[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“Well, the shops and the “single till” arrangements do subsidise the cost of flying”

Please will you provide a reference to back up your assertion?

I believe it is non sequitur and that UK residents generally pay well above the odds for flights.

[MartynSinclair]

The shops pay rent to the landord who use the profit to enhance the airport experience………by building even more shops, further reducing space for “travelling”.

If the profit was used to subsidize the cost of flying, surely that would be reflected in the enhancement of the overall services including the likes of security and UKBA.

(As a totally different issue, when I use Chrome, I get a spell check in the Forum – now I have switched computers and using IE, there is no spell check)

[VintageKrug]

This would explain your use of the spelling “subsidize” which lights up redder than Rudolph’s nose in Chrome.

[CallMeIshmael]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsidized

Such a pity, BT had been a site of civility and mature discourse for the past 36 hours then acerbic gaseous vino returns.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“This would explain your use of the spelling “subsidize” which lights up redder than Rudolph’s nose in Chrome.”

So would Hart’s rules.

Martyn

“The shops pay rent to the landord who use the profit to enhance the airport experience………by building even more shops, further reducing space for “travelling”.”

I don’t think this is the way it works, IIRC BAA runs the shops and then pays a fee to the ‘franchisors’, so their take is pretty high as far as I am aware.

[LPPSKrisflyer]

As a matter of principle I buy nothing in the shops at LHR. I was asked to take part in a survey about three months ago and of the possible answers about shopping you could decide there was enough or you would like to see more. I caused confusion when I said I would like to see much less.

I check in, endure security and then put my head down and head to the lounge shortcutting the main areas of the terminal wherever possible. In T3 I have it off to a fine art.

[craigwatson]

it does subsidize the cost of flying the world over, if you were to get rid of the shopping malls at airports, the operator would just charge the airline more in landing fees and other charges to make up the shortfall in profit, which the airline would pass on to you in higher fares.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Craig

If airports closed all the shops, it would also reduce the running cost of the airport considerably and provide space to handle more flights, it is not as stark a picture as you paint.

Shops are a revenue generator, not a subsidy provider.

[NTarrant]

Disgusted, how do you arrive at that? The cost of providing retail space is paid for by the rents received and the more successful a retail outlet is the more the airport receives as the rent is derived from a percentage of turnover subject to a minimum guarenteed figure. Yes they are revenue generators, but so are landing and departure fees paid for by the airlines.

You can only get so many aircraft at an airport at any particular time, so if all the shops at say T5 closed tomorrow, there would be no more space to handle more flights, just more space for people to sit.

[ChrisBuda82]

T5 been designed very well, From what I have herd that they wanted T5 nearer to M25 so there would have been more gates but down to the planers.

BA have good rules on cabin baggage in point of view of the flyer, why people take more cabin over checked is waiting time to get your bags and lot of people I see taking lot of cabin baggage is due to them lossing there check baggage.

What I most of the time people wont put there small bags under the seats.

Shops are not about subsidize of flying or making it cheaper it about making money. Maybe when BAA was in public hands then maybe it was about subsidizing the price or money to expand.

If you fly to lots of little airports you tend to find only a WHSmith like shop and food outlets.

BAA used Gatwick to subsidize LHR I am sure they did it with other airports to put money in to LHR.

[MartynSinclair]

“NTarrant – 11/12/2011 19:19 GMT – The cost of providing retail space is paid for by the rents received “

“DisgustedofSwieqi – 10/12/2011 18:55 GMT – BAA runs the shops and then pays a fee to the ‘franchisors’ “

Are BAA paying both the rent and a franchise fee? Why is their a need to pay for the brands, its a captive market…?

[NTarrant]

Martyn, I’m not sure what Disgusted is on about there, although I am sure he will explain. I would imagine that BAA pays the government a rent for the land (or lease) and that would be the same irrespective of the number of shops.

The shops rent and airline landing etc fees would be the revenue to pay all running costs and the rent to the government.

[ChrisBuda82]

LHR land is owned by BBA as far as I known, a number of other airport that have been sold over the years the goverments of other countys as lease of 20 to 100 years.

BAA let the shops they would not take the risk of running them there self this can be when the Spanish Brought BAA plc they sold the world duty free shops. Since Spanish taken over BAA ever think has been subconcted at there airports.

There are number sevrices that should never be be in private hands, Airports, Sea Ports, Rail, Buses, Water, power, gas and post.

[VintageKrug]

All of the above should be in private hands, to avoid inefficiencies.

It’s BAA’s long history of state ownership – and the culture which persisted post-privatisation – which got LHR into the dreadful state of ten years ago.

I’m no fan of Ferrovial, but you’ve got to applaud the investment they are making shooting LHR from a 1970s airport into a facility fit (within the constraints of the site) for the 21st century in less than a decade.

[ChrisBuda82]

No, There are number things that work well in private hands and a number that dont.

T5 and the other works where planed before Ferrovial took ownship, They cut costs at lot on building work look at T5A to T5C, T5C is so badly built that it will look very bad in the next years5 built to very low spec, T5A was only one built to a high spec, T5C was ment to be built soon but due to cost they decide to wait build it later and T5D was ment to be built to but was cut due to cost. What they have done at T3 is adding shops, until see LHR East as it will be known the spec will be as low as T5D.

Ferrovial has taken the money to do this “applaud the investment ” from there other airports they own and past owned, eg Gatwick look at the “applaud the investment” there when Ferrovial owned it none, look what happed when they sold it investment.

[Author]

Posts