On 2014-09-03 09:38:40 +0000, said:

Rail access to Birmingham airport from Cambridge is much worse and I would
never drive to any airport because of the parking charges.

While I agree they are expensive, this seems rather to limit your
options. Surely you should weigh up all the costs involved, including
whether the flight is cheaper, before making a decision like that.

For me, for instance, driving and parking at Luton for a weekend is
usually cheaper than two taxis, the only other viable way to get
there/back if travelling on early morning/late evening flights.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 03/09/2014 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

But presumably Stansted is far better than either?

Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside Europe.
And even then, the last two European trips booked by household members
used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on account of
route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no good for the
USA, although during the short periods when that continent was
available, we did use it.

I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very
limited"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:41:33AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:44:46 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.
Which "entire business community" would this be then? Give some examples.

The bit that doesn't include any businesses in south London, Kent,
Surrey or Sussex.

But hey, we're used to being ignored by transport planners down here.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

What is the difference between hearing aliens through the
fillings in your teeth and hearing Jesus in your heart?

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:00:52PM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:50:51 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote:
Logic actually favours no expansion at all.
By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in?

This logic:
Expansion will do next to nothing for UK business
Will add to pollution

Most people don't care much about pollution. They might *say* that they
care but their behaviour disagrees.

Will add to noise

I've addressed that here before. The problem is nothing like as
widespread as is purported, or as severe.

Flights arn't a natural phenomenon that have to be dealt with. They don't
suddenly appear out of the ether. If the airports can't cope with the amount
of flights they shouldn't give the airlines the slots in the first place.
Simple. If they're over capacity its their own damn faults.

They're not over capacity. Heathrow is approaching or at capacity. When
something is operating at its full capacity it becomes fragile, but is
normally still better than the same system operating below capacity.

I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up,
and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's
rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel
Apart from HS1 and crossrail, when was the last time a major railway was
built in this country?

Irrelevant. The issue isn't about what was built when, but about people
strangely not decrying them because they are expecting them to actually
be used.

Or to be more precise - which century? And have you
no noticed all the complaining about HS2?

Yes, I've noticed lots of Nimbies.

If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
Do we?

Yes. Taking society as a whole, yes we do. That you personally don't
isn't of any importance.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Today's previously unreported paraphilia is tomorrow's Internet sensation

On 02/09/2014 21:04, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
19:33:48 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
One of life's big ironies a few years back was a Which? report slagging
off foreign airports that falsely claimed to be close to well known
cities. In the same issue they gave "London Stansted" a ringing
endorsement, despite being further from its eponymous city than any of
the foreign airports they were complaining about.

To a certain extent, distance is less important than transport links.

A distant airport with a fast and easy-to-use train to the city centre
every 30 min, perhaps even a mainline connection to anywhere in the
country, is less of an issue than a edge-of-town airport with a
solitary bus...

Stansted is OK southbound to London, as long as you take the timings
with a pinch of salt (the advertised time is only as far as Tottenham
Hale, which in some respects one can't deny is "London").

This old canard you keep bringing up. The reason the timing to Tottenham
Hale for 'London' was highlighted a number of years ago is because
someone (rightfully) lodged a complaint with the ASA regarding National
Express's advertising at the airport (at the time NX ran the TOC and
hence Stansted Express), and the ASA upheld the complaint. The period
that the dodgy timing to Tottenham Hale for London was advertised (and
similarly for the coach service, Stratford for 'London') wasn't very
long, and it stopped several years ago.

....

Here we go - 2010:
http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/9/National-Express-Group/TF_ADJ_49010.aspx


Anywhere else and it's a joke. And don't forget they just decided to cut
the last two trains to London in the evening.

I guess you're referring to the 0100 and 0130 trains which only ran on
Friday and Saturday mornings, rather than throughout the week.

On 02/09/2014 14:02, Recliner wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:07:29 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.

True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.


Stansted might be short of business, but I don't think the same could be
said of Gatwick, the world's busiest single runway airport. Easyjet
likes Gatwick because of the higher fares it can charge compared to say
Stansted or Luton.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:03:42PM +0100, Robin wrote:

global business

Global businesses might get all the attention, but they're not all that
important. Far more people are employed by, services provided by, and
goods manufactured by regional and local businesses.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em

On 03/09/2014 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:03:42PM +0100, Robin wrote:

global business

Global businesses might get all the attention, but they're not all that
important. Far more people are employed by, services provided by, and
goods manufactured by regional and local businesses.


Though arguably as it's all interconnected and interdependent, it's all
global.

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:23:30PM -0500, Recliner wrote:

Many Heathrow passengers come from locations other than Central London. I
live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other
airport. Gatwick is only good for people near Victoria or Thameslink
stations.

You might as well say that Heathrow is only good for people near
Paddington and sheep-fancying farmers from Oo-arr-shire.

If you lived in, for example, Hastings, which airport would you prefer
to go to? Obviously Gatwick, yet Hastings is neither near Victoria or a
Thameslink station.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

comparative and superlative explained:

Huhn worse, worser, worsest, worsted, wasted