In message , at 16:45:19 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

It's more than airport fees.

In which case I am still waiting for your working.

It's not my working, refer to various statements by airlines.

Just admit it, you didn't make it clear

Clear to 100% of readers, or just the 99% excluding yourself?

It doesn't help your case the number of times you post here saying "it's
not clear to me", when you are the only one saying that.

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power
are almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at
LHR, how can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Because we could well end up with the US-based airlines dominating.
nd they are profit-driven.

BA isn't?

We managed perfectly well to negotiate slots for 2 airlines before the
EU meddling, why could we not do again?

The "two airlines each" thing is very long standing (1977), and
something we this side of the Atlantic wanted to change.

The two airlines from our side would undoubtedly be BA and Virgin.
Market closed to any others.

It's our asset we are negotiating away.

But without agreement from both, we could lose much of the asset.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate
these sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive
to assume that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement
as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

In this case "less advantageous" most certainly means more expensive.

I think you are wrong. Prices are kept down by competition, that
competition isn't going to go away

It will be much diluted if we go back to only four transatalantic
airlines at Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry