The law of unintended consequences could kick in if the Competition Commission sticks with its preliminary conclusion and orders a break up of BAA next March.
The Financial Times quotes analyst Paul Hickman of KBC Peel Hunt suggesting a sell off of Gatwick, Stansted and Glasgow or Edinburgh airports could adversely affect the Restaurant Group - the company behind the Garfunkel's and Chiquito eating chains.
The group runs 44 airport concessions, 30 at BAA terminals. The FT points out new airport owners might bring in other companies to run these. Heaven forbid.
"The implications are not positive for the Restaurant Group, which has built up its concessions business largely on its relationship with BAA," says Hickman.
Depending on your view of Garfunkel's food this might be a reason to insist the airport operator divest.
However, there is a contrary view that may yet belatedly enhance BAA's reputation - and it comes from Restaurant Group chief executive Andrew Page.
He says: "BAA limits how much exposure a retailer can have in its airports, while other airport operators do not." So a sell off will not faze Garfunkel's and Chiquito. "We see this more as an opportunity than a threat," says Page.
Surely this is grounds enough to call off the Competition Commission and uphold BAA's monopoly?