Holidaycharter From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6468 times:
BBC are reporting that the BAA are selling Gatwick which comes as abit of a suprise interested partys are believed to be Virgin and the owners of Manchester airports.
Thoughts and opinions on this good move or bad one?
SASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6433 times:
I just got the BBC alert on my Blackberry, thought I was the first. Damn.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6293 times:
Let's hope whoever eventually ends up as the new owner of Gatwick will run it as an airport with shops rather than two large shopping malls with an airport attached!
Let's also hope that the whinging Bearded One does not enter the bidding and the airport is not renamed Sir Richard Branson International Airport - London.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6221 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 3): Let's also hope that the whinging Bearded One does not enter the bidding and the airport is not renamed Sir Richard Branson International Airport - London.
I'd tend to agree with you; however it could be worse:
Just imagine if Gatwick became the Michael O'Leary International Airport (Dublin East)
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3255 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6151 times:
JWMD123 From Ireland, joined May 2006, 867 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6136 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 4): Just imagine if Gatwick became the Michael O'Leary International Airport (Dublin East)
Don't put it past him.
Buys LGW, kicks every one out and moves all FR operations from STN and LTN to LGW.
No landing fees, parking fees, any kind of fees for FR.
However SRB is also in the mix so it will be interesting times.
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 5): I imagine they will use this as an excuse - "See, we were good boys selling Gatwick - please let us keep Stansted and the Scottish airports!"
That's exactly what they are doing. Try and get in ahead of the final decision.
EI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6052 times:
I think Ferrovial always contemplated selling one of the London airports. As in "buy the BAA and sell off some of the parts for huge money". The credit crunch just makes selling one of the airports even more necessary.
Quoting BCAL (Reply 3): Let's hope whoever eventually ends up as the new owner of Gatwick will run it as an airport with shops rather than two large shopping malls with an airport attached!
I think whoever buys it will want to make back their money quickly. Sounds like more shops, not less. Especially since Gatwick can't grow hugely passenger wise since its so crowded already.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5993 times:
With the amount of shell suits that pass through LGW theres no way they would be allowed to call it Virgin International Airport.
I think SRB would do better and concentrate on VS and its "war" its going to have with BA/AA than try and get his mits on LGW.
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out and indded if an airline comes in the mix with a consortium to buy it.
Whatever happens, I just hope BAA on the back of the sale, put all there effort in to bringing LHR into the 21st Century and dont delay with Heathrow East and so on.
Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5968 times:
Nice bit of spin from SRB, but Virgin will certainly not be one of the bidders when it gets serious. Nor will they be one pat of any leading consortium either.
All the major players, or those who want to be in airport ownership will certainly bid.
you can add in GMR, Hochtief, ADAC and others into the mix.
Still, the sale will certainly keep me busy.....
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5913 times:
Quoting EI564 (Reply 10): I think whoever buys it will want to make back their money quickly.
The buyer will certainly want to "make their money back quickly" their problem however is that airport charges in the UK are set by the Government regulator, who made it plainly clear to Ferrovial that no allowance would be made for the consequences of paying over the odds to buy the airport/airports in the 1st instance.
In addition LGW is a mature airport with little present opportunity for expansion. Thus it should provide a safe and reliable income, but never a quick buck.
This is probably one of the reasons that Ferrovial has put up the for sale sign prior to the final report from the monopolies commission. This will give them longer to find a buyer, a forced sale with a short time scale might not produce as good a price.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10494 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5770 times:
Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 12): With the amount of shell suits that pass through LGW theres no way they would be allowed to call it Virgin International Airport.
Yes, but it sounds so much better than "Whore International Airport", doesn't it?
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5695 times:
Bearing in mind that the agreement not to build a second runway at LGW before 2019 was between BAA and Crawley Council, would this restrictive covenant be equally binding on the new owner(s)? With the amount at stake, surely the lawyers acting for any prospective purchaser may find some loophole to declare the agreement null and void.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
EI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5621 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 14): The buyer will certainly want to "make their money back quickly" their problem however is that airport charges in the UK are set by the Government regulator, who made it plainly clear to Ferrovial that no allowance would be made for the consequences of paying over the odds to buy the airport/airports in the 1st instance.
In addition LGW is a mature airport with little present opportunity for expansion. Thus it should provide a safe and reliable income, but never a quick buck.
Completely agree. That's why I said that there would be an even bigger focus on shops if possible. One way to make more money.
Quoting BCAL (Reply 17): Bearing in mind that the agreement not to build a second runway at LGW before 2019 was between BAA and Crawley Council, would this restrictive covenant be equally binding on the new owner(s)? With the amount at stake, surely the lawyers acting for any prospective purchaser may find some loophole to declare the agreement null and void.
In the current environment, I can't see any chance that the 2019 figure will be broken. It'll probably take 10 years to get through planning permission anyhow...
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3615 times:
Quoting EI564 (Reply 18): Quoting BCAL (Reply 17):
Bearing in mind that the agreement not to build a second runway at LGW before 2019 was between BAA and Crawley Council, would this restrictive covenant be equally binding on the new owner(s)? With the amount at stake, surely the lawyers acting for any prospective purchaser may find some loophole to declare the agreement null and void.
In the current environment, I can't see any chance that the 2019 figure will be broken. It'll probably take 10 years to get through planning permission anyhow...
EI564 seems to be on the right track. Planning matters are usually based on the location, not the owner. If they were owner based, property companys would obviously transfer assets to get round the laws. Unless Crawley Council made a huge mistake this will be binding.
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 904 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 2): Could rename it to Anetwick International!
When BAA was sold to a European client, one of the important rules was to keep the names of the airport, and only the government of the U.K can change.
Quoting EK156 (Reply 20): Can I say Dubai or Abu Dhabi Airports????
I can see Abu Dhabi airports is a good candidate, but this time they will manage to put a partner, and most probably Singapore airport,
WunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 31 Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2682 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 22): EI564 seems to be on the right track. Planning matters are usually based on the location, not the owner. If they were owner based, property companys would obviously transfer assets to get round the laws. Unless Crawley Council made a huge mistake this will be binding.
It makes legal and moral sense that contractual obligations be carried over after the sale of an asset.
However I was hoping that the break-up of BAA's monopoly on London airports would bring some much needed actual competition, and thus development, between LGW and LHR.
I keep thinking that instead of putting all the UK's eggs in LHR's full basket, maybe spreading the wealth and the risks among more actors would provide a relevant alternative.
Just my AU$0.02.
25 Mah584jr: That would be fun to own and run Gatwick. However, we argue and bicker about everything on this site. How are we supposed to run an airport together
26 Cloudyapple: What if: Nobody wants it? Or nobody is willing to pay a price acceptable to BAA for Gatwick? I mean in the credit crisis that is ongoing and is not li
27 EI564: LGW is already an alternative for LHR but airlines choose to use LHR anyhow. It would be nice if LGW got a new runway but looks like STN and LHR will
28 VgnAtl747: While it does make sense that any previous contractual obligations would remain, I would imagine that eventually the politics would come into play. I
29 Maxisno1: Just a random question here - Would EK want it if they got the chance? Not like they couldn't afford it![Edited 2008-09-18 07:37:22]
30 WunalaYann: Please allow me to rephrase. I meant it in the sense that LGW needs to be redeveloped in order to properly compete with LHR. Indeed I reckon it could
31 CasualObserver: Gatwick is a truly awful airport - the single runway often means that the traveller can arrive at Gatwick bang on time but sadly at some several thou
32 R2rho: AFAIK, yes. Because back then BAA was government owned, so I would assume that now the responsibility is passed over to the government. This agreemen
33 Bongodog1964: I'm sure this did not feature in the slightest. The Government had no involvement in the sale of BAA to Ferrovial; in addition it is possible to alte
34 Glom: I proposed abolishing price controls in another thread. It would allow the true economic cost of flying to be reflected in the ticket. No-one was int
35 VV701: The restriction over building another runway at LGW was a condition of a Planning Approval. Such restrictions apply to whoever owns the property unle
36 LHR27C: Sorry to nitpick but they're 08/26. I'm still suspicious of this whole "LGW competing with LHR" idea. Given that at present both are virtually full I
37 Planesarecool: They already have around 10 hourly train services into London Victoria, which take around 30 minutes. They also have four hourly services to London B
38 R2rho: I think there's a misunderstanding, and we're meaning the same thing: the infrastructure (railways, electricity grid... airports) should be managed s
39 PPVRA: With the price caps on landing fees not going anywhere, don't count on it.
40 Pellegrine: It's an absolute steal at 3.5 billion pounds... Now if only that 2nd runway could be advanced sooner than 2019!
41 WunalaYann: And this is where enhancing services to LGW, either with a new infrastructure or with a complete overhaul and upgrade of the existing one, could be p
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, 
From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 633 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4524 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, 
Especially since Gatwick can't grow hugely passenger wise since its so crowded already.
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10494 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2008, 15 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2005, 765 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
