What's up with BAA?

Interestingly, Murdoch’s rags tend – while being hard right-wing editorially – to back whoever they think is going to win a general election so they can say ‘It’s The Sun wot did it.’
It is only this last election that saw The Sun end its backing for Labour.

For the sake of clarity this was how the national press lined up at this year’s election. The Sun, Times, Guardian, Mirror, Financial Times and Economist having supported Labour for the previous 3 elections.

The Daily Telegraph – Conservatives
The Sunday Telegraph – Conservatives
The Sun – Conservatives
Daily Mail – Conservatives
Daily Express – Conservatives
News of the World – Conservatives
The Guardian – Liberal Democrats
The Times – Conservatives
The Sunday Times – Conservative
The Economist – Conservatives
The Independent on Sunday – Liberal Democrats
The Observer – Liberal Democrats
The Mail on Sunday – Conservatives
The Financial Times – Conservatives
The Mirror – Labour, but urging tactical voting for Lib Dems

The Guardian is as left-wing as mainstream media gets in this country. Left-of-centre seems the best way to describe it.
It seems very clear that BAA is at fault for the events at Heathrow of the last two days. As Boris Mayor said, it can’t be beyond the wit of man to keep a major world airport running in snow – except that it is if your priority is feathering the backsides of shareholders rather than providing proper services to the flying public.
A controversial view, perhaps. Feel free to shoot me down in flames.

I disagree that ‘The Guardian’ is left-wing, it’s editorial lines are generally pretty well in the middle and without ideological bias. Regrettably this is not always true of its free-lance contributors, but then the British press is generally so right-wing that a newspaper that’s in the middle of contemporary opinion is always going to stand out.

I too am amazed by the incompetance of BAA; surely it is in the interests of its shareholders to keep their airports running in all weathers! If Heathrow (amongst others) is closed surely it must during the closure period be running at a loss? Manchester and Gatwick kept going because their managements had the foresight to acquire additional machinery and chemicals for the winter; if they can do it so can BAA.

Regards

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010358/crefl2_143.A2010358125500-2010358130000.1km.jpg

Looks like the photo taken last year.

Even it if was taken yesterday, it still does not excuse how BAA operated airports have been forced to close even though they have not received all that much snow.
Too much money spent on shareholders parties and inept management types and not enough on equipment to keep the airports operating and people to operate them. (Too many chiefs, not enough indians).

Charles de Gaulle sounds pretty grim too.

That’s just Charles de Gaulle being normal! 😀

To put this story in context, log on and scroll down about half way:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010358/crefl2_143.A2010358125500-2010358130000.1km.jpg

.“…would the Government running it ensure better operations?”

That is the key question and the answer is almost certainly no, since “governments” are usually inept at running anything effectively. However the success of a privatised operation is equally uncertain if the the consumer of the “product” has no choice.

The other problem is that as long as the government and its agencies rely on weather prognoses supplied by the UK Met Office, based as they are on spurious and insupportable computer modelling, the long term decisions on investment will remain ill-judged.

There’s a commentary piece in today’s Guardian with some interesting points. All a bit ideological, but this remark may strike a chord with some outside the Guardian’s liberal/left constituency:

The Americans require their airports to be owned by, not for, companies whose constitution obliges the owners and managers to put the public interest of efficient and comfortable travel first. In Britain, the issue was not even aired. BAA was simply to become a British public limited company, whose sole objective would be profit maximisation.

Full text here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/25/will-hutton-british-ownership-rules

It looks as if the government is planning to take action from this piece http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/transport-secretary-plans-fines-airports but it wouldn’t surprise me if the plan is quietly forgotten once the thaw comes.
A friend who flew in from Schiphol-Manchester last weekend says it was every bit as bad there, with outbreaks of violence among frustrated passengers and the Red Cross being called in to help with emergency sleeping and feeding. Charles de Gaulle sounds pretty grim too.

Someone in a British (left-wing) newspaper reckons it’s all the fault of Maggie Thatcher and her privatisation policies – judge for yourself:

Not being that familiar with the circumstances, I can’t disagree with you BUTallow me to ask…would the Government running it ensure better operations?

How many UK government asgencies have the money, facilities and staff they need to do the job they’re tasked to do?
Certainly not the RAF, MOD or NHS.

What’s to prevent any money earned by the airports from being siphoned away into the endless government funded bottomless pits that have nothing to do with airports?

You’re dead right, mrtotty; BAA have stated in the past that they make more from airport shops than they do from landing fees; in the latest snowfest, the bean counters were probably secretly happy to have an airport full of stranded passengers buying loads of food and drink.

I’ve read and seen several stories in the US press…including one on a national news broadcast…about the snow troubles closing Heathrow and Gatwick.
From the reports, it seems that in all of Europe, BAA is the only organization without plows and shovels, and now the EU may have to set rules on such matters.

I’m sure it’s more complex than that, but what’s up with BAA?
London is not Helsinki or Minneapolis in terms of snow, but it’s not Nice or Miami either.

It’s probably worth pointing out that Gatwick is no longer a BAA airport.

As Boris Mayor said, it can’t be beyond the wit of man to keep a major world airport running in snow – except that it is if your priority is feathering the backsides of shareholders rather than providing proper services to the flying public.
A controversial view, perhaps. Feel free to shoot me down in flames.

Controversial perhaps but dead right.

Lance: Ditto!

The Guardian is as left-wing as mainstream media gets in this country.

That’s not the same thing as being left-wing per se. But we’re splitting hairs….

It seems very clear that BAA is at fault for the events at Heathrow of the last two days. As Boris Mayor said, it can’t be beyond the wit of man to keep a major world airport running in snow – except that it is if your priority is feathering the backsides of shareholders rather than providing proper services to the flying public.
A controversial view, perhaps. Feel free to shoot me down in flames.

A controversial view, maybe. But one I agree with strongly.

The Guardian is as left-wing as mainstream media gets in this country. Left-of-centre seems the best way to describe it.
It seems very clear that BAA is at fault for the events at Heathrow of the last two days. As Boris Mayor said, it can’t be beyond the wit of man to keep a major world airport running in snow – except that it is if your priority is feathering the backsides of shareholders rather than providing proper services to the flying public.
A controversial view, perhaps. Feel free to shoot me down in flames.

Someone in a British (left-wing) newspaper reckons it’s all the fault of Maggie Thatcher and her privatisation policies – judge for yourself:

Just as a point of reference, the Guardian isn’t a left-wing paper. It’s editoral policy is very much of the centre ground in UK political terms.

It traditionally supported the old Liberal Party and backed the LibDems at the last election.

It is, however, a fairly widely-held belief here in the UK that our transport infrastructure has gone to Hell in a handcart since the dogma-driven (and mostly bungled) privatisations that successive Tory and NuLabour governments foisted upon us.

BAA arew a bunch of numpties.

When interviewed about the state of the airports and asked why, the BAA boss evaded the question and answered with “Will will learn for these issues”.

At Edinburgh Airport, they blamed the airlines for running out of deicing fluid and not keeping the runway clear, stating that it was the responsibility of all airlines to keep their supplies topped up and request snow clearing. (A friend of mine was due to fly out last week when EDI was closed and that is what a man in a BAA vest and name badge told her when the enquired as to why the airport had closed, despite no new snow fall that day).

There is zip wrong with the Airports being in private hands. However, the main Airports being under the grip of BAA is a problem. I feel complacency and “Fat-Cat-ism” within BAA has caused the bigger airports to lack the equipment they needed to keep operating in this weather.

IMO BAA should be forced to sell ALL it’s airports apart from one. Having each airport owned by different owners can only encourage competition with better facilities being offered. One selling point in the future could very well be “We can keep the airport running, whatever the weather”.

Someone in a British (left-wing) newspaper reckons it’s all the fault of Maggie Thatcher and her privatisation policies – judge for yourself:

Why we should nationalise our airports
The failure of BAA to deal with recent snowfalls has exposed the price we pay for having our infrastructure in private ownership

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/21/nationalise-airports-baa?intcmp=239