News from the GGL F&M Event
Jul 17, 2015, 1:48 am
#18
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wassenaar, NL
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 709
Sounds like a potential excuse to delay starting work. Really hope not
Jul 17, 2015, 2:42 am
#19
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gloucestershire
Programs: BA Gold (ex-GGL, maybe future Silver), Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,201
Realistically no one but they don't want to make improvements under the current lease term, then open themselves up to a higher market rate - because the property is better - when they've funded the existing improvements over the short period remaining on this term.
Jul 17, 2015, 3:10 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAN and LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC LT Gold, HH Dia, MR LT Plat, IHG Diamond Amb, Amex Plat
Posts: 13,773
Jul 17, 2015, 3:24 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA, VS, HH, IHG, MB, MR
Posts: 26,871
No, that is not how it works. HAL owns the terminal. BA leases the floorspace it needs and/or can get. The day HAL decides that Galleries North would bring in more money as a new Harrods outlet will be the day it closes.
Jul 17, 2015, 3:29 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 10,709
So in a way, HAL can demand the rent they feel they deserve. Just like any normal office. I know I read a number of years ago the shops rent I didn't realise the airlines were the same. I thought with HAL charging for people to check in etc, they made enough money.
Jul 17, 2015, 3:58 am
#28
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South East, UK
Programs: BA Gold / GfL, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,432
I'm guessing they must have had a short-term lease starting from before the official opening (I assume on different contractual terms, since the opening date was fluid?).
Jul 17, 2015, 4:08 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Programs: BA CCR/GGL, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,483
Thanks for the write up - interesting.
I can't accept this as an argument - a supplier should either build the costs in up front, or hedge them where possible. What isn't appropriate (which is what he seems to be suggesting) is that because you made a loss on a sale last week you should increase your selling price this week to try and claw back the losses (or have I got the wrong end of the stick 
).
[*] I asked KW about the YQ charge. He said that it was coming down and had been removed from CE flights already - for LH he anticipated this coming down and being removed eventually given where the price of fuel is today. He claimed that the totality of YQ income to BA has not yet and never will make up for the losses BA incurred from the increase in fuel charges over the past few years.
(or have I got the wrong end of the stick ).
Jul 17, 2015, 4:33 am
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Programs: Don't even mention it. Grrrrrrr.
Posts: 968
Thanks for the write up - interesting.
I can't accept this as an argument - a supplier should either build the costs in up front, or hedge them where possible. What isn't appropriate (which is what he seems to be suggesting) is that because you made a loss on a sale last week you should increase your selling price this week to try and claw back the losses (or have I got the wrong end of the stick ).
I can't accept this as an argument - a supplier should either build the costs in up front, or hedge them where possible. What isn't appropriate (which is what he seems to be suggesting) is that because you made a loss on a sale last week you should increase your selling price this week to try and claw back the losses
(or have I got the wrong end of the stick ).