Nathan - Nothing is as bad as Heathrow

Chris - BAA has been terrible for many years and I think most realise this. Matters not that Ferrovial now own it, it is simply that investment decisions etc. are now being discussed that all this is coming out.

ab, quimper, france

Great so yet again a foreign company will come in and take take take.

Why do we let this happen. Does the UK govt not have in place an investment company like the Singapore govt or the Dubai govt then maybe we could run our own services. We will end up paying and not get the return..

The monopolies commission is investigating BAA.. (To Ian HK)

And There was investment in a majority of the airports when it was owned by the Brits, look at Edinburgh, T5, the skybridge at Gatwick. (To Chris London)

Garry, Lon,

Heathrow is a disgrace. Run down services and the agro of extra security. I have virtually given up using it. It is far easier to travel into an international like Manchester. Or a semi international like Birmingham or Bristol via a European city.

Steve, Adelaide, Australia

I think this is part of the prosecution of Spanish interest in the UK.

They just can't stand that Alonso is better than Hamilton, that Santander buys Abbey, that Iberdrola buys Scottish Power and that O2 belongs to Telefonica. So they are making things hard for all of them.

But this time the elements are not as severe as to prevent the new invincible army to take the country.

Julio Ruiz, Madrid,

An 18% increase is an absolute disgrace. The maximum increase should be 4% and that is more than generous.

If BAA don't like that then they can always sell Heathrow.

Thomas Maxwell, Redhill,

After queuing for 1 and a half hours at Gatwick's South Terminal on Monday night to go through security (nearly causing me to miss my flight), I applaud and echo the Competition Commission's views. I was appalled that only 4 of the 9 or 10 security gates were operational at this peak time on a Monday evening - why was this BAA?

BAA / Ferrovial frankly do not deserve a penny more in passenger fees which are already too high.

Tom, Jersey, Channel Islands

Steven Nelson is whining about not being able to afford improvements at Heathrow and Gatwick, yet is still planning to spend over £2 billion on a second runway at Stansted which nobody (airlines, local councils, National Trust etc, etc) wants - why don't BAA scrap their plans of expanding Stansted, which incidentally adds massively to UK PLC's negative balance of trade figures, and spend the money where it is needed?

Gary White, Bishops Stortford, Herts

Ferrovial must pay the price for leveraging the company to the hilt to fund the purchase. If that means a distressed sale of airports or facilities to more capable operators then so be it.

The government must take some responsibility for allowing an acquisition with such a debt structure to proceed. BAA has an effective monopoly on what is an essential piece of Britain's infrastructure. It should not be allowed to hold customers and the tax payers to ransom.

RM, London, UK

If Spanish Ferrovial is in too deep, why should the British taxpayer throw them a lifeline. They should sell to somebody who knows what they are doing. If they lose money - GOOD. Perhaps it will be a lesson to other big companies who think they can pay too much for businesses they do not understand..

Raymond, Haslemere, England

Can BAA really be allowed to hold London to ransom? Irresponsible threats such as Mr Nelson's are grist to the anti-business mill, but will hopefully speed up the break-up of the monopoly.

Peter Smith, Bangkok,

Ferrovial doubtless feel they are safe with the olympics on the horizon, Britain needs a smart and efficient gateway for that event alone let alone day to day use. I am sure their calculations are that we as a country will cough up just for prides sake. Will we?
Heathrow has long been an absolute disgrace as Britains front door, outclassed by many, even small, holiday destinations and in the realms of primative when compared with most other national portals. Unfortunately our leaders have a mindset that denies the importance of transport in all its forms and I am not hopeful that Heathrow will receive the attention it so desperately needs.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

18% increase in charges in anyones view, except BAA and the CAA, is a massive increase in real terms. Could you imagine Tesco raising prices by this amount? Once again, with the support of government agencies, it is rip-off Britain.

Barry Samways, London, UK

It is outrageous that BAA were allowed to cream money out of passenegers and return it to shareholders/investment funds, whilst allowing the airports to descend into filthy chaos.

There needs to be a public petition/action against them to make the government sit up and listen.

ab, quimper, france

JFK, Cde Gaulle, Schipol, Frankfurt??? Are you insane. Possibly the only worse major airports in the Western world.

Nathan Lyon, Penang, Malaysia

Funny, how they all crawl out of the woodwork to criticize BAA now it's owned by a Spanish company. London airports together with all the other infrastructure here have been mismanaged for decades - by Brits, with nobody batting an eyelid.
Xenophobic? Us?

Chris, London,

The English have a passive-reactive airports policy - passively allow the assets to fall into foreign private hands, then stamp their feet in reaction. Has anyone wondered why JFK, Cde Gaulle, Schipol, Frankfurt et al are NOT in private hands? Its so that they can be managed actively for the public good, not used as retail milk-cows.

Its time they were re-nationalised and owned by a public trust on the same lines as JFK. Its also time for a new London airport on the estuary.

Gorgy, Leningrad, USSR

BAA have an obligation to deliver services, if they can't/don't/won't then the govt should step in and force the owners to auction Heathrow and Gatwick to qualified owners who will meet their obligations, end of story.

Michael, London,

I, for one, have stopped using London, as Manchester and/or Glasgow are far more convenient - and user-friendly.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The City was widely criticised for having under valued a business with supposedly predictable long term secure cash flow and investment requirements at the time Ferrovial bought BAA last year. Rather inevitably, it now looks like Ferrovial were the ones who got it all wrong.

The regulating authorities now have little alternative but to move rapidly to break up this monopoly before Ferrovial's problems massively damage the economies of the English south east and of Scotland.

In the meantime it is essential that Ferrovial cut the all the unnecesary ostentation from their capital investment at Stansted back to something appropriate to the low cost carriers and their customers and put resources back into the appropriate level of operating expenditure at all their airports.

Philip, Malta, Malta

Why not ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate BAA? They charge ridiculous prices for frankly a rubbish service which makes our airports the butt of jokes across South East Asia.

Iain, Hong Kong,

How about this? BAA cuts investment, UK government cuts their licences?

AG, London, UK

Why should the passengers pay if the owner overextended itself when buying the BAA, what was the Government doing at the time? What will happen is that the passengers and the airlines will go elsewhere, the problem is that all the main airports around London are owned by BAA, the government should never have allowed this monopoly in the first place.

Nick, Camberley, UK