Michael O'Leary and BAA and Stanstead
Posted: 23 Jul 2011, 03:00This was in the evening standard the other day. Tad surprised no one else has posted
Get BAA out of Stansted and set our airports free
Am not sure how this is going to happen given there is NO spare capacity at LHR (and the 3rd runway abandoned), the 2nd runway at STN also abandonded and there is little chance of an addtiional runway at LGW for at least ten years.
So where does he think the increased traffic will land? (certainly not at the Boris Port!)
OK so he dosen't like BAA but surely a new owner (even if Ryanair bought STN) would still charge the same landing fees to be able to operate the airport, pay for capital improvements and generate a profit?
Even if you ignore MoLs comments and just concentrate on the competition commission issues I'm not sure how the three airports can compete to attract new airlines.
I can't see an airline giving up prestigeous slots at LHR to move to say STN just because the landing charges are cheaper.
Plus there are other issues - the landing charges may be cheaper but pax may not want to go there or be able to get there. IF VS moved to STN (not going to happen I know) then I certainly wouldn't fly them because getting to STN would be a nightmare for me. And thats before you consider the issues such as the existing staff beiong able to get to work or the capital costs of recreating a CH etc etc.
Its a similar issue with the trains - the lines are 'full' so no room for new operators that were supposed to enter the market and provide competition and bring prices down.
No one can move into LHR unless someone else moves out so no additional capacity there. We have seen BMI slots for the UK domestic market being used for LH European flights.
Interested in other people's views (but don't just bash MoL please)
Get BAA out of Stansted and set our airports free
Competition between Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow will generate increased traffic, increased tourism and more jobs for London - and finally end the damage inflicted by the dead hand of BAA's monopoly of the capital's airports.
Am not sure how this is going to happen given there is NO spare capacity at LHR (and the 3rd runway abandoned), the 2nd runway at STN also abandonded and there is little chance of an addtiional runway at LGW for at least ten years.
So where does he think the increased traffic will land? (certainly not at the Boris Port!)
OK so he dosen't like BAA but surely a new owner (even if Ryanair bought STN) would still charge the same landing fees to be able to operate the airport, pay for capital improvements and generate a profit?
Even if you ignore MoLs comments and just concentrate on the competition commission issues I'm not sure how the three airports can compete to attract new airlines.
I can't see an airline giving up prestigeous slots at LHR to move to say STN just because the landing charges are cheaper.
Plus there are other issues - the landing charges may be cheaper but pax may not want to go there or be able to get there. IF VS moved to STN (not going to happen I know) then I certainly wouldn't fly them because getting to STN would be a nightmare for me. And thats before you consider the issues such as the existing staff beiong able to get to work or the capital costs of recreating a CH etc etc.
Its a similar issue with the trains - the lines are 'full' so no room for new operators that were supposed to enter the market and provide competition and bring prices down.
No one can move into LHR unless someone else moves out so no additional capacity there. We have seen BMI slots for the UK domestic market being used for LH European flights.
Interested in other people's views (but don't just bash MoL please)