……….. As expected a damning report BAA will be forced to sell 3 airports off.. 2 london airports (Gatwick & Stansted??) and 1 Scottish (Glasgow pleeeeeeeeeeaaaase!!!)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fe0f578-6e86-11dd-a80a-0000779fd18c.html
Very very hopeful they end GLA’s misery, and GLA can get back to being a booming thriving airport with airlines actively encouraged to start routes rather than BAA’s curent policy of “if an airline wants to start a route from GLA… hike their landing/handling fees up.. and point out they can get a far far better deal by going to Edinburgh:mad:”
Even poor old Aberdeen is suffering from BAA Scotland’s Edinburgh love affair now!
The only downside of GLA being sold… Ryanair will be in in a shot, effectively finishing PIK off (whose owners are probably worse(possible??) than BAA in their neglect) PIK losing cargo flights and the closing of Atlas/Polar hangar, USAF flights routing elsewhere all adding to their misery.
Anyone seen the curent BAA telly advert? (i think it may be Scotland only)
basically, “use a BAA airport, you can buy lots of things and eat nice pies” not unlike an ad for a shopping centre?:mad:
Bring it on!! FREE GLASGOW!!
By: Skymonster - 21st August 2008 at 10:45
Another completely missed opportunity which will do nothing to solve the problems at our major airports. Irrespective of who owns the airports and what they offer airlines and passengers, most airlines will not [for example] switch from LHR to LGW. OK, so if O’Leary will be able to screw a better deal out of LGW than he can out of STN, that’ll give him some leverage but overall I see nothing in this that will benefit most airport users because they simply won’t change airports. Even the guy from Virgin effectively admitted as much – when asked if they’d move to LGW if they were offered a better service there, he declined to answer the question and the interviewer quite rightly caught that and suggested that if the likes of Virgin wouldn’t move (no matter what) then many of the problems would not be solved. The ONLY good thing I see from this is that BAA may be able to direct more investment capital at fewer projects – but of course they will have less income to, so I’m not really sure where that gets them either.
Now what I think they should have recommended was this:
* Runways and infrastructure immediately surrounding the runways (e.g. taxiways) to be bought back by the goverment and run as a non-commercial enterprise with specified charges for users providing a return on investment for the government over a specific time and then future surplus used to re-invest in new runways, new technology, etc. Retain the slot allocation system (nothing is going to get away from that) based on runway utilisation as it is now, but leave the terminal capacity issues to the terminal operators. Investment decisions around runway capacity – e.g. third runway at LHR, second runway at LGW – to be made by goverment based on practical and objective capacity needs.
* Specific TERMINALS, ramp space, etc, at each airport sold to different enterprises – so maybe BAA allowed to retain T1 and T3 at LHR, T5 sold to? (for example BA?) and T4 sold to? (maybe a BAA type organisation). And maybe LGW-N sold to a new operator and LGW-S retained by BAA. With independent organisations running different terminals on the same airport, real competition could be the result with the best facilities and the most competitive charges attracting the airlines that wanted such without them having to move to other airports – which as discussed above isn’t going to happen except for those airlines looking to bottom feed. Investment decisions around new terminal capacity – e.g. STN T2 – to be made by terminal operators (or a new operator coming into an airport) based on the airline business they feel that they can attract to them.
* Airlines pay specific (fixed) fees for infrastructure (i.e. runway) usage – may well be time of day and weight/size dependent as now, but not negotiable. Airlines then pay variable fees – whatever they negotiate – to terminal operators based on what they can offer the terminal operator and what facilities they get in return. So if Ryanair want to operate out of a shed and an operator can be found to build and operate the shed – or an existing terminal can be run bare-bones – Ryanair can use the shed and pay next to nothing whilst another premium operator can pay more – not for the runway but for the terminal facilities – based on the type of facilities they want to offer.
Ah well! Sounds a little bit like the railways doesn’t it. And OK, so there’s still some issues with the railways, but for the most part most people now accept that it provides a better overall service than did BR.
Andy
By: Bmused55 - 20th August 2008 at 22:54
They should be forced to sell one of the London Airports and either EDI or GLA.
By: Richard Taylor - 20th August 2008 at 20:05
Oh, I’ve seen that advert too…”shop at BAA…”
(psst….what about your AIRLINES, your ROUTES, etc)
Ahh………:rolleyes:
Re ABZ, my local – quelle surprise I’m afraid, BAA has NEVER had its best interests at heart. “Cash cow” is the phrase that comes to mind.
Interesting that the Commission is recommending some form of “regulation” re ABZ to help develop routes etc. Wonder how that would work in practice?
By: Ren Frew - 20th August 2008 at 11:13
I was under the impression Ryanair were more hassle than they are worth to PIK. I’d have thought PIK would continue to develop it’s cargo business and forget about the passenger revenues should GLA be sold off and Ryanair enticed to GLA…
If Ryanair do move to GLA, will Aer Lingus drop their DUB route and just how exactly will GLA cope with Ryanair, the lo-co pier plan would need to be put into action straight away.
Interesting times.
By: gatwickjosh - 20th August 2008 at 10:16
Let Gatwick go too!!!!:D
Sign In
August 20, 2008 at 10:10 am