There are quite a few sites giving values at 1bn. Recouping the investment at 1.5bn when your main user is RYR is not going to be an easy situation. I am sure MOL has already called MAG and told them to not even think about increasing their fees!!
So why is it OK for MAG to own a bunch of airports which now covers a huge percentage of the English catchment area, but when BAA do its anti competitive? Because one of the airports BAA own is LHR which happens to have more value than probably every other airport on the planet? No BAA supporter, just curious.
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 5): I'm sure I read somewhere, BAA gave Ryanair a sweet deal, which may or may not be in the best interests of MAG
Not sure MAG would want to piss off FR too much though, I mean realistically who else is going to come in and fill the void if they left? I can see the addition of a couple of airlines and routes here and there, but not a network like FR. Conversely, FR could not shift that volume of capacity anywhere either and they are not going to pull out of a market as vast as London. LTN is at capacity, SEN could not take that sort of capacity and they are not going to take on U2 at LGW and its doubtful there would be the space to do so anyway. MSE is out of the question for a large operation without major infrasturcture upgrades and is too far out to be a realistic London hub. Likewise CBG and OXF doesnt have the runway.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 6): Don't doubt FR playing the spoiled child, picking up its toys and playing somewhere else
There is nowhere else. Certainly not in the UK anyway. Not for even half the planes based there. STN is a huge chunk of their business, in spite of the large number of bases they now operate across Europe.
✈ Don't like it? That's just your tough chuff. ✈
slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3259 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 8): So why is it OK for MAG to own a bunch of airports which now covers a huge percentage of the English catchment area, but when BAA do its anti competitive? Because one of the airports BAA own is LHR which happens to have more value than probably every other airport on the planet? No BAA supporter, just curious.
I quite agree and always believed the competition commission argument to be flawed and politically driven. nevertheless MAG has proven to be a competent operator, in a sort of nationalized way it'll be good for STN. I still won't ever go there though!
ANCsupercub From United States of America, joined May 2007, 132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 8): So why is it OK for MAG to own a bunch of airports which now covers a huge percentage of the English catchment area, but when BAA do its anti competitive? Because one of the airports BAA own is LHR which happens to have more value than probably every other airport on the planet? No BAA supporter, just curious.
I can't speak for the regulators, but in 2011 LHR, with £1,150 Million in revenue, generated 10 times the revenue of STN and 3 times the revenue of the entire Manchester Airports Group. I would assume this has something to do with it. Additionally, when you look at the numbers of passengers the airports served, LHR had far more than MAG and STN combined.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3168 times:
Quoting david_itl (Thread starter): Wonder what the FR reaction will be as I'm sure they were against it?
Ryanair and MAG ‘a very good marriage’
"Stansted’s biggest customer, Ryanair, would be happy to see it taken over by the Manchester Airports Group (MAG), reports the Manchester Evening News."
"Manchester Airport would not be a good buyer because they're just another airport-monopoly mentality," O'Leary said. "I think one of the big pension funds - Infratil or Macquarie - would be better. They'd take a longer view."
2008matt From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 84 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
Finally the BAA ruining STN saga is over, now get building that second runway and get STN busy again. Keep Ryanair as they are a big customer there but building a second runway gives huge extra capacity for new airlines too.
willd From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2671 times:
Quoting slinky09 (Reply 10): Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 8):
So why is it OK for MAG to own a bunch of airports which now covers a huge percentage of the English catchment area, but when BAA do its anti competitive? Because one of the airports BAA own is LHR which happens to have more value than probably every other airport on the planet? No BAA supporter, just curious.
I quite agree and always believed the competition commission argument to be flawed and politically driven. nevertheless MAG has proven to be a competent operator, in a sort of nationalized way it'll be good for STN. I still won't ever go there though!
I see your point but this was the reason. For example say I live in say Petersfield, Hampshire. My nearest major airports are: BOH, SOU, LGW, LHR, LTN and STN. Up until a few years ago four of those were owned by BAA, BOH was small fry (and still is really only doing a couple of FR flights and the TOM charters) and LTN was painted all orange. This meant BAA pretty much had a monopoly over all the viable airports in my region. They could charge what they liked for car parking, landing fees (which impacted me through the price of my ticket) etc. In addition BAA were not going to push LGW for major international routes when they owned LHR. This was unfair because as a consumer I had no real choice.
Fast forward to now and we have a much more equal playing field. BAA still own SOU and LHR however there is more choice. MAG have BOH and STN with that Balfour Beaty lot owning LGW and LCY. Yes MAG have quite a sizeable operation but importantly they do not hold such a strong monopoly over one region as BAA did with London and the South and the Glasgow/Edinburgh corridor. LGW has managed (somehow) to attract new routes such as from VN and KE. WE have also seen more money invested into LGW which is something BAA were reluctant to do when the airport was not the jewel in their crown. THis is the exact reason why it had to happen.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2250 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 8): So why is it OK for MAG to own a bunch of airports which now covers a huge percentage of the English catchment area, but when BAA do its anti competitive? Because one of the airports BAA own is LHR which happens to have more value than probably every other airport on the planet? No BAA supporter, just curious.
Well, this does level the playing field a bit. Now we have BAA with LHR, GLA, ABZ, SOU. MAG with MAN, STN, EMA, BOH. GIP with LGW, EDI, LCY. The British government could have sold off BAA in three packages from the very beginning and avoid all the hassle for everyone, as it was clear that a converting a public near-monopoly into a private one was not sustainable, but oh well. (Personally I prefer a nationally-owned aiport system like AENA in Spain, but that's another story)
The important thing is that the 4/5 London airports are now under different ownership and thus have an incentive to develop and compete against each other. BAA had neglected investments in favor of LHR - the LGW passenger experience has significantly improved since GIP took over, now let's see what happens at STN. Of course, what neither BAA, GIP or MAG can do is decide to build new runways - that's up to the UK government.
by738 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 1986 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Im presuming at some point BAA will off load the rest (except LHR), Heathrow Holdings indeed....), suspect GLA may be next. Surely it could be veering towards a MAG monopoly !
LuftyMatt From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 372 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1153 times:
Quoting col (Reply 7): There are quite a few sites giving values at 1bn. Recouping the investment at 1.5bn when your main user is RYR is not going to be an easy situation.
Ah I see what you mean, I would question the business sense in that as well.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7145 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, 
From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 409 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 216 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2095 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2250 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 1986 posts, 
From France, joined Apr 2009, 353 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
