SRB looks to buy Gatwick

Is this what SRB has been saving his money for?

Originally posted by Bill S
Is this what SRB has been saving his money for?

I hope not. I have a strong aversion to customer facing businesses owning major parts of the supply chain on which they depend - case for catastrophe in my book!

As long as he doesn't fit out the airport with second rate fixtures and fittings, like the planes he flies from there [}:)]

Sorry couldn't resist that. But seriously, it could really damage the brand if they get it wrong.

Would they call it V:port (2)???!

My local paper reports that the London City Airport owners may be looking to buy it. This is because they've refused to comment on the story, apparently.

I think this could be a very good thing!
The key is that Gatwick would be part owned by a consortium of airlines.
I know it works well with NERL (NATS) - effectively the service is provided for the customer (the airlines) in the way that they need it.

Having an airport that provides the service that the airlines need and makes the investment they need to satisfy their passengers could work extremely well and would provide real competition to LHR.

I agree that it would not work if this were Virgin alone - just as Stansted would not work if only Ryanair controlled it - but this is not Virgin alone - like NERL it would be consortium with a number of airlines closely involved. That is what SRB seems to be proposing.

London city owned by offshoot of GE
Agree with flyerdave, needs to be flagship impact- but unlikely given what they've just done at LHR
as long as they/ BMI expand the regional flights for actually getting to Gatwick.

If it is similar setup to NERL, it would involve a consortium of seven UK airlines: British Airways, bmi British Midland, Virgin Atlantic, Thomsonfly, Monarch, easyJet and My Travel.

That gives excellent potential for regional and EU connections.

two points:

London city is one of the best little airports I've ever flown from.

Gatwick is geographically in the wrong place, and unless you live around london or the south east, then its a RRPITA to get to.

Agree with others: Virgin owned Gatwick would be a BAD idea.

Originally posted by woggledog

Gatwick is geographically in the wrong place, and unless you live around london or the south east, then its a RRPITA to get to.

But what about for the people who live in and around that area. When I'm home I prefer to fly from Gatwick as travelling to LHR is a pain for me. Anywhere really is a pain to get to if you are not nearby.

As for Virgin running the airport I think it is another piece of PR that SRB likes to indulge in[;)]

Iain

Well, anyone BUT BAA would be a good idea. BAA's been spending money on the pit that is called LHR, and left LGW to rot (figuratively speaking). If BA, VS, EZY and all the others were to club together to buy the airport to transform it in a way that works for all airlines involved, then LGW could become an airport again that you would want to fly from.

I already fly from LGW more often than LHR for the simple reason that there are generally no outgoing delays.

S.

Given the geographical location and the already congested skies around London, the option to branch out to develop more routes from elsewhere would surely be a opener. Given Manchester's size and VS already having a foothold in this. How much lost opportunities are they already missing not expanding this hub?
SQ are there, BMI, so option to combine a huge variety of long haul destinations - other than Disney and St Lucia...

Could allow more options for ditching old tired planes on different routes....

[Scrooge]

Couple of problems with your post.

MAN is SQ's lowest yielding airport in Europe, if oil prices jump again they may not stay around.

The tired old planes, I guess you are referring to VS's LGW fleet, happen to be some of the youngest in the VS fleet, however I do agree, at some point VS should look at a couple of destinations from MAN, LAS does very well for BMI, there is no reason it wouldn't for VS.

Perhaps a joint bid with Manchester Airport Group.

I don't see MAG getting the green light for this one, surely that will just create another BAA type situation, with two airport groups dominating the running of UK Airports, after all MAG run BOH and EMA.

I wouldn't be shocked if we saw an overseas airport company coming in for LGW. FRAPort and Singapore Changi are both rumoured to be interested.

Not sure London City would be the bet suitors for LGW either. After all they haven't really had much with EXT, which they brought about 2 years ago (along with Balfour BEatty).

As for LGW being in the wrong location, I am sure that the vast majority of the people in south London, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire et al would all disagree.

Originally posted by willd
As for LGW being in the wrong location, I am sure that the vast majority of the people in south London, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire et al would all disagree.

I live in South London (well SW actually) and still find Heathrow more convenient - but I wouldn't want to harm the lovely people of Surrey [}:)].

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by willd
As for LGW being in the wrong location, I am sure that the vast majority of the people in south London, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire et al would all disagree.

but I wouldn't want to harm the lovely people of Surrey [}:)].

Indeed leave us alone! [}:)]

One of the difficulties for people around Gatwick is the new planning law for major projects.
To be truly competitive with LHR, LGW will need to expand and/or increase hours of operation.
While there are existing agreements with local councils, will these remain binding, particularly if new planning applications are made? (under the new regulations!)
Another issue will be any planning required to improve transport (rail?) access to LGW.

WillD - you may not be left alone

Interesting rumour on a.net is that CO are about to pull the plug on LGW.

Problem is that currently BAA have no reason/want to keep long haul carriers at LGW. If another company took LGW over, you can bet that they will be offering the remaining long haul carriers great deals to stay. Otherwise LGW will just become LTN on steroids.

Of course this could have a knock on effect with the CO/VS Codeshare.

Originally posted by VAFFPAX
I already fly from LGW more often than LHR for the simple reason that there are generally no outgoing delays.

yeah, but the long long delays to get luggage on return to LGW more than make up for it. I constantly threaten airlines that I will consider alternatives if they don't pressure LGW to put more resources into this area.

BAA have this morning announced that LGW is for sale. Click Here.

So finally maybe an airport in the South will get some decent service.

SRB, as this thread originally hinted at, is still saying he wants to buy LGW. Personally I think it would be much better if an experienced foreign airport operator brought the airport, unless SRB links up with a major airport operator and enters a partnership. LGW is a mess and I think it might not be the best thing for the VIrgin brand to have its name associated with something that is going to take years to update and improve.

I am not sure how much better MAG will be than BAA.

Steve Ridgway has just been on BBC Breakfast stating that VS are extremely serious about forming a consortium along the lines of the one at NATS to run LGW.

Any sort of real investment at Gatwick has got to be a good thing, i just wish they could get an extra runway sorted ( highly unlikely i know).

Now a NATS type operation would be a good idea. Some kind of VS, U2, BA, BE, TOM/FCA, TC operation.

Now a 2nd runway (well a 3rd because there are two runways but they are too close apparently) will never happen. It is needed really and much better than building yet another airport in London.

Originally posted by willd
Now a 2nd runway ... will never happen.

Perhaps is possible under new legislation.

I would doubt that any potential buyer would say too much in public though.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, it will be a disaster. Owning and running an airport should not be the core business of an airline - I've seen this time and time again in other industries when one business aims to verticalise itself across a supply chain, major decisions ensue about where limited resources can be invested and one part always suffers to the then detriment of the whole.

I think NATS is quite different, don't forget that major investment came from through government in new systems and then in 2001 a further large sum was given after 911 and the downfall in travel - I doubt whether government would bail out a Gatwick owned by airlines should another situation like this arise. So who would, well we the paying VS customer perhaps?