Labour Councils to benefit from Manchester Airport windfall.

[Hamble]

This is how councils will spend £71m dividend windfall from Manchester Airport.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...dfall-14871608

[Alikado]

Nothing in the article about how they are going to spend the money other than it goes into the pot.

[Toodles McGinty]

I haven't checked each individual local authority, but given that they are high population inner city areas, I'll assume all 10 are Labour controlled.

They are getting a dividend for a local airport making a profit. Good. But I haven't a clue how it will be spent. Neither does that article.

[Albion102]

Manchester Airports Group is an example of a publicly owned and profitable enterprise. If you cared to visit Stansted, you'll see that public ownership is no guarantee of avoiding the race to the bottom. 100s of pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap flights everyday.

[Hamble]

Nothing in the article about how they are going to spend the money other than it goes into the pot.

Quote
“This money will be used in full to support council services, in particular those for the most vulnerable children and adults, helping to offset other financial pressures.”

[Hamble]

Manchester Airports Group is an example of a publicly owned and profitable enterprise. If you cared to visit Stansted, you'll see that public ownership is no guarantee of avoiding the race to the bottom. 100s of pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap flights everyday.

The rest of the airport’s dividend - £39.3m - goes to Australian investment fund IFM Investors.

Revenue rose nearly 10pc across the group over the past 12 months, meaning its total dividend pay-out is almost £17m higher than last year.

How does the business model fit with Comrade Corbyn?



Manchester Airports Group
Type
Public holding

Industry
Transport

Founded
2001

Headquarters
Manchester Airport,
Manchester, Greater Manchester,
England, United Kingdom

Products
Airport operations and services

Revenue
£738.4 million (2015)[1] Increase 10.0%


Operating income
£283.6 million (2015)[2]Increase 17.2%

Total assets
£3.218 billion (2015)<[3]
Increase 0.01%

Total equity
£1.5 billion (2015)[4]
Decrease 0.01%

Owner
Ten boroughs of Greater Manchester (64.5% total)
IFM Investors (35.5%)


Number of employees
40,000

Subsidiaries
MAG Developments
East Midlands Airport
London Stansted Airport

Website
www.magairports.com

The Manchester Airports Group plc (MAG) is a holding company which is owned by the ten metropolitan borough councils of Greater Manchester, in North West England, and Australian investment fund IFM Investors. Founded in 2001 following the acquisition of East Midlands Airport, MAG is the largest UK-owned airport operator, following the purchase of BAA by Spain's Ferrovial Group in 2006. The Group owns three British airports, East Midlands and Manchester Airport (which is the busiest airport outside the London region), as well as London Stansted Airport. In 2014, 47.1 million passengers used Manchester Airports Group

Of the ten metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester, Manchester City Council holds the largest stake, at 35.5%. The remaining nine councils hold a total of 29%. IFM Investors own a 35.5% stake in MAG. The Group has its registered office at Manchester Town Hall. MAG operates on a commercial basis at arms length from its public owners who only take a dividend from profits. This was £20 million in 2010 while MAG retained £80 million from the £100 million profit.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airports_Group

[Toodles McGinty]

I really don't see the problem here. It is a part publicly owned enterprise that has made a profit, the benefit of that partial ownership goes to public services. How is this a bad thing?

Is the problem that the profits are being shared by Labour controlled councils? If so, why? Only a complete moron equates all things Labour with Communism, regardless of the views of individual members. Democratic socialism, which I and most other Labour supporters subscribe to, supports business and public ownership. Some services should be nationalised (water, railways etc) while individuals should be free to make their fortunes. I think a joint venture between public and private ownership that leads to profits all round is an excellent idea. Business benefits, local services benefit.

Where is the down side?

[Hamble]

I really don't see the problem here. It is a part publicly owned enterprise that has made a profit, the benefit of that partial ownership goes to public services. How is this a bad thing?

Is the problem that the profits are being shared by Labour controlled councils? If so, why? Only a complete moron equates all things Labour with Communism, regardless of the views of individual members. Democratic socialism, which I and most other Labour supporters subscribe to, supports business and public ownership. Some services should be nationalised (water, railways etc) while individuals should be free to make their fortunes. I think a joint venture between public and private ownership that leads to profits all round is an excellent idea. Business benefits, local services benefit.

Where is the down side?

There is no downside to Capitalism that benefits the electorate.

How is this principle or model different than the nhs model?

I shall be checking how Labour spends this windfall.

[justbecause]

The new theft system for dropping off begins on Tuesday, £3 for 5 minutes, £4 for 6 minutes. Estimated to rake in £1million per WEEK.

[Toodles McGinty]

There is no downside to Capitalism that benefits the electorate.

How is this principle or model different than the nhs model?

I shall be checking how Labour spends this windfall.

How is an airport, that depends on profit to operate, different from the National Health Service? You don't know?

Well for starters, one is a publicly funded healthcare system, to quote Bevan: That meets the needs of everyone, that is free at the point of delivery, and that is based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

The other is an airport. Charging Easyjet to land and take off. Charging WH Smith rent. Charging you to park your car while you jolly off to Benidorm. Considerably shorter waiting times. They don't charge for operations, but can cost an arm and a leg. Airports make a profit off Richard Branson, whereas Richard Branson makes a profit from our National Health Service.

One is a business. The other should never, ever be regarded as a business and should be funded entirely from the public purse. As I wrote two minutes ago on another thread: there would be enough cash around to fund the NHS several times over, if certain individuals and corporations paid the correct amount of tax. The government has thousands of employees trying to cut benefit fraud, yet only a few hundred to track down tax avoiders (never mind evaders). the amount of benefit fraud compared to the amount that could be collected through tax is tiny and obscenely disproportionate in terms of man hours spent on it.

The two are beyond any comparison, and we should be proud of that.

[Hamble]

How is an airport, that depends on profit to operate, different from the National Health Service? You don't know?

Well for starters, one is a publicly funded healthcare system, to quote Bevan: That meets the needs of everyone, that is free at the point of delivery, and that is based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

The other is an airport. Charging Easyjet to land and take off. Charging WH Smith rent. Charging you to park your car while you jolly off to Benidorm. Considerably shorter waiting times. They don't charge for operations, but can cost an arm and a leg. Airports make a profit off Richard Branson, whereas Richard Branson makes a profit from our National Health Service.

One is a business. The other should never, ever be regarded as a business and should be funded entirely from the public purse. As I wrote two minutes ago on another thread: there would be enough cash around to fund the NHS several times over, if certain individuals and corporations paid the correct amount of tax. The government has thousands of employees trying to cut benefit fraud, yet only a few hundred to track down tax avoiders (never mind evaders). the amount of benefit fraud compared to the amount that could be collected through tax is tiny and obscenely disproportionate in terms of man hours spent on it.

The two are beyond any comparison, and we should be proud of that.

Business wise.
They both would collapse without the private and outsourced business.

They both have considerable profit going to private investor's.

[Albion102]

The new theft system for dropping off begins on Tuesday, £3 for 5 minutes, £4 for 6 minutes. Estimated to rake in £1million per WEEK.

Happy to pay £3 for a mini-tub of Pringles on your flight to Alicante though I bet. I don't think it's very easy at Manchester, but at Stansted you can completely avoid the charge by dropping passengers off about 100m from the terminal.

[Normal]

I don't know how the mancs airport model works, but assume the boroughs purchased shares in the company, which in turn they hoped would make them a profit so they could re-invest in public services.

Assuming this is correct, how does this model differ from Sefton purchasing Bootle Strand?

Are people objecting to the use of borrowed money (at ridiculously cheap rates) in principal? Or is it just the purchase of the Strand that people are objecting to?

[justbecause]

Happy to pay £3 for a mini-tub of Pringles on your flight to Alicante though I bet. I don't think it's very easy at Manchester, but at Stansted you can completely avoid the charge by dropping passengers off about 100m from the terminal.

Absolutely not, I stopped using airports two years ago, the only places I am prepared to travel to now, are those that are reachable by road, rail or ferry.

[Albion102]

I don't know how the mancs airport model works, but assume the boroughs purchased shares in the company, which in turn they hoped would make them a profit so they could re-invest in public services.

Assuming this is correct, how does this model differ from Sefton purchasing Bootle Strand?

Are people objecting to the use of borrowed money (at ridiculously cheap rates) in principal? Or is it just the purchase of the Strand that people are objecting to?

Manchester airport is a little different - like most of the airports outside London (which were government owned), it was initially a municipal resource wholly owned by (I think) the old Manchester Corporation. As they grew in complexity and became valuable assets as well as regional resources, councils went down a variety of routes. The various councils that now constitute the greater manchester region, held onto stakes in the company which ran it on a commercial basis. They have retained a controlling stake, but sold a stake to a private company in order to raise funds to buy Stansted and East Midlands airports.

You could argue now that they could sell MAG and invest the proceeds into (say) social housing or other infrastructure projects. Instead they have decided that the airport is a nice little earner for them and they retain control over a key part of the region's infrastructure.

I think that retaining an income and investment in a growing and dynamic business and retaining control of a very important part of the NW's infrastructure is very different to borrowing money to buy a failing shopping centre, at a time when successful shopping centres are very few and far between.