BAA Forced to Sell Stansted- Appeal Fails

LeTigre - 01/02/2012 10:33 GMT

Hi All,

(Thanks to BT for changing my badly spelled title!)

Just read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16831480

Looks likely that BAA will have to begin the process almost immediately, I also saw on the FT that BAA have sold all the houses where they hoped to put the second runway. Bring on the Ryanair-owned Stansted model! (No landing fees for Ryanair, huge fees for everyone else, special dividend for Michael o'Leary!)

• Reply

Binman62 - 01/02/2012 11:32 GMT

I for one am very pleased. Hopefull they will now up their game at LHR and focus on customers rather than legal battles.
Wonder if MO'L will buy it from his loose change?

• Reply

JordanD - 01/02/2012 13:25 GMT

What a joke. BAA should have been allowed to keep it. Times have changed, runway expansion no longer on the table and there can only be handful of airlines that serve both STN and LHR.

They also serve different geographical areas for those destinations they share.

Competition Commission proving once again that they need some competition themselves.

• Reply

Bucksnet - 01/02/2012 13:31 GMT

BAA should have been forced to sell Heathrow, as such a vital national asset should remain in British ownership.

• Reply

CallMeIshmael - 01/02/2012 13:35 GMT

Gatwick has undoubtably benefited from shedding BAA. Under GIP, who also own London City, the facilities have improved and the usage increased by a larger number of Airline operators.

It is the leading point to point airport in Europe and under GIP it is securing that position.

This competition may benefit BAA, allowing it to foucs on LHR and encouraging it to up its game. Due to GIP investment in snow clearing equipment LGW ran far more services than LHR whose infrastructure was woefully underfunded - with the exception of the LHR CEO who declined his bonus somewhat reluctantly following the winter debacle.

Divesting improved Gatwick, why not Stansted?

• Reply

LeTigre - 01/02/2012 14:00 GMT

It is interesting to note that while Gatwick has improved under GIP, GIP have actually cut the budget BAA planned to improve Gatwick with. If BAA had kept ownership they would have actually improved Gatwick more.

This is absolutely the truth because it was recently in an article I read on ABTN with interviews with GIP's Head of Gatwick who said that they had found "cost savings" in BAA's original investment plans of £1.5bn. We all know that "cost savings" mean "budget cuts".

However, I think GIP have improved Gatwick by finding new long-haul clients in a way that BAA wouldn't necessarily have tried to. However, whoever owns Stansted will not be able to change the fact that it is already pretty good in terms of infrastructure but is constrained due to its LCC focused market.

• Reply

LPPSKrisflyer - 01/02/2012 15:51 GMT

I don't think cost savings mean budget cut, they often mean a more efficient way of achieving the same thing has been found. The boarding pass scanners at the entrance to security being a case in point. LHR still have the old model which snarls at you. The LGW experience is much more friendly.

• Reply