BAA Issues. (Merged)

[Sallyann1234]

From today's Times:

"A break-up of airports group BAA will look more likely this week following the publication of an interim report from the Competition Commission."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3778451.ece

[BAMANAGER]

Sally, do they really pay you to search for dirt on BAA at Waterworld? Come on there are people out here trying to do their bit and here you are again, grinding away on the BA PR machine. its pathetic

[broadreach]

BAMANAGER,

I found Sallyann's link to the Times article interesting, and your use of the word "dirt" even moreso. Then I had a quick look at Sally's other posts. Some are harsh, but after a few minutes I couldn't see any that might be described as digging for BAA dirt.

So, your reaction might just be interpreted by some as a bit over the "methinks he doth protest..." top.

Try reason.

[Richard Taylor]

Of course some would say that you don't have to dig toooooo deeply when it comes to BAA.......:ouch:

[PAXboy]

The only sad part about the Times article, is the information that the field most likely to be sold is EGKK. Better to leave them with the small and medium sized fields.

Hopefully, the T5 Experience will change minds.

[Sallyann1234]

Better to leave them with the small and medium sized fields
I can't imagine the government would have the b@lls to take Heathrow away from them, so the biggest available target is either Gatwick or Stansted.
Who is to say that the Spaniards will really be upset? They will make the appropriate noises of course but £2 billion for Gatwick would be a nice chunk paid off their bank loans. They will still have the crown jewels of Heathrow with perhaps an under-the-table sweetener of a guarantee to push through the third runway.
It might even have been an option in their business plan all along...

[Woofrey]

They'll keep Heathrow.

But as I've said before, doe's it make sense to get rid of Gatwick ? Sure, at the moment it's the "competitor" , but if the intention is to encourage competition, I would suggest that in 5 - 10 (?) years time Heathrow and Stansted will have the greater capacity, and therefore the majority of the traffic will still be with the same company.

Selling Gatwick would bring in immediate cash, useful for paying off that big finance problem, and selling Stansted may bring in half as much but would get rid of 1. a huge political issue, 2. dealing with a "difficult" airline and 3. making a massive financial outlay for new investment, increasing borrowings yet again.

And at the moment Gatwick is a nice little earner.

Methinks the decision will be interesting on both the political and financial fronts.

[VAFFPAX]

Yay. Except LHR will stay in the BAA stable...

S.

[carbootking]

the thing you have to look at stn has more potentual than lgw there is that much space left to build and they can increase for another 10 years where stn u can , unless the council or now the government say stn cant increase to 35 mill then stn will be sold ,

[angels]

I'm surprised this doesn't appear to have been mentioned on here already. If it has and I've missed it, I'll get rid of it later.

UK regulator says could order BAA to sell airports
LONDON, April 22 (Reuters) - Britain's Competition Commission said on Tuesday airport operator BAA's <FER.MC> ownership of seven UK airports may not be best serving the interests of airlines or passengers.
It said it would publish possible remedies in August, which could include ordering BAA to sell one or more airports.
BAA, owned by Spain's Ferrovial since 2006, is the owner of the three main airports in southeast England, namely Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead, as well as Scotland's Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.
"There is no competition between BAA's three London airports, and only very limited competition from non-BAA airports (London City and Luton)," Chairman of the inquiry Christopher Clarke said in a statement.
"Similarly, there is no competition between their two airports in lowland Scotland," he added.
He said areas of concern included "the apparent lack of responsiveness to the differing needs of its airline customers, and hence passengers" and BAA's approach to planning airport development.
"It (BAA) seems largely to have limited itself to one major project at a time, for example Terminal 5," he said.
BAA is currently under pressure from airlines for the amount it charges them to use its airports, which is capped by regulator the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) but part determined by what BAA says it needs for investment.
The operator has also come in for widespread criticism for the botched opening of Heathrow's Terminal 5, which left thousands of passengers stranded and baggage lost.
Paul Charles, Director of Communications at Virgin Atlantic, welcomed the commission's statement.
"It seems the Competition Commission has seen the light. They support the views of every airline and every passenger, that there is no competition at our major airports. We now need to see a roadmap laid out for changing their ownership structure and tightening the regulation of BAA," he said.
(Reporting by John Bowker, editing by Will Waterman)

[akerosid]

Many of the reports and comments I've seen about this seem to focus on the BAA being forced tp sell LGW and/or STN. Is there an automatic assumption that they should be allowed to maintain control of LHR?

[followthemarshaller]

Ferrovial also own BHD. Serious rumours of potential bidder last week. Rumours were scuppered by management and press reported that BHD was NOT for sale. I thought everything was for sale at the right price?

[ChriSat]

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5117/baajw4.jpg

Chris

[PPRNkof]

The UK anti-trust board has made a recommendation that BAA be split up because (and I quote) " BAA's ownership of seven airports ... may not serve the interests of passengers or airlines."

Full Story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/04/22/uk.airports.ap/index.html

I wonder will the powers that be take any notice? I'd certainly see it as a potentially excellent move. Just look at the on-going Madness at Termial 5!

[paying customer]

Apart from the fact that (a) there is no such thing as the UK anti-trust board; (b) this is an interim report; (c) they have made no recommendations at all....
That was quite an interesting post.

[rubik101]

pc, you are too quick to criticize I think! Aside from the fact that CNN are using their own terminology, the Competition Commission amounts to he same thing in the US, hence the sense of the article has some truth to it.
Added to which, today our own Transport Minister has said, 'It has been over 20 years since the Airports Act 1986 put in place the current regime of economic regulation and as such it is one of the oldest economic regulatory systems in the country," Ms Kelly said.

"Much has changed since then, and there is an urgent need to consider how the framework needs to be updated to reflect today's realities."

If, after all the recent discussion and upcoming investigation, the BAA is not forced to dispose of at least one of its South-Eastern airports, I will be most surprised.

My bet is that it will be Gatwick that is suggested by the report and Stansted that eventually goes, sans second runway in both cases.

[PPRNkof]

I was following on from the title of the article, to be precise, the body being referred to is the Competition Commission in the UK. Their web site is below (if you're interested) http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/

It is indeed a preliminary report, your point being that we shouldn't comment on or discus these? Why? More information on this market review of BAA, from the Competition Commission here: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2007/airports/index.htm

Yes, it's not a recomendation - appologies. But an announcement that we seem to indicate that this is possible or indeed likely. Noteworthy? I think so.

Paying Customer, that was quite a snotty post!

[llondel]

They'll probably do it like the railways, so at Heathrow different companies will be responsible for different terminal buildings, someone else responsible for airside roads, taxiways and runways and yet another for the normal roads, car parks, etc. Then when something goes wrong they'll all be able to blame someone else.

[Diaz]

Or even better, go the NHS way!