View Full Version : [WARNING: Aviation-related thread] BAA's Spanish owners Ferrovial led up the creek..?

17th Sep 2008, 16:45
How come, back in 2006, when Spain's Ferrovial bought BAA, they were allowed to do so without apparently any negative feedback from the UK's Competition Commission or other official EU body that usually regulates monopolies etc. ?! :confused:

Yet, less than 2 years later, almost out of the blue, everyone is screaming for BAA to sell off its' airports...?! Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like Spanish companies or their business practices, having personally lost several thousands of Euros back in the early 2000s at the hands of one of these unscrupulous entities.

However, what BAA (and Ferrovial) are now being subjected to borders on the obscene. No serious objections were raised when Ferrovial took over BAA. Yet today, they're being obliged to get rid of some of their major assets (ie. having to sell off Gatwick and others)...?! If what appears to be the case is all there is to it, then I would say that BAA and Ferrovial are getting a very raw deal (in the aftermath)... :uhoh: Unless of course, back when Ferrovial initially made the tentative offer which was eventually accepted, certain extremely private negotiations were already underway. If that were the case, then that would have serious implications for anyone involved in that deal (and not privy).

Why haven't BAA and Ferrovial make more of a fuss over recent events...?! We ought to be told. Even if some of us get thrown over our 1st floor balustrade to fall to our deaths accidently 2.5m below on the ground floor. :suspect: Something smells (my feet too but that's because the pudicat's been peeing in my slippers.

21st Sep 2008, 20:19
The sequence of events was that the multi-scattered owners of BAA, 2004, did not relish further investment calls for runways/terminals at several of the 7 ports, to follow the pain of finding 5Bn/10 years to do T5. So, sell out while T5 was coming good, before the next saga. But no sensible investor bit. Ferrovial assumed: 1: HMG would stand there in last resort, so downside was manageable; and that 2: Planning processes for, say, LGW runway 2, would be easier than was T5. Like auroroute approvals in Spain. The gently brewing Competition Commission and CAA charges reviews, known upfront, helped to deter sane investors. Maybe F anticipated clawback of some of their 10Bn. bid by early unloading some of the dross sites packaged by BAA's then-owners to avoid being stuck with them after selling the LHR jewel. Is not the in-phrase "toxic assets?"

Tony Hirst
22nd Sep 2008, 02:30

The current issues has come about primarily because BAA used their near monopoly position to increase airport charges by a rediculous amount back in March. Virgin Atlantic, amongst others, were calling for BAA to be broken up back then.