If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Should UK Airports be run by private companies?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From a safety and economic point of view major airports seem so important shouldn't they be run by government? (ignoring the fact most governments are stupid and can't run anything)
But at the very least shouldn't the company be based in the UK?
Right now millions of people could have their travel plans ruined by decision makers in Spain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2231373,00.html
But at the very least shouldn't the company be based in the UK?
Right now millions of people could have their travel plans ruined by decision makers in Spain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2231373,00.html
0
Comments
Else we'd have no chance in tackling climate change.
Their only interest has always been to cream the maximum amount of profits possible without consideration for anything else. As a result, all BAA airports I've been in are little more than a dismal, oppresive shopping mall with a runway attached to it. Little natural light and no room whatsoever, due to BAA's long honoured tradition to fill every last square inch of space available with shops, fake-tan young women offering shots of Baileys, and some tosser trying to sell you raffle tickets to win a Ferrari. None of that has changed since Ferrovial took over, and now they're trying to piss over their own employees as well.
It's no coincidence that Heathrow gets routinely voted the world's worst international airport by travellers. And it has nothing to do with the lack of a third runway or sixth terminal, as they would want us believe.
Nationalise the lot, give employees a decent wage and pension, and change the look of their dismal airports I say.
As it is the staff that check your passports as you enter the country are government employees and the government never provide enough of them.
At Luton Airport I remember there being 5 or 6 counters and only 3 staff on duty - it took over an hour to get out.
When I emailed Luton airport they wrote back saying they've asked the government for more staff but they never provide more.
They themselves want to get passengers processed more quickly.
I'm not writing off your suggestion here, DG, far from it. It's the best one I've heard so far. I'm just saying it raises some interesting practical questions.
Like with many other things (like the railways for instance) the airports can and should be state-run- but they need to be financed properly.
I suspect what's really behind this is your visceral hatred of a certain Margaret Thatcher. She privatised most of these industries, and most of them are running extremely well. I readily admit that the privatised railways have been a total failure, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Will you give me the Christmas present of a lifetime, and admit that some privatisations have actually worked out okay?
Certainly not the ones in which each company has a de facto monopoly on the business. Far worse than the railways was the water privatisation- something for which not only Thatcher but every water company CEO should be put against a wall.
There is a very simple core principle we should be adhering to: core public services belong in the hands of the state. Certainly those in which real competition does not actually exist (railways, water, airports). I will admit to the telephones being a slightly different case.
For as long as such services are run by profit-driven private businesses which only concern and indeed obligation is to make the maximum amount of profits possible for its shareholders, the public will always get screwed up and ripped off.
BAA is owned by a majority state owned spanish state airport company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrovial
Says it's a mainly construction company started by Rafael del Pino in 1952 as a railroad construction company
Ferrovial began life in 1952 as a construction company. Fifty years later Ferrovial is a diversified group, with four operating units: Construction, Services, Toll Roads and Car Parking and Airports.
Ferrovial is the largest construction group in Spain, the second biggest in Europe by market capitalisation, and is quoted on the Madrid stock exchange. Its turnover in 2006 was ?12.34 billion (taking into account BAA acquisition and new accounting treatment), delivering a ?1.426 billion profit.
If you actually want improvements in climate change then maybe airports should be run by the airlines?
It's in the interest of airlines to move people as quickly and efficiently as possible. And to save as much fuel as possible.
For instance how many people know EasyJet designed a plane?
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/07/17/easyjet-ecojet/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/14/theairlineindustry.business
hardly got any press attention
Supposed to be from 6am to 6am 7th to 8th - but all the various plane might not be in the right places anyway I'm due to fly on the 8th.
Air travel is unnecessary in 90% of cases and as such the taxpayer should not be bankrolling the cost of it.
And I fail to shed any tears for the staff who may lose the right to enter a final salary pension scheme. No bugger else gets one so I fail to see why we should bankroll theirs. It's the same with the coppers- I don't see why the UK taxpayer should bankroll their generous pensions.
What exactly you going on about ?
Tax Payer bank rolling the cost of airports? Have you seen how much of the price of an airline ticket is just pure tax? Airports are a big money spinner for a government - they bring in tourists who spend their money on hotels, tours, etc They fly in important cargo that is needed to keep businesses running, they bring in perishable items that would die on a ship voyage ..
Do you expect people to go on their holiday by steam ship? 90% of Air Travel is unnecessary ? Please provide the link to your in depth research.
Airports aren't a drain on an economy they're economic hubs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2007/feb/26/travelnews.theairlineindustry.green
As the link above claims Airport Departure Tax has raised over £12 Billion already and the recent hike is an additional £1 Billion per year.
Where is your so called drain on the tax payer?
If I remember rightly its £10 each way short haul and £20 each way long haul. Could be a bit more now, but who cares.
Still doesn't cover the environmental cost of airline travel. For instance airlines get their fuel tax-free, whereas local bus and train providers in the UK have to pay tax on their energy.
Most air travel in and from the UK is for short-haul travel of less than 2 hours in each direction. An awful lot of air travel is actually domestic.
Given that its only 3 hours by train from Newcastle to London there is no need to fly at all. Given that its only 2 hours by train from London to Paris there is no need to fly at all.
I can travel by train from London to Berlin in about 5 hours, London to Munich in about 8. Why fly?
And even longer-haul travel, how much of it is really necessary? Business people can do deals by videolink now, the technology is there. And how necessary is a holiday in Florida?
I'm not saying that air travel should be banned or only become the preserve of the rich and famous, but most air travel is simply not necessary.
Airport Departure Tax is a good profitable money spinner for the Government but it still doesn't cover the cost of everything. The train line from London to Heathrow cost about £400m, the new runway and terminal is more likely to cost about £900m as far as I can tell. And that's before we consider the environmental cost of air travel.
Well exactly. Goes to show just how unnecessary most air travel is.
Last month one of my colleagues went by plane to a meeting in Birmingham. It's only 200 miles ffs. Get the train or drive.
Here we go again, SG going on and on about an industry he knows absolutely nothing about whatsoever. :rolleyes:
Firstly the railways were privatised badly but have now become a success. There never has been a shortage of staff on the railway and there probably never will be, so making a statement like this is pure fiction and typical of you pretending you know all when frankly you know nothing. If any further proof was needed an advertisement for 3 new drivers jobs recently attracted over 1000 applicants! Add to this is that there is and has been an amazing amount of new investment on our network, we have seen many hundreds of outdated and unsuitable trains removed and replaced along with improvements to all services, passenger numbers are growing by record amounts. passengers have new travel opportunities and more lines are being reopened. In 1997 there were 16 trains a day between London and Manchester, now there is over 40 a day. In 1997 there were no direct trains from London to Bangor, now there is 4, there was 2 direct services a day between London and Hull, now there is 16. These are just 3 examples of many I could give. Fair enough fares are going up, but they always did during British Rail, bus fares go up, tram fares go up, milk, bread, everything. Fares are going up no more by %age basis than at any other stage.
I really fail to see how you can define this as a 'failure'.
It's a lot more then you quote
DUTIES FROM FEBRUARY 2007
Economy class in Europe £10
Business and first class in Europe £20
Economy class on long-haul flights £40
Business and first class on long-haul flights £80
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6258213.stm
A lot of those quoted costs are jobs for people, who in turn will pay tax, who will buy items and pay VAT on those items, it's only a drain if the money being generated is going outside of the UK and in the case of BAA being Spanish owned the profits will eventually benefit a Spanish company.
Yes you are right we're building roads and trains links so why build those to go benefit a Spanish owned company?
My point is there is no way an airport like Heathrow won't generate vast sums of money in the long term there's virtually no risk to the government of owning it. It' not like an hospital where money is only ever being spent - it generates it's own income and profits. It draws cash from outsiders and brings it into the UK.
BAA's profit is over £600 Million a year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4985032.stm
That should be extra money for the entire economy not profits going to a foreign company. Outside companies should be brought in when there is a big element of risk involved such as building the channel tunnel but with major airports there's no risk at all of losing money.
Mind you I'm biased for the rails and you're clearly biased towards the Air. I suppose that comes from being in the industries
You can't say that for certain.
And you also got to look at the stupid costs involved in rail travel . If I for example wanted to get the MegaBus from London to Scotland or wherever for £1 I'd first have to get the train to central London that's now £6.80p just to get to the departing Bus Stop and another £6.80 on the way home.
If the government are serious about road congestion and reducing CO2 why don't they offer a free Off Peak rail voucher with every flight so you can get to the airport for free. Their added departure taxes will generate an extra £1 Billion a year so they got the money for it.
IF we're serious about rail travel over air travel then why we messing about with dinky trains that run on standard rails? Why don't we actually start building magnetic levitating trains that can run at speeds to rival a plane?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train
Yes they cost a lot of money, but the government are always telling us pollution, road deaths, traffic and congestion cost as well.
Back to their original question. Yes I do think airports should be run by private companies. History has shown us innovation and change happens much quicker if there is a financial reward. You might not like it but thats what living in a capitalism is about.
However I must admit BAA aren't very good. This is more to do with the monopoly BAA have and their lack of effective competition.
*Assuming the trains are not delayed, leaves aren't on the line and there are no flees in the drivers cab
The 3pm is the true king, stops at York only and is in Newcastle just after half 5. I know its all and well and good to laugh at leaves on the line but it is an actual serious problem, perhaps you should Google it
You'd have to be pretty dumb to try and argue that the absolute vast majority of business isn't conducted in the cities, despite the increase in out of city business parks.
You'd have to ask the government why they aren't spending the money on maglev. There is absolutely no chance it will happen in this country for at least another 20 years if that!! The government are currently implementing some 'quick gains' measures, remove bottlenecks and restrictions, which will remove 10 or so minutes minimum for most journies without the need for mass expenditure, which to be honest is the most we're gonna get for a long while.
I dont know why you're suggesting that more people flying will reduce CO2, bearing in mind the increase in emissions etc that will bring! The railways will also need the investment in extra rolling stock if they're gonna be expected to carry all these extra passengers you are proposing. Given the fact that the Department for Transport are already choking the railways as it is!
That is true of enterprises where there is more freedom .. but with a major airport there's hardly any freedom.
IF for example one company owns Gatwick and another owns Heathrow - they're still not going to be competing on equal terms for the shear fact they're not in the same location.
One will be closer to a bigger population, one will have direct links to the London Underground, one will have better road links, etc
If you want competition then divide the 5 terminals at Heathrow or the two terminals at Gatwick between different companies and see which terminal then offers better checkin's, nicer shops and places to each, quicker boarding times, faster unloading of baggage, friendlier staff, etc
That would be real competition.
I think there should be plans to build more small regional airports so people don't have to travel so far by road to get to and from the airports.
And so all the heavy traffic to and from major airports is reduced.
Luton is twice as far as Heathrow for me but I can get there quicker as there is less traffic.
When I fly to a tiny airport like Shannon in Ireland I'm out of the airport in under 3 minutes and at the bus stop.
Also having more smaller airports give more options to divert in heavy fog like today.
What do you need extra rolling stock for? I said OFF PEAK - comparing the number of empty seats after 9am and before 5pm to peak times there's plenty of seats. That's why rail companies offer deals like buy 2 tickets and get 2 free because their trains are well empty off peak.
When I talk about CO2 I was talking about getting to and from the airports.
I can think of plenty of train operating companies who would love to find these extra seats that we supposedly have! Even off peak now many companies are struggling for capacity on many many routes. The train companies are busy trying to make money by filling these seats, they don't want the government giving people a free ride!