Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5587472/

Topic: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: 2008matt
Posted 2012-10-14 14:45:51 and read 9189 times.

I was wondering with all the talk in the news of the Stansted Expansion back in the spotlight, whether any airlines besides the likes of Ryanair would want to use the airport if it did expand? Or would they prefer a new London airport?

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: by738
Posted 2012-10-14 15:06:42 and read 9111 times.

They've had all the opportunity and haven't thus far, so I can't see it happening anytime soon. I would imagine they'd prefer a new airport before leaving fortress LHR

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: 2008matt
Posted 2012-10-14 15:27:25 and read 9028 times.

I do think there is some sort of opportunity for STN to undercut the likes of Gatwick and Heathrow in order to bring in other airlines, but doesn't seem to happen under BAA. I was also surprised by the amount of shops inside the terminal that have shut down over the past few months presumably due to high rental costs?

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: FaddyPainter
Posted 2012-10-14 15:28:36 and read 9022 times.

Wasn't the original point of Stansted to be an airport serving full service airlines? I doubt they had a MOL fortress in mind in the 80s.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: 2008matt
Posted 2012-10-14 15:34:49 and read 8989 times.

I just find it disappointing that they cannot hold onto the long haul carriers that they seem to secure, but then lose to the likes of Gatwick. Spotting at STN was a lot better with the likes of Air Asia X.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2012-10-14 16:15:33 and read 8879 times.

BAA and their ludicrous costs and poor service.

Be it shops in the terminal, landing charges, whatever, this joke of a company cannot offer an attractive package to new airlines. Ryanair have huge scale on their side to mitigate this to an extent, but the sale needs to go ahead quickly and result in someone with a bit of vision prepared to offer airlines top class facilities at a reasonable cost taking over.

The transport links are good, and the airport is well situated for links to Cambridge, Peterborough and other East Anglian towns, and the journey into central London by train takes around 40 minutes - more than reasonable for a large city.

STN could be so much more than it currently is.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2012-10-15 04:04:45 and read 8304 times.

Quoting FaddyPainter (Reply 3):
Wasn't the original point of Stansted to be an airport serving full service airlines?

Yup, big terminal left standing mainly empty. They were quite willing to allow Ryanair to dictate terms as they were desperate to grow the business. A classic example of politicians doing policy and strategy without understanding relevant market behaviour.
Will new owners mean airlines will be super keen to move in? A few certainly but it's still Stansted, in Essex. I't a really nice airport with a train service direct into the City of London, a vast terminal and loads of space. It's not all to do with BAA pricing, it's just not a popular enough airport in the London outbound market amongst higher spending demographics.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-10-15 04:11:55 and read 8291 times.

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 2):
do think there is some sort of opportunity for STN to undercut the likes of Gatwick and Heathrow in order to bring in other airlines, but doesn't seem to happen under BAA.
Quoting FaddyPainter (Reply 3):
Wasn't the original point of Stansted to be an airport serving full service airlines? I doubt they had a MOL fortress in mind in the 80s

The terminal at STN was open ed in March 1991.

Its owners, BAA, more than gently twisted the arm of airlines wanting to expand their LHR operations. They refused to allow any new services into LHR requiring the airlines to operate such services into STN instead.

The American airlines in particular objected to this policy. Led by AA they threatened legal action. BAA backed down. The British media hailed the new terminal as "Europe's biggest and most expensive white elephant" as no airline wanted to use it.

This debacle coincided with the appointment in 1991 of one Michael O'Leary, affectionately known as "MOL", as Deputy Chief Executive of Ryanair, a small Irish owned airline founded in 1985 with its main operations centred on DUB and LTN.

MOL saw STN and its new terminal as an opportunity. He negotiated a deal with BAA that basically gave FR a huge discount on STN airport charges for any new route it operated from STN. As time passed so this discount reduced. This gave MOL the leverage he needed to rapidly expand FR's operations. It rescued BAA's investment in the STN terminal. It resulted in MOL being appointed CEO of FR three years later. As far as I know FR still gets a discount on any new services it operates from STN. I am guessing that the foundation of FR's success is almost entirely built on the deal MOL negotiated with BAA back in 1991.

So at STN BAA did undercut their own charges at LGW and LHR. In doing so they converted STN from a planned supplement to LHR into arguably what became Europe's first LCC airport.

As an aside the Telegraph has recently quoted some of MOL's . . . Well, the Telegraph calls them his "most memorable quotes":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...Learys-most-memorable-quotes.html#

extracted from a new book written by Paul Kilduff, ‘Plane Speaking: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael O'Leary’ that is published by Aurum Press

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: mal787
Posted 2012-10-15 04:46:19 and read 8155 times.

Its not only do airlines want to use Stansted, do passengers want to use it? sure you could make it so that all ops of all airlines serving market area "A" use Stansted to reduce traffic at LHR , but once they get there whats in it for them, poor facilities, links to central London that are not as goood as LHR ( i am talking express rail to central here) hotels / motels for overnight transit passengers . unless the facilities are good people wont use it , unless you are on a budget airline that gives you nothing in the 1st place. LHR may be a pain at times but at least i know at the end of a 24 hr flight from Aust I can be in an airport hotel in 10-15 mins max depending on the buses , or in London in 15 -20( if memory is correct on exprees) . As for the new london airport , i will never see it in my life time and i doubt those 20 yrs younger than me will either , and i am only 53 years young


mal787

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2012-10-15 04:54:00 and read 8132 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 6):
Yup, big terminal left standing mainly empty. They were quite willing to allow Ryanair to dictate terms as they were desperate to grow the business. A classic example of politicians doing policy and strategy without understanding relevant market behaviour.
Will new owners mean airlines will be super keen to move in? A few certainly but it's still Stansted, in Essex. I't a really nice airport with a train service direct into the City of London, a vast terminal and loads of space. It's not all to do with BAA pricing, it's just not a popular enough airport in the London outbound market amongst higher spending demographics.

  

I am based off the M4 in Berkshire. I cringe at the thought of any suggestion of flying out of STN. Its a nightmare to get to with public transport. i.e. in then out of London but you can drive and do the M25 and M11 and more often than not will have the journey from hell. Geographically as you say in the wrong place for any full serive carrier IMHO to start and stay there long term. LCC central and thats it.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: cipango
Posted 2012-10-15 05:00:10 and read 8100 times.

AA used to fly a 752 to STN daily a few years back. Didn't seem to work for them.

Does anyone know why AA left STN? Poor loads?

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-10-15 05:49:04 and read 8013 times.

Quoting cipango (Reply 10):
AA used to fly a 752 to STN daily a few years back. Didn't seem to work for them.

Does anyone know why AA left STN? Poor loads?

AA operated ORD-STN for a very limited period between June 1992 and end May 1993.

In early April 1993 AA Senior Vice-President Hans Mirka, announcing the discontinuance of the service, was reported to have said that load factors on the route were consistently low and that the flight did not attract enough premium business travellers. At the time that Mirka announced the discontinuance of this service the British media claimed AA had lost US $ 10 million on this route.

I believe only two airlines operate passenger flights into both LHR and STN.

OS operate a seasonal ski service from STN to INN as well as an LHR-VIE service. This year I believe the flights to INN are due to start in time for Christmas on 22 December.

4U operate into LHR, but on behalf of LH. They operate in their own right between STN and CGN, HAJ and STR.

Airlines like BA and OZ do operate passenger flights to LHR and all-cargo flights to STN. This suggests that cargo is not so fussy as passengers as to which London airport it uses.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2012-10-15 06:12:46 and read 7934 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 11):
AA operated ORD-STN for a very limited period between June 1992 and end May 1993.

Yes. But they also operated JFK-STN between October 2007 and July 2008 utilising 763s. This coincided with various so-called all-business operators serving JFK from STN (EOS, MAXjet) or LTN (Silverjet).

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-10-15 06:30:53 and read 7891 times.

Quoting FaddyPainter (Reply 3):
Wasn't the original point of Stansted to be an airport serving full service airlines? I doubt they had a MOL fortress in mind in the 80s.

I also doubt PANYNJ had a JetBlue fortress at T5 in mind in the 90s. It's interesting how these things work out, eh?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 6):
A classic example of politicians doing policy and strategy without understanding relevant market behaviour.
Will new owners mean airlines will be super keen to move in? A few certainly but it's still Stansted, in Essex. I't a really nice airport with a train service direct into the City of London, a vast terminal and loads of space. It's not all to do with BAA pricing, it's just not a popular enough airport in the London outbound market amongst higher spending demographics.

Which seems to leave us at LHR or nothing, no?

LHR will have the demographics in its favor till that shifts, which may or may not ever happen.

That would mean that LHR's prices will go up to meet natural increases in O&D demand, or travel options will go down because one can transit lots of other places cheaper, or both, no?

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: AntarcticDHC6
Posted 2012-10-15 07:59:46 and read 7671 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 11):
OS operate a seasonal ski service from STN to INN as well as an LHR-VIE service. This year I believe the flights to INN are due to start in time for Christmas on 22 December.

Any source for this information? Could not find anything on the OS website. Thanks!

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-10-15 08:10:33 and read 7542 times.

What also drives LHR is the ability to connect to just about anywhere in the world. Its proximity to links to get to London: Heathrow Express, The tube, and the other train that is not Heathrow Express. Plus all the other methods such as the intercity bus service.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: kdhurst380
Posted 2012-10-15 08:18:16 and read 7448 times.

This debate happens time and time again, it's poorly located for the countries wealthiest catchments, couple that with bad public transport links and you've got a bad business case for a full service airport before you've even started.

The only incentive to use it unless you're located nearby, is price. My last departure experience was awful, as was arrivals. It's just not fit for purpose, a disorganised chaos.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: 2008matt
Posted 2012-10-15 11:44:32 and read 5844 times.

I will second that, but add faster trains and regenerate the terminal then they could be onto a winner, and a good replacement for the proposed new airport.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-10-15 19:10:43 and read 4618 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 11):
I believe only two airlines operate passenger flights into both LHR and STN.

Add TK to the list.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 9):
I am based off the M4 in Berkshire. I cringe at the thought of any suggestion of flying out of STN

The folk in Essex cringe at the thought of going the other way to LHR. With a city the size of London, each airport has its catchement area. Unfortunately for STN, the wealthy ones will probably fly ex LCY via AMS or CDG. While you no doubt have the chavs of Basildon and Tilbury in mind, there is plenty of money in Essex & Cambs.

Quoting mal787 (Reply 8):
poor facilities, links to central London that are not as goood as LHR ( i am talking express rail to central here) hotels / motels for overnight transit passengers . unless the facilities are good people wont use it , unless you are on a budget airline that gives you nothing in the 1st place. LHR may be a pain at times but at least i know at the end of a 24 hr flight from Aust I can be in an airport hotel in 10-15 mins max depending on the buses , or in London in 15 -20( if memory is correct on exprees)

Paddington is hardly "central London" so you pretty much have to get a further tube or bus once you get there for any of the "touristy" areas and is not the nicest area for tourists to walk around in. So to the actual city, its not much quicker than STN when all said and done. Conversely, Oxford Circus is a short ride from Liverpool Street on the Central line, so STN transport links into London are not so bad. The M11 is a great a motorway as you are going to get near London!

Re hotels, there is also a Radisson Blu at STN right next to the terminal which is a 3 minute walk from check out to airline check in desk - cant beat that at many airports and its a pretty nice hotel! There are a couple of others a short bus ride away too.

The facilities are not bad, I dont mean to be rude to anyone but the issue at STN is the pax - many inexperienced flyers not knowing what to do, fighting with FR check in staff for not reading the small print, spread themselves out all over the floor giving us a view of next weeks laundry while they try to remove weight from their bags while already loaded with 8 Stella's at 9am off on their 10 quid stag do to IBZ. Thats what I dislike about STN, but if you had an EK or other "premium" carriers other than FR or U2 Im sure there would be facilities to suit and improvement in atmosphere. After all, it was not like that back in the good old Air UK days.

Im very sure EK could make a daily A330 work ex STN, but then again they gotta fill they A380 at LHR...

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: ZaphodB
Posted 2012-10-15 19:23:09 and read 4595 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 18):

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 9):
I am based off the M4 in Berkshire. I cringe at the thought of any suggestion of flying out of STN

The folk in Essex cringe at the thought of going the other way to LHR. With a city the size of London, each airport has its catchement area. Unfortunately for STN, the wealthy ones will probably fly ex LCY via AMS or CDG. While you no doubt have the chavs of Basildon and Tilbury in mind, there is plenty of money in Essex & Cambs.

That's an excellent point: LCY almost certainly does siphon off premium traffic from the city that could actually get to STN (or LGW for that matter) by rail quicker than LHR. And to be fair, Staines and Feltham have plenty of chavs too. But, for old times sake I still have to agree that STN is 180deg the wrong direction from London to tap most of the premium traffic.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: 2travel2know2
Posted 2012-10-16 07:45:33 and read 4368 times.

If STN really wants to get a major airline to fly there, lets suggest STN lobby the British aviation authorities so to allow a certain airline from the Persian Gulf region (which already flies to LHR and LGW) to use it at least once per day as a stop en-route to/from destinations in the Americas.
STN and that airline should know there are certain markets in The Americas where BA and VS don't feel like flying and are so desperate for a LON flight that would settle for STN service.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: tonymctigue
Posted 2012-10-17 01:12:17 and read 4104 times.

While we are on the topic of FR and STN, here is an ond TV ad for FR from 1991 not long after FR started flying from DUB to STN back in the day when FR had ambitions of being a premium business airline!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8HNxIukhVk

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2012-10-17 01:44:13 and read 4059 times.

LH had about 2 o 3 daily flights FRA-STN a couple of years ago, for a relatively short period of time.

The numbers just did not work, same as LGW.

Transport to the city is too expensive from STN and takes too long. Unless one has business in the north east of London, the passengers won't use those flights.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: Richcandy
Posted 2012-10-17 02:14:15 and read 4004 times.

Quoting FaddyPainter (Reply 3):
Wasn't the original point of Stansted to be an airport serving full service airlines? I doubt they had a MOL fortress in mind in the 80s.

Shortly after the current terminal at STN opened Air UK, Jersey European (as it was at the time), Gill Air, Lufthansa, Scandinavian, El Al, American and maybe more flew from STN.

Frequency and choice of destinations was never the same as from Heathrow, but the big advantage of STN was that the terminal at the time was so quiet and it was new. You didn't have the feeling that there were thousands of passengers all trying to find check in desks, then a seat, coffee etc that you could of at Heathrow.

Alex

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2012-10-17 02:33:57 and read 3976 times.

Quoting cipango (Reply 10):
AA used to fly a 752 to STN daily a few years back. Didn't seem to work for them.

Does anyone know why AA left STN? Poor loads?

AA arrived at STN shortly after EOS & Maxjet, and departed soon after EOS and Maxjet folded. This could of course all be coincidence.

Back to the initial questions, STN is by no means the failure that some of the posts portray, it was initially designed for 15 million passengers per year and quickly ran out of capacity, My recollection is that the terminal building has been extended twice since then, once in the early 2000's and again a few years later.

The problem however is that some of the demand came from airlines who couldn't gain access to LHR and LGW, the move of US carriers from LGW to LHR , and a decrease in BA operations created space at LGW enabled them to transfer flights out of STN.

The bulk of the demand however was ultra low fares courtesy of FR and U2, Personally I knew of lots of people who just hopped on a cheap flight from STN to Ireland, the Czech Republic, Hungary etc for a boozy weekend, the fares were often £10 or even less, accomodation and drink costs at the destination made the weekend cheaper than a night out in the UK, I can recall someone quoting four beers for a euro.

The situation now though is very different, the price of aviation fuel has raised costs of flights, Eastern Europe joining the EU has resulted in rapid price inflation making these trips far more expensive and lastly the financial crisis has had a huge effect of dicretionary spending, inflation and low wage increases have resulted in a far higher percentage of incomes being spent on accomodation and food, weekend trips to Europe are an easy luxury to cut back on.

Apart from FR and U2 I don't think there are a huge number of airlines who "want to use STN" most would prefer LHR or LGW, and have shown this by running up the road whenever the opportunity arises.

Demand does seem to be rising a little and the point will be reached where airlines will be faced with the decision of "its STN or nothing" purely on the basis that STN now has capacity for 35 million passengers and is running at little more than half that.

The danger though for STN is that an extra runway at LHR or LGW in the future could see them left with little more than FR and U2 as airlines rushed to take advantage. Why would BA want to truck freight round the M25 if LHR capacity increased by 50% and they could base their 748F's there ?

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: neveragain
Posted 2012-10-17 06:04:43 and read 3853 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
BAA and their ludicrous costs and poor service.

Be it shops in the terminal, landing charges, whatever, this joke of a company cannot offer an attractive package to new airlines. Ryanair have huge scale on their side to mitigate this to an extent, but the sale needs to go ahead quickly and result in someone with a bit of vision prepared to offer airlines top class facilities at a reasonable cost taking over.

The transport links are good, and the airport is well situated for links to Cambridge, Peterborough and other East Anglian towns, and the journey into central London by train takes around 40 minutes - more than reasonable for a large city.

STN could be so much more than it currently is.

Sounds like somebody has been listening to too much of Michael O'Leary and his anti-BAA tirades!

The drop in traffic from 23.8 million in 2007 to 18.0 million in 2011 at STN is the result of several factors, including:

* The global economic crisis that began in 2008 and continues with the ongoing Eurozone issues

* The traffic profile of STN in relation to the overall London market, which is largely based on low-cost O&D and dominated by a single airline (and therefore heavily affected by the business decisions of that airline)

* Migration of EasyJet operations to LGW, which saw an opportunity to capture market share in the lucrative southeast market and took advantage of peak-period slots made available after the EU-US openskies agreement and subsequent relocation of several UK-US operations to LHR

* Rise in oil prices and subsequent impact to the operating cost structure of airlines. Low cost carriers are particularly affected by high fuel prices as fuel constitutes a greater share of their overall cost structure (and admitedly so do airport charges). Low cost carrires also have less ability to pass along increases in fuel prices to their passengers, as changes to airfares are more elastic to passenger demand.

* Ryanair business decision to park a very large number of aircraft during the winter season as a result of high fuel prices

Even the most steadfast opponet of BAA's STN business strategy would have to be able to concede that a lot of the decline in STN's traffic and route offerings are the result of larger demand factors as opposed to BAA's strategy on airport charges. Yes, the disputes on capital expansion, terminal configuration, and most importantly charges have been well publicized over the past several years.

That being said, can you really fault BAA from coming to the decision that it's own bottom line is better off by charging up to the regulated limit for aeronautical charges (the source of Michael O'Learly's cheif complaint) than trying to bring in additional passengers through aero charges discounts? And do you really believe that Ryanair's decision to ground a large number of aircraft during winter would be materially reversed if BAA were willing to grant them steep charges discounts (as other UK and European airports have done)? I, for one, do not and am instead of the thinking that there just is not as much demand for low-yield VFR passengers going from London to points in Eastern Europe in 2012 as there was in 2007.

As much as STN may rely on Ryanair, the opposite is also true. Nowhere in the southeast of England is there sufficient airport capacity to allow Ryanair to pick up and move to another airport as it has done during charges negotiations in other markets. Despite the overall reduced demand in the London market compared to 2007 levels, it still remains one of the strongest markets in the world for air travel and therefore one in which Ryanair wants (or needs?) to compete.

Lastly, don't forget that any airline coming in is having to compete with a very large operation from a very aggressive operator competing on price for all of its traffic. Surely one can understand the reluctance on the part of other airlines for entering such a fight in these difficult economic cirucmstances...

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2012-10-17 06:31:10 and read 3798 times.

OK, I'm not too familiar with London, but see that London's problem looks like a lack of runways at any of the 4 airports LHR, LGW, STN & LUT and distance to the non-LHR airports. So, a new airport would be ideal and as close to the city center as possible with freeway access.

Scanning the area, there is a location almost as close as LHR around Stapleford Airport, bounded by the A12, M25 and M11. This location (50 degrees 38N, 10 degreesE) has to the potential of an airport the size of LAX, which has 4 runways with dual ILS arrivals at the same time that dual departures can take place. For environmental reasons, the airport could straddle the M25 . Of course, I'd imagine that this location along with nay other would be fiercely opposed by nearby residents as well as environmental people. Also, infrastructure would be needed to increase roadway widths and provide a rail link.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: COPolynesianPub
Posted 2012-10-17 07:35:52 and read 3797 times.

Continental also flew 757's from EWR to STN during the time of the UK growth push.
Service discontinued shortly after 9/11.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: VV701
Posted 2012-10-17 17:56:31 and read 3610 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 24):
The danger though for STN is that an extra runway at LHR or LGW in the future could see them left with little more than FR and U2 as airlines rushed to take advantage.

According to Airport Coordination Ltd a total of 14.1 million passenger seats are on offer to and from STN over the current Summer Season. Of these 10.1 million (71.6 per cent) are being offered by FR and 2.5 million (17.7 per cent) by U2. The next biggest users are 4U (0.37 million seats) and BY (0.27 million seats). So in reality tthere is already little more than FR and U2 offering passenger services to and from STN today.

All other STN operators account for less than 7 per cent of STN's operations. To put that figure in context, the total number of seats on offer at STN this summer was 3.4 per cent down on Summer 2011.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: BasilFawlty
Posted 2012-10-17 18:16:03 and read 3600 times.

Quoting AntarcticDHC6 (Reply 14):
Any source for this information? Could not find anything on the OS website. Thanks!

Ofcourse you won't find anything on the OS website, this flight (as well as many others between Austria-UK/Ireland every ski season) is operated on behalf of a touroperator.

Anyway, here's the schedule:
OS9385 INN-STN 0735-0830 6
OS9386 STN-INN 0940-1230 6

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2012-10-17 18:26:05 and read 3584 times.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 9):
Geographically as you say in the wrong place for any full serive carrier

Wrong place for Berkshire, you mean.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 18):
The folk in Essex cringe at the thought of going the other way to LHR. With a city the size of London

Exactly. The in to, then out of London is precisely the same as for this half of the country to get to LHR. I am more inclined to go to LCY and change in a foreign hub then go to LHR.

Quoting neveragain (Reply 25):
Sounds like somebody has been listening to too much of Michael O'Leary and his anti-BAA tirades!

You can think that if you like, but having worked at STN for best part of a decade I am very used to seeing first hand how the place is run. It has pervaded the place for years. The businesses that have come and gone all over the place, the buildings in disrepair (admittedly that aspect has improved last year or two), for example.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: neveragain
Posted 2012-10-18 01:42:02 and read 3459 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 30):
You can think that if you like, but having worked at STN for best part of a decade I am very used to seeing first hand how the place is run. It has pervaded the place for years. The businesses that have come and gone all over the place, the buildings in disrepair (admittedly that aspect has improved last year or two), for example.

Can you be more specific? Are the buildings in disrepair under the control of BAA or are they on leasehold land and therefore supposed to be properly maintained by tenants? Is it that BAA has been truly negligent or were they going through budget reductions and trimming captial expenditure at a time when the airport was shrinking in volumes? And what exactly was the nature of the "disrepair?"

I don't doubt that BAA's corporate focus and priorities lie elsewhere and that a new owner my have a more targeted approach toward nurturing growth at STN. But I also have not seen the evidence that BAA has been a lousy owner for STN, and since you seem to feel quite strongly that they are I was hoping you could further explain your viewpoint.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2012-10-18 04:33:48 and read 3333 times.

Quoting neveragain (Reply 31):
Can you be more specific? Are the buildings in disrepair under the control of BAA

I'm talking general airport material, certainly under BAA direct control. However, like I said, that aspect has markedly improved. I am just talking unacceptable levels of shabby, carpets torn and filthy, walls dirty not been painted for years, corners galore piled up with a foot of dust where 'people don't see', for example. Not necessary massive stuff, but a hell of a lot of it at one point. I would say that at its worst, passenger figures had experienced sustained and steady growth, so no excuses there. But yes, as you confirm - a general feeling that the airport is something that they are just not that interested in making work properly, that the focus lies elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2012-10-18 05:42:49 and read 3269 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 18):
The facilities are not bad, I dont mean to be rude to anyone but the issue at STN is the pax - many inexperienced flyers not knowing what to do, fighting with FR check in staff for not reading the small print, spread themselves out all over the floor giving us a view of next weeks laundry while they try to remove weight from their bags while already loaded with 8 Stella's at 9am off on their 10 quid stag do to IBZ.

   Gotta love British wit  
Quoting neveragain (Reply 25):
the thinking that there just is not as much demand for low-yield VFR passengers going from London to points in Eastern Europe in 2012 as there was in 2007.

I feel the demographics have changed on our Scandinavian - Eastern European routes too over the past few years. Now, we can have 60-70% very price-sensitive Eastern European workers commuting and they hardly buy anything onboard. A few years ago we had mostly "stag and hen parties" pax who emptied our sales trolleys on the outbound flight. Now everyone has been pissed in Prague and bonked in Budapest and have no need to do it again.

I thought STN was quite nice, but I guess that FR's huge presence there scares off most airlines.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-10-18 06:31:48 and read 3226 times.

MINBY's/MP's/Votes = no action. They 'knew' the right location way back in the early 70's (somewhere near Milton Keynes - can't remeber the name now).Since then nothing - save the odd Thames estuary suggestion because it only offends the birds and is totally implausable.

It certainly is not Stanstead. Neither airlines or passengers wish to go there and upgrading the awful line would cost billions (and still they would not use it).

Heathrow (3 runways) is the obvious (but noisy) solution. If there is a second it is of course Ms Thatcher's nemisis.After Mr Heath backed off the correct solution and then suggested' the Thames' Ms Thatcher knew that the only other viable alternative was of course Gatwick. A place that international airlines were prepared to go, a place that passengers wanted to go to and could get to fast and easily.

But it is situated in the heartland of the Tory kingdom.Forget the Magna Charter.Ms Thatcher was forced to sit down and sign away half a centuary (two runways) just for daring to suggest it. Perhaps beheading awaits the next Tory to utters the word Gatwick - I doubt they will!

Yet today the Gatwick case is more compelling than ever once you add the 'Clapham Junction rail hub' to the picture.

In December the London orbital "Overground" system will be complete. Starting and finishing in CJ joining the whole perimiter of London. It is of course on the main lines of Victoria and Waterloo stations (as well as London Bridge). Furthermore there is now outine approval for "Airtrack Lite" which will link CJ with Heathrow.If that was not enough approval has been given to extend the Northern Line through to Battersea - with the option of extending to CJ. Thus all of London would be able to reach this'hub' station which is just 20 mins from Gatwick.

A no brainer - but as stated it will never happen - ever. Too many Tory MP's seats at stake.
However I do find the whole thing a little amusing. After 50 years of kicking the can down the road, the buck will finally stop in 2015! What! A decision??? I wonder how they will avoid making it  

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: neveragain
Posted 2012-10-18 06:45:09 and read 3200 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 32):
I'm talking general airport material, certainly under BAA direct control. However, like I said, that aspect has markedly improved. I am just talking unacceptable levels of shabby, carpets torn and filthy, walls dirty not been painted for years, corners galore piled up with a foot of dust where 'people don't see', for example. Not necessary massive stuff, but a hell of a lot of it at one point. I would say that at its worst, passenger figures had experienced sustained and steady growth, so no excuses there. But yes, as you confirm - a general feeling that the airport is something that they are just not that interested in making work properly, that the focus lies elsewhere.

Thanks for the follow-up. Sounds like your observations are mostly along the lines of general maintenance and refurbishment spending.

I took a look at the management accounts for BAA Stansted (available publicly) for the past several years. Since the fall in traffic in 2007-08, STN has averaged just slightly more than £1 per passenger per year on captial expenditure (~£20m per year) and is a fairly low level of investment. That lines up nicely with your anecdotal observations about facility quality in the last several years.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 33):
A few years ago we had mostly "stag and hen parties" pax who emptied our sales trolleys on the outbound flight. Now everyone has been pissed in Prague and bonked in Budapest and have no need to do it again.

Funny!   

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2012-10-19 06:07:11 and read 2962 times.

Stansted is hell on earth.. Whenever i have been there it has been full of chavs getting wasted in the bar at 6 am, causing havoc and making my life an absolute misery.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: Lofty
Posted 2012-10-19 10:47:20 and read 2858 times.

STN is the wrong location:

LGW the wealthy South East, remember for Kent, Sussex and Surrey you have the fun and expense of crossing the Thames for STN.

LHR the Thames corridor with major business and industry.

LCY any one north of the Thames and the city not just business traffic but leisure as well.

Topic: RE: Would Airlines Want To Use Stansted?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2012-10-19 13:36:43 and read 2716 times.

Quoting Lofty (Reply 37):
LGW the wealthy South East, remember for Kent, Sussex and Surrey you have the fun and expense of crossing the Thames for STN.

It's funny. When I lived for a few years in southeast Kent, long before I thought of working at STN, it was still the airport I used most frequently, and actually the journey at quiet times was a total piece of cake.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/