[Travelfoot]

“I am viewing things in an economic sense, the drop-off fee is in place, do people still use LHR, certainly they do”
Of course they do. They don’t have have a ****** choice do they.

[AndrewinHK]

Heathrow is a business, its management team has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, and lets not forget is still loss making, the airport lost 139 million GBP in the first half of 2023, investors are currently subsidising users. Investors, invest for a return, they don’t invest to shield individuals from cost of living pressures. Ferrovial shares give you a 2.3% dividend yield, and are up 23% ytd, you’d more than get your drop off fee money back by investing.

[FDOS]

‘Of course they do. They don’t have have a ****** choice do they.’

Spot on – monopoly power (as described by the UK CMA) is insidious.

[AndrewinHK]

I had to double check and see if this is actually a ‘socialist traveller’ forum? Monopoly power but loses money….. and the U.K. CMA permits the drop off fees. My argument has nothing to do with the morality of such fees, all the counter arguments here lean on the social aspect, and ignore the impact on the business which has the same headwinds faced by broader society. Most users do have a choice, which is why a high % of users already chose to access the airport via public transit, a small subset perhaps don’t, and perhaps you have an argument that monopoly power is applied to such persons, but they are a minority, i believe someone stated earlier it’s about the macroeconomic not the micro?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Inquisitive

[cwoodward]

It is of course very possible that LHR is a “paper’ loss maker only – given the ownership I would strongly suggest that is the case.
It seems though that it is also poorly run and administered.
There has been much written about the group that owns this and other UK airports most of it negative.

1 user thanked author for this post.

FDOS

[Montysaurus]

Re FDOS and “paper loss”; the owners of a major business saddle the business with debt to create the apparent loss as it is then used to reduce/eliminate tax. The ultimate owners then reap the benefit. I suspect that this is what is happening.

[Montysaurus]

Sorry, should be “re cwoodward”.

1 user thanked author for this post.

FDOS

[AndrewinHK]

A quick look at HAL latest statement. Costs have increased, net finance costs year over year increased by 149 million GBP which equates to +17.5%. Passenger numbers are still below pre pandemic levels, retail revenue per passenger is down 8.3%, the group has paid no dividends since 2020, and outline none will be paid during 2023. The balance sheet is not overly geared, and it has 4 billion GBP of liquidity available to cover all commitments for the next 24 months, I don’t see any lines on the report that support the paper loss argument.

[Woodpecker]

I think a fair way would be to charge for pick ups, but not for drop offs. In a majority of cases, it would be at maximum a minute to stop at kerbside, alight & remove baggage from the vehicle.

Pickups are more dependant on when the passenger exits the terminal and the location of the pick up. The vehicle would most likely need to be earlier parked or waiting somewhere, so the charge is partially justified.

Ultimately it comes down to a personal decision of the benefits of one’s own convenience and time saving vs the lower cost of public transport with a greater degree of hinderance. That said, if LHR & other UK airports had world class public transport facilities to/from the airport like some Asian cities, car users would be inclined to switch.

Airports can’t be blamed for trying every trick in the book to extract revenue from parking to trolleys to even water. So I do understand, but not necessarily agree.

[Slf23]

the local authority should apply council tax proportionate to the public service element and as you say where there are few public transport options high drop off / pick up charges are effectively gouging.

[Inquisitive]

I am amazed that this tread is generating this much discussion.
I think Andrew provided some perspective from business point of view, that cannot be ignored.

I think it is the optics of certain segments of passengers is getting charged (or gouged as commented by some) is generating more discussion.

The airport could increase airport fees or some kind of development fees that are added to ticket cost and will be hidden (not noticed) by most passengers. Or they can simply increase the landing fees. If the argument is monopoly power they can do that. But then all passengers will be affected. Instead they choose to charge certain segment of passengers. It is not uncommon in many businesses and we accept this everyday.

Even government is taking too much money from me as tax (compared to many) but could I complain? No.
This is just one of the expenses I consider as some kind of consumption tax or toll or whatever we prefer to call.

1 user thanked author for this post.

AndrewinHK

[FDOS]

“I am amazed that this tread is generating this much discussion.”

I am not, there is a head of steam building about social inequities in UK society and this iexample s just a symptom.

The CEO, who is on his way out, allegedly could earn up to £1.5m per annum (source, the Guardian), for his efforts in guiding an orgnisation to a significant loss (according to Andrew in HK), whilst deciding to gouge the travelling public for a drop off charge.

The optics are terrible and as I pointed out in an earlier thread, the people who suffer are not typical BT Forum members (as we all tend to be well off in comparison to the ‘average’ person), but rather people suffering form a cost of living challenge, who may be stung merely for giving a relative a lift to/form the airport.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[AndrewinHK]

The CEO presided over the most challenging period for any business in recent memory. Societal resentment to salaries for executives, and trying to equate an individual in managements salary to the broader workforce is always an argument that I find bizarre. If you took the CEO’s salary then divided it amongst every other employee, it might satisfy the optics for the tabloids, but for employees of HAL at least would make no measurable difference to income. It’s an incredibly narrow argument and again one I’m very surprised to find on a business traveller forum.

[LuganoPirate]

Replying to @AndrewinHK, yes you’re right, the Canton and City of Zurich between them do have just over a third of the equity, but it is also publicly traded on the Swiss Exchange with the shares being held by institutions and private shareholders (I am one of them). The share has done well and they have (relatively speaking) little debt.

2 users thanked author for this post.

FDOS, AndrewinHK

[cwoodward]

I have not made any sort of in depth study but it looks to me that well run airports are in the main not the ones that are being highlighted as overcharging.
Very clearly some airports are charging more then seems reasonable by the majority of reasonable people who are very aware and correct that charges at some airports have risen very fast out of line with that of normal parking charges and those at other often better run airports.

1 user thanked author for this post.

FDOS

[Author]

Posts