Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAA Lose Battle To Keep London Stansted  
User currently offlineEGSUcrew From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

"The Competition Commission first ruled three years ago that BAA's dominance in London and Scotland meant it must sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh airports.

BAA sold Gatwick and recently agreed to sell Edinburgh, but it has continued to fight the Stansted decision.

The firm said it was "disappointed" and was considering its position.

Its appeal was dismissed by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, a judicial body whose panel is made up of judges and industry experts."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16831480

What are your thoughts on the future of STN and what this could mean for employees and airlines?

EDIT: Do you actually think that owning LHR and STN is anti-competitive? They serve very different markets, not sure I agree with the ruling here.

[Edited 2012-02-01 04:36:29]

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

Given LHR's limitations, STN serves as a good overflow option for BAA, particularly to serve the LCC market. I don't see an issue with BAA keeping STN.

With Gatwick, Luton, London City and now Southend also all having different owners, there's plenty of competition to work from.

[Edited 2012-02-01 04:50:03]

User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26848 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting EGSUcrew (Thread starter):
BAA sold Gatwick

Since LGW was sold the experience has improved alot . I have noticed the difference myself numerous times.


User currently offlineEGSUcrew From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):

I definately agree with you there. There was a programme on Sky 1 in the UK showing the development process and the improvements were obvious.

I'm not saying that a sale of STN wouldn't improve it, I'm just not sure how they can force the sale due to competition laws.

We could hopefully see someone other than FR and U2 in there, though!


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

I'm sure there is a degree of victimisation going on here, purely due to BAA having been swallowed up by a foreign owner. The government had no real beef with the majority of the UK's aiport capacity being owned by BAA right up until the day Ferrovial took it over. Indeed it was the UK government which privatised the aiports in the 1980's selling them off en masse rather than piecemeal.

With LHR severely slot restricted a new long haul entrant to the UK presently has a choice of LGW or STN, now that LGW is no longer part of BAA, changing the ownership of STN doesn't appear to change the equation in the slightest.

The big worry for BAA/Ferrovial is that the takeover was at the top of the credit boom, BAA shareholders quickly capitulated due to the high price offered. Ferrovial having already struggled to sell of LGW at a profit now face another potential loss on STN.


User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 822 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5170 times:

I think BAA should sue the competition commission for losses ... who's to say that had LGW remained with BAA the improvements (and I was there on Sunday evening and saw no change) would not have been made, and as said, STN is not competing with LHR - more so with LGW - so what's the real issue other than politicization and singling out?

User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7458 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

http://www.baa.com/portal/page/About...010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/%20BAA

It sounds like pretty sharp practice to me.

You agree to a firm buying 7 airports, then force them to sell 3, surely knowing that the price they get, given the economic climate and it being a forced sale, would be way down.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26370 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Yet another problem with making "private" things that are inherently governmental. National Infrastructure should never be owned by private interests.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

If BAA is forced to sell another airport, then it will be high time for Britain to shed its last economic regulations of airports. These regulations are keeping BAA from properly managing LHR.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Yet another problem with making "private" things that are inherently governmental. National Infrastructure should never be owned by private interests.

Economic assets such as these should always be owned buy private interests and managed under the influence of economics. The US is way behind the curve in privatizing airports and ATC. Even Brazil's leftist-leaning government is privatizing airports.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCEO@AFG From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 245 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4587 times:

Quote:
I definately agree with you there. There was a programme on Sky 1 in the UK showing the development process and the improvements were obvious.

Inside Gatwick, available at youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvXaGgFmS8M

And just looking at that programme, it's fairly obvious that one operator doesn't serve the market well when it owns all the market or even 2/3 of the market. Selling Stansted will make all three airports fight harder for customers and you would see more effort put in to improve facilities.

Btw, chuckled at the episode of Inside Gatwick where signage is changed from the yellow with black, to black with yellow. That's been the standard for all airports in Scandinavia for years. Looks better too.



"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue." Steven McCroskey, Airplane!
User currently offlineYchocky From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Isn't STN a major cargo entry point for the UK?

LGW didn't have this factor and surely BAA will lose out on revenue?

Thanks for posting the above video on Gatwick. Fascinating.


User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Since LGW was sold the experience has improved alot . I have noticed the difference myself numerous times.

Yes it has changed so much for the better! I don't know much about STN and it is a little different than LGW but im sure if someone like GIP got the airport I could imagine it being a whole lot better off.



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlineEGSUcrew From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

Quoting Ychocky (Reply 10):

Yeah, it's a major cargo hub. It serves BA World Cargo, FedEx, UPS, I saw a Japanese 767-300F when i was last there so yeah, BAA will lose a noticeable amount of the UK's cargo market, surely?

Incidentally, does LGW have any cargo ops?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26370 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Economic assets such as these should always be owned buy private interests and managed under the influence of economics.

These aren't economic assets, they are national infrastructure assets. Built with government money for the good of all. They should never, ever be owned by private interests.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting EGSUcrew (Reply 12):
Incidentally, does LGW have any cargo ops?

No not anymore.



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlineYchocky From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

Quoting EGSUcrew (Reply 12):
Yeah, it's a major cargo hub. It serves BA World Cargo, FedEx, UPS, I saw a Japanese 767-300F when i was last there so yeah, BAA will lose a noticeable amount of the UK's cargo market, surely?

Incidentally, does LGW have any cargo ops?

I'm impressed with the LHR cargo ops, granted a large lorry passes in front of my lens just as the perfect angle is achieved; but It honestly seems like a waste of operation slots and real estate! And surely nothing further can be added?


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Quoting Ychocky (Reply 15):

I'm surprised that LHR still has any dedicated cargo ops. My perception is that slots would be much to valuable for anything other than passenger flights.



What the...?
User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
My perception is that slots would be much to valuable for anything other than passenger flights.

Couple of points:

A lot of cargo is carried on PAX planes -- it needs to get in and out of LHR somehow. It's not cost-effective to fly a freighter into (for example) STN, divide up the load and then truck it over to LHR to be loaded onto pax aircraft to its next stop.

A lot of the slots at LHR are not passenger-friendly, and they're not extremely high-value slots. Those are often used for cargo flights.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
These aren't economic assets, they are national infrastructure assets. Built with government money for the good of all. They should never, ever be owned by private interests.

They are very much economic assets, just like ports and rail are economic assets. There is no denying that.

And the "good for all" is undefinable, has been used to justify anything and everything, and frankly, it's fairy tale.

[Edited 2012-02-01 19:27:05]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Well, as a business prof I do believe it is a correct decision to force BAA to sell LGW and STN as keeping all three airports basically gives one single company complete monopoly coverage of the major sectors of the passenger business, with only Luton able to compete on some level with the low cost flights leaving STN. Some major carriers have tried to operate from STN and even Luton (okay, El Al, which I found useful!) but to no avail, LHR is the vital nexus of business and long haul travel and unless the transport links to LGW or STN improve, that will remain the case. Seriously makes the case for building the third runway now as opposed to waiting decades for Boris Island.

With STN, I am concerned that the authorities will take one look at the nice, green open fields surround it and think, 'Hang on a second, let's build a massive airport' in the vein of Berlin Brandenberg project. Won't work unless the government force the closure of LHR, as Mirabel proved with Dorval in Montreal and the shift of transcontinental flights from Tokyo Narita to Haneda is showing now the existing links to an airport close to a major global city make too much economic sense to a major company.

I would also be annoyed if more countryside is concreted over to prevent a third runway at Heathrow, that would be ecological madness!


Therefore, I do wonder whether these three airports could successfully compete against one another considering that they serve very different geographic footprints and demographics, but I don't think it is fair for BAA to own all three big airports in London dominating all the major passenger groupings.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3926 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2865 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
My perception is that slots would be much to valuable for anything other than passenger flights.


There are slots available at LHR. The problem is in matching runway departure and arrival slots and terminal capacity.

If you take next Wednesday as an example, runway departure slots are available between 1000 and 1200, but runway arrival slots are only available before 0500 or between 0900 and 1000. These slots are useless for airlines in terminal 3 and 4 though because the two terminals are at capacity between 1000 and 1200.

In fact, for certain carriers, the issue is more terminal capacity than anything else. Terminal 1 is maxed out almost non-stop, except for a few hours on Tuesday and Wednesday, so whether or not slots are available is almost irrelevant.

It is the difficulty of matching terminal capacity and slots that makes it necessary for some airlines to buy convenient slots once they find adequate terminal capacity.

This difficulty is also what makes it possible for cargo carriers to operate at LHR using slots that airlines cannot match to available terminal capacity.

Beyond that, there are days of the week and hours of the day where traffic dies down too. Again, using next week as an example, you can get a runway slot almost anytime between 2100 and 0500 (1), or as early as 1500 on Saturday. Perfect for DHL and its two or three daily (weekday) flights out of LHR...

(1) Of course there is a cap of 15 take-offs per night - 2300 to 0600 if I recall.

[Edited 2012-02-02 02:02:14]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinekdhurst380 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 5):

I think BAA should sue the competition commission for losses ... who's to say that had LGW remained with BAA the improvements (and I was there on Sunday evening and saw no change) would not have been made, and as said, STN is not competing with LHR - more so with LGW - so what's the real issue other than politicization and singling out?

I'm assuming you left your glasses at home that day? Whilst material improvements were still on the cards (about 20 years overdue), service levels under BAA were still appalling, you can't change that with a lick of paint.

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 19):

Well, as a business prof I do believe it is a correct decision to force BAA to sell LGW and STN as keeping all three airports basically gives one single company complete monopoly coverage of the major sectors of the passenger business, with only Luton able to compete on some level with the low cost flights leaving STN. Some major carriers have tried to operate from STN and even Luton (okay, El Al, which I found useful!) but to no avail, LHR is the vital nexus of business and long haul travel and unless the transport links to LGW or STN improve, that will remain the case. Seriously makes the case for building the third runway now as opposed to waiting decades for Boris Island.

I do agree that they should be all under separate ownership, but the point about transport links is only true of STN. LGW has the busiest airport train station in the country with an abundance of links, you can be at Victoria in 30 minutes, slap bang in the middle of London. You can also get to every corner of the UK without going anywhere near London. What makes LHR such a goldmine, is it's position as the UK's sole hub airport, no airport in the world throughputs as many international transit pax as LHR, and it's arguably a worse connected airport as far as rail links go, you have to go into London itself to get anywhere else. You don't need to be a business professional to know that  


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2624 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

I have a simple, one word, reaction to this news: Good.


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Sorry, I meant professor not prof (think of me as an amateur as opposed to a professional )  

The train link into Gatwick is somewhat congested and suffers from the local choice of electrification 100 odd years ago and sharing the line with commuter and slower trains, but you are spot on, LHR benefits from the sheer variety of routes and possible connections and as such should be preserved and expanded or closed and replaced with something bigger and better.

Like a city center spaceport; this is the 21st century and we don't have one yet, they lied to us all about the future in the 60s, lied!!!


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 19):
LHR is the vital nexus of business and long haul travel and unless the transport links to LGW or STN improve

While Im not a huge fan of STN itself, we keep on seeing this myth on a.net about its transport links. You are talking about business pax, so while these are spread all over London, you would know a lot of business is in the City of London to the east which is a very convenient train ride from STN into Liverpool Street. Maybe some new rolling stock and a review of prices is in order, but its not bad along with the stop in Tottenham Hale to connect with the Victoria Line and the M11 is a pretty nice fast motorway. LHR for example you can take the Piccadilly Line stop start stop start stop start and its 45 mins into central London at a fraction of the distance. Despite LHR being my most used airport I have never used the Heathrow Express as Paddington is a PITA to get too from most of London

Anyway, on topic, glad communism is coming to an end in the UK! If LGW is any indication, it can only be good for STN. Air UK managed to get plenty of premium pax back in the day, and while now catered for by U2 & FR through lack of choice, I could honestly see some business oriented flights working, but I dont know who by. The best model would be BE, but dont know if they would view services as competing with their own LGW services. I think LCY is actually the biggest competitor to STN, as I say, the links to the financial district are actually pretty good and if it didnt exist Im pretty sure LH, KL & LX could all make twice daily services work. Im not convinced LH couldnt make a daily or twice FRA route with a CRJ work anyway. They also need to get talking to EK or QR.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
25 Post contains images trent900 : I'm pleased to say new rolling stock was intruduced last year (finally) but the prices are still way to high for the service you get. A firm called A
26 EGSUcrew : I think STN's transport links are pretty good. The site is relatively small so it doesn't take an age to find anything, there are coaches (regular an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ryanair To Start London (Stansted)-Turku posted Thu Nov 10 2011 08:10:05 by Pe@rson
Bmibaby Belfast City To London Stansted posted Fri Dec 17 2010 05:25:29 by aidoair
BAA To Keep EDI, GLA And STN? posted Mon Dec 21 2009 04:51:36 by VV701
BAA Commits £230m To London Crossrail posted Tue Nov 4 2008 04:05:57 by Jamesontheroad
747 Service To London Stansted posted Wed May 12 2004 10:09:00 by Voyager
Egyptair To London/Stansted posted Thu Mar 11 2004 13:41:01 by Horus
Whats To Do At London Stansted posted Thu Oct 9 2003 21:28:00 by EZYAirbus
JAL Flights To London Stansted? posted Tue Feb 5 2002 12:41:42 by WunalaDreaming
Continental's New Flight To London Stansted posted Thu Nov 16 2000 21:30:21 by Ishky15
CO First To Fly Newark-London Stansted posted Wed Oct 11 2000 07:02:14 by Krisair747