Originally posted by moid
Nice idea - it would probably have to be LGW as I can't see BAA selling LHR
Will be LGW, I think that BAA have been prepared to sell LGW if they were forced to for a long time.
The owners of Changi Airport in Singapore look the early favourites although Fraport (owners of Frankfurt airport) and the Manchester Airport Group have expressed an interest.
Go for Changi, if they made LGW as nice as SIN it would be a great thing!
What I found interesting was that no mention is made of SOU. Sure the runway is too short for anything about a 737 and its passengers numbers are small but certainly BAA have dominate airports in the South. I would have thought they would be forced to sell of SOU as well, after all the catchment areas of LHR and LGW overlap with SOU and with the lack of competition from BOH, BAA are making a killing out of the South.
If Ryanair did buy Stansted then be prepared for them to start charging you to breath inside the terminal along with all the additional charges they already add to their flights.
As for Gatwick, it would be great for a VS led consortium to buy the place but highly unlikely to happen unless SRB diverts the funds he was attempting to cobble together a few months ago from a hotel and resort angle into an actual hub angle. Whoever got Gatwick, please, please, please kick NCP out of the place....over £5 the other night to park while waiting for a nats over one hour for my mother to come through south terminal, rip off or what!
As for Gatwick, it would be great for a VS led consortium to buy the place but highly unlikely to happen unless SRB diverts the funds he was attempting to cobble together a few months ago from a hotel and resort angle into an actual hub angle. Whoever got Gatwick, please, please, please kick NCP out of the place....over £5 the other night to park while waiting for a nats over one hour for my mother to come through south terminal, rip off or what!
Originally posted by wanderingmariner
If Ryanair did buy Stansted then be prepared for them to start charging you to breath inside the terminal along with all the additional charges they already add to their flights.
I quite agree having flown with Ryanair for the first time last year and Stansted being my 'local' airport.
The other outcome of this is that you will have airlines like Ryanair playing one airport off the other, and lower landing charges as a result, so less income for the airports, so less money to spend on improvements. In the current financial climate I can't see the volume of flights increasing...
I also appreciate that one of the issues airlines have with the BAA is their 'gold plated' approach to things - I think the likes of Ryanair want their airports to be more like bus stations.
I also appreciate that one of the issues airlines have with the BAA is their 'gold plated' approach to things - I think the likes of Ryanair want their airports to be more like bus stations.
I'll be the counter person here, I don't see being forced to sell off any one airport as automatically leading to that improving a diddly squit. Let's ask what improvement might mean:
- shorter security, well I'll admit that could change but what incentive does an acquirer have to invest above current levels if it's going to hurt their bottom line
- fewer delays, ah good one, say RyanAir buys Stanstead and lowers the landing fees to attract more flights, that'll lower congestion, oh and then of course airports can build runways willy nilly
- better facilities - anyone can clean the bogs more frequently, but I for one don't think our airports really are that bad compared to many (yes, not as great as some but you can count those on one hand, even just the fingers)
It's open season on BAA, I'll be more convinced when someone actually comes up with what the better actually looks like, other than saying monopoly automatically = bad. As my mom used to say, better to run to something rather than away from something.
- shorter security, well I'll admit that could change but what incentive does an acquirer have to invest above current levels if it's going to hurt their bottom line
- fewer delays, ah good one, say RyanAir buys Stanstead and lowers the landing fees to attract more flights, that'll lower congestion, oh and then of course airports can build runways willy nilly
- better facilities - anyone can clean the bogs more frequently, but I for one don't think our airports really are that bad compared to many (yes, not as great as some but you can count those on one hand, even just the fingers)
It's open season on BAA, I'll be more convinced when someone actually comes up with what the better actually looks like, other than saying monopoly automatically = bad. As my mom used to say, better to run to something rather than away from something.
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Originally posted by wanderingmariner
If Ryanair did buy Stansted then be prepared for them to start charging you to breath inside the terminal along with all the additional charges they already add to their flights.
Indeed. I can see it now:
Seating is paid for. Put your pound in the slot and the spike retracts,
Moving walkways are not free. Bouncer at the end to take your money.
Return of the 'spend-a-penny toilets. Inflation to spend-a-fiver.
Scrap those expensive jetways. I'm sure IAD will do a swap for lounges.
The list is endless
Thanks
Darren
Darren
God help us if Ryanair ever get to own an airport. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought Cardiff (as an example - I am not suggesting it will happen) and rebrand it overnight as London (Cardiff)!
Originally posted by dom_f
I must admit I agree with BAA that the report is flawed saying they should sell 3 airports. It should be 7.
Dom
Nearly spilt my tea with laughter! [:D]
Originally posted by barnstaple
God help us if Ryanair ever get to own an airport. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought Cardiff (as an example - I am not suggesting it will happen) and rebrand it overnight as London (Cardiff)!
I literally did spill some coffee when I read this....
Glasgow Prestwick, London Luton, London Frankfurt maybe....
Or actually, just have London Termnal G (formerly known as Gatwick), Terminal L (previously Luton) etc...
In Scotland you could have Glasgow East (Edinburgh), Glasgow South (Prestwick) and Glasgow erm... Central. (Abbotsinch). And at a push Glasgow North (Inverness).
With a wide range of flights including destinations Dublin North (Belfast) ---ooo political--- Dublin West (Galway)
In Scotland you could have Glasgow East (Edinburgh), Glasgow South (Prestwick) and Glasgow erm... Central. (Abbotsinch). And at a push Glasgow North (Inverness).
With a wide range of flights including destinations Dublin North (Belfast) ---ooo political--- Dublin West (Galway)
Originally posted by Sealink
I also appreciate that one of the issues airlines have with the BAA is their 'gold plated' approach to things - I think the likes of Ryanair want their airports to be more like bus stations.
Considering that RyanAir is nothing more than a bus service with wings attached, that's not too far off.
But I agree with others that perhaps VS should move back to LGW after buying and renovating that airport... except the flight connections between LGW and LHR would be a ... well... you know... b***h (not that they aren't already).
S.
[
But I agree with others that perhaps VS should move back to LGW after buying and renovating that airport... except the flight connections between LGW and LHR would be a ... well... you know... b***h (not that they aren't already).
S.
No No NO!!!!.... Even though I can't see this happening if it did it would be a nightmare for me....
Originally posted by V1
Here is the latest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7571733.stm
Steve
That f*cker needs to get a narcotics test and quick. Capacity? Obviously the amount of retail hasn't gone up in the last 20 years in the BAA run airports.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests