In message , at 14:01:06 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:
How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las
Vegas planned for next year).

Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the
airport serving "very limited destinations"

It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers
try Heathrow", then fine.

- that would mean just a few destinations, and there are in fact many.

I wonder how many are served the twice a day needed to make useful
business trips (out in the morning, back in the evening a day or two
later). I suspect (but don't have the time to check) that many
destinations are less than daily.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/09/2014 15:11, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2014-09-03 12:41:52 +0000, David Cantrell said:

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.

There are modes of transport other than trains. Luton and Stansted are
mainly reached by car and taxi, and serve a wide area of the Home
Counties and East Anglia as such. Indeed Luton is to a fairly
significant extent a "South Midlands and Home Counties Airport" rather
than a London one.

Incorrect for Stansted, which had 51% of pax using public transport
(bus, coach and rail) in 2013 - see page 23:
http://www.stanstedairport.com/media/1220647/sustainable-development-plan-surface-access-online-lr-20.08.14.pdf

Luton meanwhile had 32% of pax using public transport in 2010 - page 21,
PDF page 11:
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/en/download/179/Airport%20Surface%20Access%20Strategy.pdf

In message , at 14:22:01 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, d remarked:
Just how exactly does a hub airport help UK plc when

most of the

passengers will be passing through on to elsewhere and will

probably

just spend a few quid in duty free?



It helps because they don't just buy a few duty-frees, they buy a whole

onward flight, with all the infrastructure and staffing which that

implies.



So some construction work and a couple of hundred airport staffing jobs plus

air fares that probably go to a foreign airline in a foreign bank. Well

obviously thats really worth all the pollution , noise and a few billion

quid of taxpayers money.


You still don't get it do you? Infrastructure needs to be *operated* as
well as built. Planes need servicing, fuelling, crewing and so on.
Without transit passengers, the number of flights at Heathrow (and thus
the revenue generated for the area) would be down by around a third. So
that's a third of both the direct and indirect workforce laid off.
--
Roland Perry

On 2014-09-03 14:44:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:

It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers
try Heathrow", then fine.

Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe,
and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you.

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

On 03/09/2014 15:44, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:01:06 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:
How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las
Vegas planned for next year).

Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the
airport serving "very limited destinations"

It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers
try Heathrow", then fine.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus would not regard Stansted as serving a
"very limited" range of destinations, nor would a court. The Roland
Perry interpretation of language thus doesn't stand up.


- that would mean just a few destinations, and there are in fact many.

I wonder how many are served the twice a day needed to make useful
business trips (out in the morning, back in the evening a day or two
later). I suspect (but don't have the time to check) that many
destinations are less than daily.

Two recent articles about Ryanair increasing frequencies on key business
routes, many from Stansted:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-business-drives-ryanair39s-uk-domestic-401054/

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/240503/ryanair-delivers-on-stansted-growth-promise/

On 03/09/2014 15:52, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2014-09-03 14:44:46 +0000, Roland Perry said:

It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other
fliers try Heathrow", then fine.

Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe,
and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you.

On that theme, a significant number of pax from around Europe use it for
DIY transfers.

In message , at 15:52:57 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, Neil Williams remarked:

It does, because many people have destinations outside Europe. It
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other
fliers try Heathrow", then fine.

Stansted already is an airport you go to if you want a LCC to Europe,
and it has a massive array of such services. So I disagree with you.

Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the general
public understands to be the case?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:02:21 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:
Stansted wants to re-brand as "The gateway to Europe - all other fliers
try Heathrow", then fine.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus would not regard Stansted as serving a
"very limited" range of destinations, nor would a court. The Roland
Perry interpretation of language thus doesn't stand up.

It's limited to *some* destinations, almost exclusively in *Europe*.
(And not necessarily daily)

There are many places *in* Europe and even more *outside* Europe which
make it a very long way from being a general purpose airport like
Heathrow or Gatwick, or even Birmingham and Manchester.
--
Roland Perry

On 2014-09-03 15:10:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the
general public understands to be the case?

Branding by the airport? Probably not. But it is certainly well
understood that, essentially, you go to Stansted to fly Ryanair (or to
a much lesser extent easyJet) to Europe.

It isnt *branded* as anything other than London Stansted Airport, which
says nothing about where you can fly from there.

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

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:49:09 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:22:01 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, d remarked:
Just how exactly does a hub airport help UK plc when

most of the

passengers will be passing through on to elsewhere and will

probably

just spend a few quid in duty free?



It helps because they don't just buy a few duty-frees, they buy a whole

onward flight, with all the infrastructure and staffing which that

implies.



So some construction work and a couple of hundred airport staffing jobs plus

air fares that probably go to a foreign airline in a foreign bank. Well

obviously thats really worth all the pollution , noise and a few billion

quid of taxpayers money.


You still don't get it do you? Infrastructure needs to be *operated* as
well as built. Planes need servicing, fuelling, crewing and so on.
Without transit passengers, the number of flights at Heathrow (and thus
the revenue generated for the area) would be down by around a third. So
that's a third of both the direct and indirect workforce laid off.

I think we know that Boltar doesn't get the concept of a hub airport.
He asks the same questions every time it comes up, but never reads the
answers. And unlike Mr Bell, he's rude with it.