On 21 July, 18:53, 1506 wrote:

Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

On Jul 22, 11:08*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:43:10 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:

I fail to understand the obsession with denigrating Heathrow on this group, I
assume it is because it is in the south.

No, it's because it's a very poor airport by most criteria I can think
of. *(I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would denigrate
it on that basis).

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights. But
ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Is T5 really a "pit"? I wonder if you mean that demi-literally, what
with the apparent requirement to go down and up lots...

In message
, at
03:43:49 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:
Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

In the same way that not sticking your head down a toilet is good.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:19:14 on Thu, 22
Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights. But
ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Err, you haven't actually stated any reasons so how can T5 have different
reasons?

I'm trying to head off the people who say "but T5 is such an
improvement".
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
04:26:01 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Mizter T remarked:
It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights. But
ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Is T5 really a "pit"? I wonder if you mean that demi-literally, what
with the apparent requirement to go down and up lots...

Yes, that's part of it; and the long walks, and the extra gate area that
needs a shuttle. "Ergonomically it's the pits" might be another way of
saying it.
--
Roland Perry

On 22 July, 12:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:43:49 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:

Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

In the same way that not sticking your head down a toilet is good.

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad? Wouldn't it enable international
arriving passengers with short-haul connections, e.g. to make these by
rail, rather than by air? Heathrow is terrible for land transport,
buses which take ages, Underground which takes ages and has little
space for luggage, or rail which only gets you to Paddington.

In message
Mizter T wrote:


On Jul 22, 11:08*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:43:10 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:

I fail to understand the obsession with denigrating Heathrow on this group, I
assume it is because it is in the south.

No, it's because it's a very poor airport by most criteria I can think
of. *(I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would denigrate
it on that basis).

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights. But
ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Is T5 really a "pit"? I wonder if you mean that demi-literally, what
with the apparent requirement to go down and up lots...

I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not where he
wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so haven't experienced the
problem.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:19:14 on Thu, 22
Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights. But
ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Err, you haven't actually stated any reasons so how can T5 have different
reasons?

I'm trying to head off the people who say "but T5 is such an
improvement".

In my recent experience it is definitely an improvement over T3 but the point
is you haven't stated how the reasons are different.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

"Graeme" wrote in message

In message


Mizter T wrote:


On Jul 22, 11:08 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:43:10 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:

I fail to understand the obsession with denigrating Heathrow on
this group, I assume it is because it is in the south.

No, it's because it's a very poor airport by most criteria I can
think of. (I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would
denigrate it on that basis).

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights.
But ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Is T5 really a "pit"? I wonder if you mean that demi-literally, what
with the apparent requirement to go down and up lots...

I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not
where he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so
haven't experienced the problem.

I've arrived there by Tube quite a few times, and think the stations are
perfectly well situated. The one time I drove there (and parked in the
business car park), it was far less convenient.

In message
, at
04:50:51 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad?

Because it's an overcrowded, dirty, hostile place.
--
Roland Perry