16.10.2014 Views

the CAA said - Heathrow Airport

the CAA said - Heathrow Airport

the CAA said - Heathrow Airport

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CAP 1027<br />

Chapter 5: Operating Expenditure<br />

• Potential changes to SQR standards - changes to SQR<br />

standards for direct passengers have been discussed throughout<br />

<strong>the</strong> CE process including reductions in standards that could yield<br />

opex savings. It was subsequently agreed that such changes<br />

would not be made.<br />

• Alignment of transfer and direct passenger SQR standards -<br />

<strong>the</strong> SQR standard for transfer passengers should be aligned with<br />

<strong>the</strong> existing Q5 standard for direct passengers. This was estimated<br />

to increase opex by £15 million over Q6. 26 HAL subsequently<br />

altered <strong>the</strong> harmonisation proposal to be opex and capex neutral<br />

(<strong>the</strong>se proposals are discussed in more detail in chapter 12).<br />

5.3 Notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> agreements above, <strong>the</strong>re were disagreements<br />

between HAL and <strong>the</strong> airlines on a number of o<strong>the</strong>r issues including.<br />

• Pensions - <strong>the</strong> potential for reductions to HAL’s pension costs.<br />

• Future opex efficiency targets - The airlines considered <strong>the</strong> 1.2%<br />

efficiency for underlying opex included in <strong>the</strong> IBP to be insufficient<br />

and wanted more ambition in HAL’s plans so that <strong>the</strong> cost base<br />

would remain flat in nominal terms. 27 The airlines also stated that<br />

solutions currently in development should not be considered part of<br />

<strong>the</strong> 1.2% underlying opex target.<br />

• Terminal related opex - <strong>the</strong> airlines were concerned about <strong>the</strong><br />

level of HAL’s opex projection for Terminal 2 relative to costs in <strong>the</strong><br />

o<strong>the</strong>r terminals.<br />

• Security - <strong>the</strong> airlines were keen for HAL to explore <strong>the</strong> potential<br />

for process efficiency improvements fully. This included: <strong>the</strong> use of<br />

agency staff to assist with passenger processing in peak times;<br />

apparently low security passenger flow rates in some terminals;<br />

and <strong>the</strong> potential for improvements to HAL’s security rostering<br />

efficiency.<br />

• O<strong>the</strong>r costs - <strong>the</strong> airlines questioned HAL’s projected levels of<br />

expenditure on professional fees, insurance, rent, rates and utilities.<br />

26<br />

The FBP includes an alignment using a different passenger standard. This change is not<br />

expected to have any impact on costs.<br />

27<br />

This target has been raised to 1.4% in HAL’s FBP.<br />

April 2013 Page 66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!