more rapid increases once Gatwick cannot take any more significant expansion.

EasyJet will not just stop growing when they cannot add to Gatwick. Lets face it, very few if any of the additional aircraft they will eventually add to their fleet could be added to either Gatwick or Luton due to lack of capacity (and space for overnighting aircraft). They will have little choice but to turn to Stansted for most of their future growth in the London market. That's the logic behind the deal and they will therefore have to utilise it!

daz211

16th Jun 2013, 10:40

Kimmo Holopainen to join MAG in the next few months he has worked at easyjet
Where he had responsibilities for commercial contracts and Airport negotiations
I wonder if this is linked to the easyjet / MAG deal at Stansted.

Bagso

16th Jun 2013, 10:58

Personally I think it's a meaninglessness deal no different to what was negotiated at MAN last year and subsequently at lgw and edi.

The Saffron Walden gazette fell for it hook line and sinker. .... as did other dumb headline writers.

"EasyJet to double traffic

Er no. If ezy feel like coming back they can at a cheap rate, it doesnt mean they will of course far from it.

Its pure spin and hot air im afraid.

mikkie4

16th Jun 2013, 22:02

Last EZY alicante flight from stansted today all future flights go from southend

Skipness One Echo

17th Jun 2013, 00:07

but after they've utilised Flybe's slots, when will the next opportunity for major expansion be?
They're probably saturating Gatwick about now, I'm not sure there's a load of new opportunities for major growth to be found now. They've stolen much of BA's point to point traffic and built an impressive base much larger than Stansted and Luton combined. I'm not sure there's a whole lot more major growth to be had there, especially if Stelios has any say in the matter.

FRatSTN

17th Jun 2013, 07:54

Skipness One Echo

The point exactly. EasyJet will continue to inject growth into the London market though, especially with a big aircraft order. And if it's not Gatwick and with difficulties in capacity in Luton, then that leaves only one place for most of the growth!

Skipness One Echo

17th Jun 2013, 10:03

EasyJet will continue to inject growth into the London market
Sorry I wasn't being clear enough, they're approaching a point where they're saturating London. SEN and STN are in each other's way on the network, more so that LTN and STN are.

How many based aircraft do EZY have night stopping on a LGW / STN / SEN / LTN split. Anyone know offhand? It might help at this point.

Also how many B737s overnight with FR at STN?

j636

17th Jun 2013, 10:35

EZY have around 50 at LGW, 15 at LTN, 4 at SEN and whatever at STN.

FR have around 40 at STN per night.

commit aviation

17th Jun 2013, 11:04

I believe STN is 8 now following the latest move to SEN at the weekend.

FRatSTN

17th Jun 2013, 11:08

Sorry I wasn't being clear enough, they're approaching a point where they're saturating London. SEN and STN are in each other's way on the network, more so that LTN and STN are.

I really can't see EasyJet saturating the London market. With a new aircraft order on the cards, I'm sure London will still have a lot of EasyJet growth to come!

ReallyAnnoyed

17th Jun 2013, 11:15

58 aircraft in LGW this summer according to local LGW management.

Skipness One Echo

17th Jun 2013, 16:29

I really can't see EasyJet saturating the London market.
LGW 58
LTN 15
STN 8
SEN 4

That's 85 based aircraft in London, I think in all honesty there's much not else to do before they start cannibalising each airport's own market share on key routes.

FRatSTN

17th Jun 2013, 17:35

Yes, adding new routes and passengers to the London market.

boeing_eng

17th Jun 2013, 22:50

Blimey FR, you really must let us know where you buy your rose tinted specs (or should that be orange tinted!):}:}!

FRatSTN

18th Jun 2013, 08:59

boeing_eng

Someone has posted a link on the EasyJet thread to EasyJet's PLC page outlining the details of their planned aircraft order which has today been announced. Perhaps you should check it out...

Important to their strategy is that they continue to grow in their current markets in which CEO Ms McCall says is a fairly "no risk strategy". London will undoubtedly be part of that expansion.

She also says that there's 86 million seats available in EasyJet's top 20 airports available for them to use. Can't see Gatwick having too many of those, but the other London airports (predominantly Stansted due to its available capacity and new deal with MAG along with opportunities at Luton and Southend) will undoubtedly see some growth in the coming years in light of this announcement today.

Also, the first phase of new aircraft (existing generation of A320's) is expected to be delivered between 2015 and 2017. Mmm... interesting timing in relation to the Stansted deal last week!

We'll see, if you expect to find EasyJet's London market at the same size in 2018 as it is today, I think you'll be in for a bit of a surprise!

boeing_eng

18th Jun 2013, 09:07

As I've said before FR, your talents are wasted banging away on this forum.....You should get a job with MAG!:D:D

LGS6753

18th Jun 2013, 18:07

/reality check/

From easyJet's press release: 85 of 135 ordered aircraft will be used to replace ageing aircraft

So it's actually 50 additional aircraft over a 7 year period (2015 to 2022). As the economies of Europe recover, they will be allocated to profitable new routes - and increasing frequencies - in any of the countries in which easyJet operate.

/reality check ends/

FRatSTN

18th Jun 2013, 19:02

They have options to acquire further aircraft and manage the fleet accordingly to economic conditions. It could well be more than 50 more aircraft by 2022. They've said 276 aircraft by 2022 on the EasyJet PLC page, 86 more than in the fleet today.

I don't want to turn this into a detailed discussion on EasyJet's aircraft order since this is the Stansted thread. However, I very much doubt it's a co-incidence that a deal allowing further capacity increases at a major airport serving London (EasyJet's largest market) was agreed days before a new aircraft order is revealed. The two announcements already combine to open many more opportunities that EasyJet is actively seeking for.

And in further response to why EasyJet never put anything about the Stansted deal on their website... They denied any speculation on details of an aircraft order on June 14th, the day after the Stansted deal announcement:

EasyJet Still Evaluating Deal Options Despite Reports-Spokesman - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130613-708741.html)

Perhaps yet again, it comes down to the fact that such an announcement regarding any specific future expansions at Stansted were also premature.

The London market has far from saturated, and EasyJet will keep the growth coming to further increase their share in such a vast market. That will outweigh many benefits in distributing a few aircraft here and there over much smaller European markets based on the economic conditions.

Concluding that 50 more aircraft will be placed in Europe where the economy improves therefore is far too simplistic for the industry as a whole and not specific to EasyJet's strategy. Maybe you should actually link together the recent events and facts we already know specifically related to EasyJet. You may conclude with an even greater sense of reality that way!

SWBKCB

21st Jun 2013, 21:11

Minister helps MAG put stamp of success on Stansted's future with £80m terminal transformation | Uttlesford village headlines (http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/News/Uttlesford/Minister-helps-MAG-put-stamp-of-success-on-Stansteds-future-with-80m-terminal-transformation-20130620120152.htm)

MAG is investing £40m in the project to redevelop the terminal, which was completed in 1991, supported by a further £40m invested by commercial partners.

Which commercial partners?

Skipness One Echo

22nd Jun 2013, 01:10

You may conclude with an even greater sense of reality that way!
Do you even read what you write? Are there any markets easyJet are in that are mature and saturated? Easy one, anything year round UK domestic. You seem to be missing how the business works, they're going Hell for leather for market share, they are dominating Gatwick for one. Now I am not suggesting it's not profitable, and hard as it is to agree with Stelios, I think your opinions on super growth are based on wishful thinking rather than underpinned by commercial realities. Easyjet have now arrived at the stage where their biggest competitor in the London market is often er....easyJet. This is an actual first.

They have so many London based aircraft they're not sure where to put them all, not a problem shared by Ryanair or BA.

FRatSTN

22nd Jun 2013, 09:31

Skipness One Echo

Just to clear this up, I don't expect any really major or super growth. And I don't think Stansted will reach 6 million EasyJet passengers by 2018, but there is likely to be some growth to be had. Why...

Take a look at this (more so towards the end of the video):

BBC News - Easyjet boss Carolyn McCall optimistic about growth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22890343)

So the UK it would seem will continue to grow profitably for EasyJet, but in certain parts of the UK. What Stansted is offering them suits with their growth plans. An £80m redevelopment which EasyJet supports and this tied with a better financial deal offered by MAG adds huge financial value to their Stansted operation. Reduced costs for a better product?! It certainly looks at the moment to be one of the most likely and committed UK airports to see future EasyJet growth.

Even with a deal being signed with MAG in the first place shows that there is an intention for London to be a likely player in that concentration of UK growth.

Also take a look at this:

easyJet's London operations dominated by Gatwick; new Stansted agreement will "enable" growth | anna.aero (http://www.anna.aero/2013/06/19/easyjets-london-operations-dominated-by-gatwick/)

Apart from 2009, EasyJet's traffic in the London market has increased every year since 2001. And when you see the steady significant growth at Gatwick and London as a whole since 2001, they are not likely to stop growing the London market when Gatwick can take no more. Stansted and only Stansted gives the opportunity for the continuation of that overall growth in London.

Nowhere can I possibly find that EasyJet is a competitor to itself or find any evidence that they are going to stop growing in London because they don't know where to base planes. They serve a variety of London airports to benefit from serving a greater area of the London market, not because they don't know where to put planes and may stop growing in London as a result.

Overall growth may slow down in the future of course, and that will depend on economic conditions as well. But one thing I do know is that they will not stop growing in London and let the real competition (BA and Ryanair) grow in market share and potentially in volume simply because Gatwick is full, so I will reiterate:

Maybe you should actually link together the recent events and facts we already know specifically related to EasyJet. You may conclude with an even greater sense of reality that way!

compton3bravo

22nd Jun 2013, 15:10

Here endeth the latest statement from our resident (its all good news) Stansted representative.

racedo

22nd Jun 2013, 15:14

They have so many London based aircraft they're not sure where to put them all, not a problem shared by Ryanair or BA.

Lose Gatwick for a day or two and watch the damage that is done.

Potentially too many eggs in one basket.

LGS6753

22nd Jun 2013, 16:08

Racedo -

Potentially too many eggs in one basket.

... and they are putting a few more eggs in that basket with the acquisition of the FlyBe slots.

The fact of the matter is that EZY is expanding at LGW and SEN, static at LTN and declining at STN. This "enabling" agreement with MAG, publicised only by MAG, is an attempt by MAG to show their stakeholders that they are setting about polishing their newly-acquired turd. (to coin a phrase)

FRatSTN

22nd Jun 2013, 18:19

And its also an attempt by EasyJet, yet to be confirmed in detail, to "enable" them to reverse that decline at Stansted and more particularly, continue growing in London when they can't grow anymore at Gatwick.

You don't need to me to say again that BAA's appalling, high cost and ultimately uncompetitive management of Stansted is the core reason to EasyJet's declining traffic at Stansted, as goes for just about every other airline. But times are changing, things are improving and growth opportunities are returning. EasyJet are just embracing that shameful fact I'm afraid to say!

You need to have a word with yourself if you truly believe that this is just a publicity thing by MAG to impress stakeholders. The fact is, EasyJet signed the deal. They clearly see the opportunity of growth at Stansted or else they wouldn't have wasted their time even discussing it and you know what they say, it takes two to Tango.

Skipness One Echo

22nd Jun 2013, 18:46

You don't need to me to say again that BAA's appalling, high cost and ultimately uncompetitive management of Stansted
It's really easy to have a go at BAA but they built Stansted to be a new London hub airport for the 21st century then had to make money out of it via Ryanair and easyJet. That's a divergence straight off the bat, STN is a really nice airport with a very loco demographic and feel to it. "Uncompetitive" as you say is the necessary requirement BAA had to cover their costs once cross subsidy from LHR was stopped. By all means lets see how MAG do with STN on it's own two feet dropping prices to lure back EZY. It won't be easy to make money though, Ryanair's biggest base is at STN and BAA weren't rolling in gold as a result. High load factors and millions of passengers can still mean the airport operator loses money. Stansted is faced with being a base for the cheap and cheerful with the overheads of a major international gateway.

davidjohnson6

22nd Jun 2013, 18:48

Does anybody who has commented on the recent Easyjet-Stansted agreement actually have knowledge of what the written agreement does or doesn't say ?
I'm aware that it indicates the airline and airport want to be friends again and won't be nasty to each other, but I haven't really seen much in the way of specific details of the contract.
Things like airport charges structures, commitments by airline to deliver passengers, etc... the hard stuff that the commercial people in an airline or airport think about.

FRatSTN

22nd Jun 2013, 20:29

davidjohnson6

No not specifically and that's precisely the point I'm trying to get across to LGS. What we do know though is that MAG and EasyJet have shook hands on an agreement and that will be ultimately based on a variety of aspects such as costs, operations, services etc. The deal is done in a sense, it's a case of how and when EasyJet materialise with it.

Skipness One Echo

Uncompetitive was sort of the hub of the issues, with high costs, less investment, lack of growth etc. as the spokes in a sense. And I think it's reasonable to say that if BAA were still running Stansted, there would not be an £80 terminal revamp under way, they would still be using all the money that could be spent there on investing at Heathrow instead!

BAA, or Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd. are a high cost operator (always have been, and always will be) and therefore much more suited to running airports with a presence of more flag carriers or long haul airlines like Heathrow and Glasgow. Interestingly, Ryanair now serves none of their airports and EasyJet fairly minimally, with GIP owned Edinburgh being their main Scottish airport. Says it all really!

MAG are much more suited to Stansted's market. They already have built strong relationships with Low-cost carriers at Manchester, East Midlands and Bournemouth and are a much more cost efficient operator.

It's also nice to see that somebody actually also has optimism about Stansted's future (rather than denying any growth because to MAG it is, a newly-acquired turd that was overpaid for). I see no reason why under separate ownership and fairer competition, Stansted cannot continue to enjoy growth once again.

Skipness One Echo

22nd Jun 2013, 22:07

They would still be using all the money that could be spent there on investing at Heathrow instead!
Worth remembering LHR went to the dogs to pay for the Norman Foster palace at Stansted, it was paid for from LHR profits! T2 closed 15 years later than it should have because BAA thought STN was the future focus. It wasn't. Anyway that's how groups work, STN profits may well be funneled to pay for MAN investment going forward.
EasyJet fairly minimally, with GIP owned Edinburgh being their main Scottish airport. Says it all really!
EZY at EDI are the same size as under BAA and not much bigger than GLA. You mixing up behavioral attributes with ownership. EDI is much more business focussed and legacy carrier focussed than GLA which remains with more bucket and spade.
much more cost efficient operator.
What does this mean? Of you mean have lower operating costs that's true but then they make less money amd handle less traffic.
I see no reason why under separate ownership and fairer competition, Stansted cannot continue to enjoy growth once again.
The market doesn't like STN, it's that simple. Any major carrier who tried left and moved out or went bust. Really. I won't list them, oh wait I will.
American, Eos, Maxjet, Air Asia X.
SAS, Lufthansa, Air UK, Air Berlin, BMI Baby etc
Who's left with a major presence? Ryanair and easyJet. That's the free market showing a preference.

FRatSTN

23rd Jun 2013, 09:04

And when T2 closed, that's when Stansted really started to go down the pan. I don't really want to get into this debate again about cross subsidising, but the fact is, BAA tried to hold on to an airport that was basically falling apart under their management!

They sold Gatwick first based on the fact that they were still in fairy land at that time trying to make Stansted a 2 runway, 2 terminal airport that would be operational today.

MAG aim to and are investing on improvements and adding value to the airport. They aim to diversify the mix of traffic (which we're starting to see evidence of). And they aim to make maximum efficiency of existing infrastructure, not fantasising about second runways when they are only half full as it is!

That's what I mean by a "much more cost efficient operator." For MAG, it's about offering the best possible airport for customers and airlines in terms of cost and service, not the biggest!

As for Scotland, EasyJet and Ryanair have both increased their Edinburgh traffic since GIP took over last year. EasyJet quite drastically in fact. Ryanair sited the new owners as the reason for their expansion and they particularly have made it quite clear how much they had despised BAA through cutting back in Edinburgh, axing Aberdeen and only considering Glasgow if it was sold off by BAA. Quite disastrous for Stansted since they cater for 70% of its traffic.

Tranceaddict

28th Jun 2013, 16:17

New Owner To Reopen Stansted’s Diamond Hangar FBO

AINALERTS » JUNE 27, 2013
by CHARLES ALCOCK

June 27, 2013, 2:20 PM
The Diamond Hangar FBO at London Stansted Airport is set to reopen under new ownership after the previous operator ceased trading at the facility some time around late April or early May. Diamond Hangar, a subsidiary of UK real estate group Greatex, confirmed that it has taken over the lease on the building but has yet to elaborate on what services it will provide at what is now Stansted’s fifth FBO.

The Diamond Hangar facility, which was formerly an airliner maintenance facility operated by SR Technics, opened as an a FBO last July under a lease held by Eighteen Aviation, which traded under the name of Aero Toy Store. Its main shareholder was Ben Shirazi, son of Morris Shirazi, founder of the U.S. aircraft sales and completions group Aero Toy Store.

In May, Uttlesford District Council, the local government body in the Stansted area, took legal action against Eighteen Aviation to recover £1.12 million ($1.71 million) in unpaid taxes. The current status of Eighteen Aviation remains unclear, although UK company records indicate that former managing director Mike Foley “terminated” his position as a director on April 23.

Aero Toy Store did not respond to AIN’s requests for comment. Also, AIN was unable to reach anyone from Eighteen Aviation.

New Owner To Reopen Stansted?s Diamond Hangar FBO | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-06-27/new-owner-reopen-stansteds-diamond-hangar-fbo)

FRatSTN

28th Jun 2013, 18:33

Something on the Isle Of Man thread about BMI Regional starting a Stansted to Isle Of Man service in summer 2014, 12x a week? Would be great but I'll believe it when I see it!

Talks with Ryanair are on-going...
Ryanair in Talks With London Stansted Buyer MAG to Swell Traffic - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/ryanair-in-talks-with-london-stansted-buyer-mag-to-swell-traffic.html)

FRatSTN

29th Jun 2013, 13:21

Another new carrier for Stansted, but only for a couple of months it seems.

Aegean will fly 3x weekly to Athens on Monday's, Thursday's and Saturday's using an A320 from 11th July until 16th September 2013.

The flight schedule is as follows:

Monday:
Dep. ATH 10:00 Arr. STN 12:00
Dep. STN 12:45 Arr. ATH 18:20

Thursday:
Dep. ATH 14:30 Arr. STN 16:30
Dep. STN 17:15 Arr. ATH 23:00

Saturday:
Dep. ATH 19:20 Arr. STN 21:20
Dep. STN 22:05 Arr. ATH 04:00

Skipness One Echo

30th Jun 2013, 23:40

Another new carrier for Stansted, but only for a couple of months it seems.
Didn't they leave for LHR a while back? Looks like adding summer capacity due lack of LHR slots.

davidjohnson6

30th Jun 2013, 23:55

Didn't they leave for LHR a while back?
Announced August 2009 - moved from STN to LHR at the end of October 2009
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/245928-stansted-2-a-52.html#post5110042

canberra97

1st Jul 2013, 00:00

Aegean Airlines have recently discontinued Heathrow to Larnaca and are supposed to be starting Gatwick to Athens in October although I cant see that route starting myself as it is a bit late in the season and is there really the demand on that route in the winter for the extra flights to be added especially as Easyjet also fly to Athens from Gatwick.

If Aegean Airlines are supposed to be operating Gatwick to Athens from October why did they choose a return back to Stansted and not operate this new route from Gatwick, it is only three flights a week and surely they could have found slots at Gatwick for this or will it be the case that the restart of Gatwick to Athens in October will be transferred to Stansted especially as there is no competition on this route, it would be good for Stansted to retain Aegean Airlines and have them operate year round to Athens.

FRatSTN

1st Jul 2013, 09:03

Well I only found it because I saw that somebody had put Aegean to Athens as a seasonal service on the Stansted Wikipedia page. I thought it was probably nothing at first, but when I looked it was indeed there from 11th July. I wonder how long they've actually had it on sale for?

I also think using Stansted is better as it gives customers a better choice of departure points to Athens in the UK market. It would provide a smaller and less congested option for departures and arrivals and to many, a more convenient or cheaper alternative to Heathrow and Gatwick. Not everybody wants to fly from the big major airports in London, especially for point-to-point travel. Being at Gatwick will no doubt have something to do with their Star Alliance membership I would imagine, so probably will be there from October as planned.

TOWTEAMBASE

2nd Jul 2013, 18:23

Skipness

Your forgetting continental from that list. But Air Berlin are still there though German wings too. Need to get some operators in there fast

FRatSTN

6th Jul 2013, 12:20

A bit more background about what MAG and Stansted could achieve...

Routes News - Stansted eyes 34 million trips at London rivals (http://www.routes-news.com/news/1-news/1611-stansted-eyes-34-million-trips-at-london-rivals)

Sounds much more positive than anything BAA ever did, but can they eventually get those long-haul carriers in? And can they materialise that EasyJet deal and please Ryanair to get them growing "rapidly" again?

Let's hope so. Best of luck to them! :ok:

Skipness One Echo

6th Jul 2013, 15:16

To stop trips from Stansted's catchment area continuing via Gatwick and Heathrow, Harrison is now angling for to point-to-point connections and flights to hubs such as Amsterdam, Dubai, Istanbul or Paris.
"My impression is that it might be less risky for a hub operator to operate than a point-to-point. But, equally, we know that some of the markets from here are absolutely very, very strong,” he said.
"We are very, very confident in a point-to-point service to certain routes – Dubai, for example. Even if it didn’t connect through Dubai, the point-to-point demand for Dubai from round here is very, very strong."

Routes News - Stansted eyes 34 million trips at London rivals (http://www.routes-news.com/news/1-news/1611-stansted-eyes-34-million-trips-at-london-rivals)

So cutting through the waffle he's eyeing KLM, Air France, Turkish and (not) Emirates. How in the name of God he's confident of a point to point Dubai against 5 Emirates A388s at LHR and 3 B77Ws at LGW is....interesting. WHen he says it might not connect, who does he mean?

rutankrd

6th Jul 2013, 16:02

Flydubai brand is likely.

FRatSTN

6th Jul 2013, 16:15

He thinks there is enough demand for areas closer to Stansted than Gatwick and Heathrow to support a direct service from Stansted to Dubai, even if it doesn't offer onward or connecting flights from Dubai. In other words, Dubai is a strong enough market to support a point-to-point service from Stansted.

Personally, I think it's too soon to make a judgement to be honest and it's fair to say those places/airlines are some possible examples. They're not necessarily "eyeing" KLM, Air France etc.

As for London-Dubai, there is huge demand and if there was an extra daily flight added from Heathrow or Gatwick, nobody probably would bat an eyelid. Why couldn't Stansted support even a few flights a week?

What's to say Emirates can't move 1 of the 3 Gatwick flights to Stansted or Turkish Airlines were to move back for example? The whole reason why MAG now owns Stansted is to heat up the competition. Someone's gain is potentially someone else's loss. You win some you lose some. Stansted's done quite a lot of losing, perhaps MAG's new management strategy is just the ticket to start winning some again? And maybe Gatwick's turn to lose some? Who knows? It's too soon to say!

But I would say that Gatwick in particular needs to watch out. Over the last few years under GIP management, it's been pretty much a piece of cake to snatch traffic from Stansted but it's in a more vulnerable position now (or perhaps Stansted in a more powerful one?)

If the quality improves at Stansted (through this terminal revamp and other possible future investments) and/or operating costs become more enticing (and/or Gatwick gets its way to increase charges), some airlines may not think twice about leaving and looking at Essex instead.

Likewise, some airlines, Norwegian for example, may have got comfy at Gatwick now and nothing really Stansted can do will bring them back, where these aims could be just another complete waste of time all over again.

LGS6753

6th Jul 2013, 18:24

Andrew Harrison - welcome to "London" - although your airport is in rural Essex.

He claims Cambridge-originating passengers are driving past STN on their way to Heathrow. Yes, they are. Even more are driving past Gatwick on their way to Heathrow, and even more than that are driving past Luton on their way to Heathrow. The same applies to Bristol, Southampton, Birmingham and East Midlands. The only one of those that has much long-haul traffic is Gatwick, which will always be seen as Heathrow's waiting room.

I'm afraid Mr Harrison will be sorely disappointed if he expects Stansted to attract long-haul full-service airlines. Why would they choose his airfield? It's only merit is that he can offer capacity. But he can't offer catchment, convenience or connections.

Never mind - if he stems the decline, and picks up a bit more Ryanair traffic, he could apply for a better job somewhere else!

FRatSTN

6th Jul 2013, 19:47

He's seeing potential and making Stansted as attractive as it can be for a range of airlines and destinations, clearly something that you can never see, or accept!

You may be right, Stansted may well always be nothing but LCC's and short-haul and three quarters blue and yellow, but with £80m being spent on terminal improvements (a major incentive to airlines to choose his "airfield") along with already attracting 2 new carriers (neither of which are LCC's) since taking over 3 months ago, plus have a deal signed with EasyJet, they don't seem to be doing too badly so far!

But he can't offer catchment, convenience or connections.

Please explain. I think you'll find he can. He already has catchment and connections, it's the convenience he is now embracing and that which you are ruling out!

compton3bravo

6th Jul 2013, 20:11

Forgive if I am wrong but aren´t easyJet going back to the capacity they had before they switched a number of services to Southend plus I don´t think the agreement is set in stone yet. Also a two flights a week by Air Moldova wow - we are going to make a lot of money there aren´t we! Come on lets get real absolutely no chance of full service long haul, has had been said already the Gatwick carriers are just waiting for slots at Heathrow.

FRatSTN

6th Jul 2013, 20:28

I'm not saying we will see lots of long haul full service carriers. In actual fact, neither is Mr Harrison specifically! I'm just saying let's not rule anything out yet when it's too soon to make judgements about what the future holds.

I was merely stating that, regardless of flight frequency, the management of 2 non LCC's have thought "Yes, Stansted is the right choice for us" since MAG took over. Plus, having signed a deal to ALLOW major growth by EasyJet seems to be a step in the right direction so far.

It's a complex industry, and unless you work in the management for a specific airline or airport, will you know really what's likely to happen, so don't be so convinced it will never work and that Gatwick is only a waiting room essentially for Heathrow.

Gatwick is the 2nd busiest airport in the UK, and one that similarly to Stansted, serves London but is located in a fairly rural area outside of Greater London. How much of the traffic there is so eager to move to Heathrow if only it had the space? Probably very little.

Skipness One Echo

7th Jul 2013, 10:41

How much of the traffic there is so eager to move to Heathrow if only it had the space?
All of Virgin Atlantic, BA, Vietnam Airlines, Icelandair, Air China, Caribbean, TAP and probably Air Malta. These airlines are forced to split London operations between airports at cost due to no more slots at LHR.

FRatSTN

7th Jul 2013, 10:49

Skipness One Echo

7th Jul 2013, 11:47

I think BA and Virgin would still have a smaller operation at Gatwick even if Heathrow had the space. The more leisure/holiday routes go from Gatwick, and major cities/hubs from Heathrow, ie. Heathrow is places like Singapore, New York, Delhi etc. whilst Gatwick is Orlando, Montego Bay, Male (Maldives). It's a clear split of different markets.
To what benefit? It's a clear market split because hub and spoke is prioritised at LHR and beach leisure is left at Gatwick. There's no business reason to keep it there if you get more space at your main base. Why duplicate staff and engineering costs when the market will move to LHR with you? What commercial benefit would there be in duplicating a split operation? None.
He's seeing potential and making Stansted as attractive as it can be for a range of airlines and destinations, clearly something that you can never see, or accept!
It's the market that says this, no one is preventing American Airlines flying STN-JFK and it's not all big bad BAA's fault they don't.

davidjohnson6

7th Jul 2013, 12:05

Skipness - I can think of 3 possible arguments

1 - Unless a megahub is designed as a megahub (think of any of the airports opened in Asia over the last 10 years serving 50+ million pax) it will likely have grown by evolution and thus may struggle to put a very large number of movements through one place. An airline that is the dominant carrier for a very large city may end up being forced to split its operation just to retain the market. Examples - BA at LCY or transavia(KLM's subsidiary) at Rotterdam

2 - Heathrow has higher landing fees and other direct and indirect costs of operation (eg delays). O&D leisure passengers may be more price sensitive and not always accept the higher fare arising from the increased costs.

3 - There's a lot of wealthy people living in Sussex, east Surrey and Kent who are quite happy to fly to/from Gatwick to the beach with their families and don't want the cost+time of going to Heathrow. Either BA leaves this market to Easyjet or it operates from Gatwick

FRatSTN

7th Jul 2013, 16:26

Indeed.

To what benefit? It's a clear market split because hub and spoke is prioritised at LHR and beach leisure is left at Gatwick. There's no business reason to keep it there if you get more space at your main base. Why duplicate staff and engineering costs when the market will move to LHR with you? What commercial benefit would there be in duplicating a split operation? None.

The commercial benefit is that routes such as Montego Bay, Male etc. are point-to-point flights taking Brits on long-haul holidays. They do not require hub capacity therefore will never be served at Heathrow.

If BA had the space to increase traffic at Heathrow, they would look for new markets, such as those in South America and other major cities and hubs across the globe to offer direct flights to Heathrow and increase frequency on existing markets to maximise the amount of connecting passengers through its Heathrow hub. They would also need both tourist generating and tourist receiving services like those to major cities and hubs to do this.

They will never waste capacity at their hub by filling up slots with long haul flights to the Caribbean taking Brits on long-haul holidays in the sun for 2 weeks and routes that don't require hub capacity!

That's what Gatwick is for and why the markets are split this way. And as davidjohnson6 points out, the passengers these routes are attracting will not want or need to travel to Heathrow when they don't require the potential extra costs and time or a hub network for their travels.

What's the commercial benefit of becoming too dependent on one base by moving leisure routes into the hub when a bulk of your passengers don't even want or need a hub feed of traffic?