|
Another one bites the dust
tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:09:54 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016, d remarked: I first started to always try to work with carry on only after a trip on the Manchester shuttle to LHR. I waited 45 minutes for my bag to appear and when it did it was one a a total of 3 that the flight had carried! By implication that means a lot of people on that flight were actually visiting London. The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Back in the day it was definitely a point to point route. Companies would buy carnets of tickets and you just turned up with one at the desk 20 minutes before and walked on (well in theory, anyway). I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations. I think the other problem was the need to have a spare aircraft on standby at each Shuttle base, and sometimes to fly them almost empty. I'm not sure security took much longer in the 1990s than the 1980s. Even now, it only takes a few minutes. |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-22 15:05:58 +0000, tim... said:
I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations. London to Manchester flights in general have been hit very hard by the high speed and high frequency of the WCML service - VT near enough have the non-car market sewn up. Unless I lived in south Manchester and was travelling to west London (or vice versa), or was connecting onto long-haul, I can't see why I would even consider air for that journey. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 16:05:58 on Thu, 22 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: I first started to always try to work with carry on only after a trip on the Manchester shuttle to LHR. I waited 45 minutes for my bag to appear and when it did it was one a a total of 3 that the flight had carried! By implication that means a lot of people on that flight were actually visiting London. The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Yes, really. BA even produced stats which proved it. Back in the day it was definitely a point to point route. Companies would buy carnets of tickets and you just turned up with one at the desk 20 minutes before and walked on (well in theory, anyway). Some companies and some people. Not a high proportion of each planeload though. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 21:12:38 on Thu, 22
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked: I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations. London to Manchester flights in general have been hit very hard by the high speed and high frequency of the WCML service - VT near enough have the non-car market sewn up. Unless I lived in south Manchester and was travelling to west London (or vice versa), or was connecting onto long-haul, I can't see why I would even consider air for that journey. One reason is price. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2016-09-22 15:05:58 +0000, tim... said: I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations. London to Manchester flights in general have been hit very hard by the high speed and high frequency of the WCML service - VT near enough have the non-car market sewn up. Well the frequency might be a bit better but the speed hasn't improved much ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time No, as I said before, it's the need to arrive at the airport significantly earlier, thus increasing total travel time buy plane that's killed it tim |
Another one bites the dust
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 16:05:58 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: I first started to always try to work with carry on only after a trip on the Manchester shuttle to LHR. I waited 45 minutes for my bag to appear and when it did it was one a a total of 3 that the flight had carried! By implication that means a lot of people on that flight were actually visiting London. The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Yes, really. BA even produced stats which proved it. come on Roland,. You know better than to make sweeping claims like that without any proof tim |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-23 09:59:00 +0000, tim... said:
ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it involves arriving about an hour before the flight (as has long been the case), and needs to include getting into central London as that is where most people are going to be going. That means in practice a journey time of around two and a half hours. Thus the difference between 2:40 and 2:10 is very, very significant, as it is the change that tips the balance. That between 2:10 and 1:50, say, would be much less so. No, as I said before, it's the need to arrive at the airport significantly earlier, thus increasing total travel time buy plane that's killed it That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to BA flights from Manchester to London. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 11:22:48 on Fri, 23
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked: ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it involves arriving about an hour before the flight (as has long been the case), and needs to include getting into central London as that is where most people are going to be going. Most of the people on the Manchester flight are going to another gate at Heathrow. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 10:59:40 on Fri, 23 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Yes, really. BA even produced stats which proved it. come on Roland,. You know better than to make sweeping claims like that without any proof Willie Walsh, 26th June 2008: "... explained that on Heathrow flights to and from Manchester, 75% of passengers were transferring. On services to and from Leeds/Bradford, Newcastle and Tees-side, the proportion was between 55% and 60%. On flights to and from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, transfer traffic accounted for nearly half of all passengers." ps. Does that mean you are on my side in that other place where there's a disagreement over whether "no cite = you lose" or not? -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 10:59:40 on Fri, 23 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Yes, really. BA even produced stats which proved it. come on Roland,. You know better than to make sweeping claims like that without any proof Willie Walsh, 26th June 2008: That's well after the increased time for security clearance introduced after 9/11 (amongst other incidents) which, as I have already said, probably killed the walk up point to point usage. I am going back to 1987 when you just walked through the security line without a boarding card. tim |
Another one bites the dust
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2016-09-23 09:59:00 +0000, tim... said: ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it involves arriving about an hour before the flight It does now (as has long been the case), Not the period I was referring to you really could just turn up at the airport 20 minuets before and walk through to the plane (carnet ticket in hand) and needs to include getting into central London as that is where most people are going to be going. Quite a lot aren't there's an awful lot of tech companies for which the onward journey involved a taxi to somewhere in the Thames valley. That means in practice a journey time of around two and a half hours. Thus the difference between 2:40 and 2:10 is very, very significant, as it is the change that tips the balance. That between 2:10 and 1:50, say, would be much less so. No, as I said before, it's the need to arrive at the airport significantly earlier, thus increasing total travel time buy plane that's killed it That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to BA flights from Manchester to London. there was a time, quite a long time in fact, when hour long queues at LHR were not unusual tim |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-23 10:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry said:
In message , at 11:22:48 on Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked: ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it involves arriving about an hour before the flight (as has long been the case), and needs to include getting into central London as that is where most people are going to be going. Most of the people on the Manchester flight are going to another gate at Heathrow. Indeed. My point was in relation to why that is the case, and why rail has the Manchester-London "standalone" public transport market sewn up. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
On 22/09/2016 16:05, tim... wrote: [...] By implication that means a lot of people on that flight were actually visiting London. The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the main purpose of the Manchester flights. Not really Back in the day it was definitely a point to point route. Companies would buy carnets of tickets and you just turned up with one at the desk 20 minutes before and walked on (well in theory, anyway). I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations. And the fact that the train is now much faster and at a turn-up-and-go (if you're up to paying for it) frequency. |
Another one bites the dust
On 23/09/2016 11:22, Neil Williams wrote: [...] That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to BA flights from Manchester to London. I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. Things don't stand still. |
Another one bites the dust
Mizter T wrote:
On 23/09/2016 11:22, Neil Williams wrote: [...] That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to BA flights from Manchester to London. I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. Things don't stand still. I spent a full hour getting through security and to the gate at Stansted this summer. They may not stand still, but at Stansted they are entirely capable of going backwards. |
Another one bites the dust
On 21/09/2016 09:48, Neil Williams wrote:
Sounds like a particularly bad day. The walk from some gates can be a *bit* long but it's nothing on Gatwick, nor have I ever known any airport as slow with bags as Gatwick (or Stansted). Madrid. Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already. After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container? Result: wheels down to groundside was 1h40, wheels up to wheels down had been about 2h10. |
Another one bites the dust
|
Another one bites the dust
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 21/09/2016 09:48, Neil Williams wrote: Sounds like a particularly bad day. The walk from some gates can be a *bit* long but it's nothing on Gatwick, nor have I ever known any airport as slow with bags as Gatwick (or Stansted). Madrid. Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already. It might have been true: there are both forward and aft baggage holds. It's perfectly possible that one might have had a jammed door. Indeed, it's much more likely that one, rather than both, might have a problem. After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container? They presumably have to be towed to the baggage handling area, then moved by the automated conveyed system to where they're opened and unpacked. I suppose it's possible they could temporarily lose track of one. Result: wheels down to groundside was 1h40, wheels up to wheels down had been about 2h10. I've been on flights where the former exceeded the latter. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 23:10:59 on Sat, 24 Sep
2016, Clive D.W. Feather remarked: After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container? You deliver it to the wrong place - perhaps a holding area for transfer baggage - rather than to the carousel. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:14:24 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote: On 22/09/2016 09:30, d wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:06:59 +0100 "tim..." wrote: as a premium service - this was during the era when occasionally they would fly concord on this route Eh?? Was the concord maintenance base in manchester or something? The Shuttle services were advertised as "turn up by X minutes before departure and you *will* get a seat". Even if they had to fly an extra plane for the last passenger. And if a Concorde was the only thing spare at that moment, a Concorde is what got used. That's true, but I think Concorde use was planned; there wouldn't normally be a spare, crewed Concorde hanging around with nothing to do. |
Another one bites the dust
On 24/09/2016 23:28, Recliner wrote:
Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already. It might have been true: there are both forward and aft baggage holds. It's perfectly possible that one might have had a jammed door. Indeed, it's much more likely that one, rather than both, might have a problem. Then "some bags have been delayed as a result" would have been the truth. "The bags are only starting to come off" was a lie. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 23:14:46 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Clive D.W. Feather remarked: Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already. It might have been true: there are both forward and aft baggage holds. It's perfectly possible that one might have had a jammed door. Indeed, it's much more likely that one, rather than both, might have a problem. Then "some bags have been delayed as a result" would have been the truth. "The bags are only starting to come off" was a lie. Alternatively "the bags for you people stood there waiting, are only starting to come of". The people whose bags weren't stuck behind the door were miles away by then, and therefore the announcement wouldn't have been directed at them. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-23 17:15:11 +0000, Mizter T said:
I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. I did and waited over 45 minutes, like usual. Luton can be as bad but at least if you're in a hurry there is the facility to pay for fast-track. Things don't stand still. No, but they do vary, and I have never had to wait that long at LHR that I can remember. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-24 22:10:59 +0000, Clive D.W. Feather said:
Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already. Many planes have more than one baggage hold, so that is entirely possible. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
On 26/09/2016 11:40, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-23 17:15:11 +0000, Mizter T said: I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. I did and waited over 45 minutes, like usual. Luton can be as bad but at least if you're in a hurry there is the facility to pay for fast-track. Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ Things don't stand still. No, but they do vary, and I have never had to wait that long at LHR that I can remember. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 09:07:41 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked: I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. I did and waited over 45 minutes, like usual. Luton can be as bad but at least if you're in a hurry there is the facility to pay for fast-track. Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ That talks about booking it - is it also available on the day (for example if your train was late). -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
On 28/09/2016 09:13, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:07:41 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Mizter T remarked: I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was past security within five minutes of having got off the coach. I did and waited over 45 minutes, like usual. Luton can be as bad but at least if you're in a hurry there is the facility to pay for fast-track. Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ That talks about booking it - is it also available on the day (for example if your train was late). Yes, though the website doesn't make that clear. There is a desk where you can pay just before the entrance to the Fast Track channel. |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-28 08:07:41 +0000, Mizter T said:
Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ When did they introduce that? It certainly isn't as obviously marketed as at Luton. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2016-09-28 08:07:41 +0000, Mizter T said: Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ When did they introduce that? It certainly isn't as obviously marketed as at Luton. Having been to Luton 3 times [1] in the past 3 months, I can't agree that it is obviously marketed there either tim [1] 6 times if you count the airside arrivals |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-28 10:36:58 +0000, tim... said:
Having been to Luton 3 times [1] in the past 3 months, I can't agree that it is obviously marketed there either What, so the clearly branded ticket machines dotted around the terminal, plus the obvious PRIORITY LANE sign over part of the security entrance, aren't enough? The problem at STN is that there is more than one entrance to security, so you don't naturally pass it. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2016-09-28 10:36:58 +0000, tim... said: Having been to Luton 3 times [1] in the past 3 months, I can't agree that it is obviously marketed there either What, so the clearly branded ticket machines dotted around the terminal, nope, didn't see them. And if you haven't pre-advertised that they are there, why would I? plus the obvious PRIORITY LANE sign over part of the security entrance, aren't enough? the presence of a priority lane does not, of itself, suggest that access is via a charge. at most airports it is via class of travel or FF status. That this may not apply at Luton is not obvious to a one time user of that airport tim |
Another one bites the dust
On 28/09/2016 11:10, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-28 08:07:41 +0000, Mizter T said: Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ When did they introduce that? It certainly isn't as obviously marketed as at Luton. Paid Fast Track at STN seems to have been introduced in 2011: http://www.flypark.co.uk/blog/2011/09/08/495/ http://www.btnews.co.uk/article/3920 FWIW, it features prominently on the Stansted airport front page: http://www.stanstedairport.com/ With Ryanair, they offer the opportunity to buy Fast Track security access when buying the flight (on a standard fare). With easyJet, this is not offered, it only comes bundled with the Flexi fare. What is not made clear on the Stansted website is the fact you can buy Fast Track access there and then without 'pre-booking' it, presumably because they'd rather people didn't turn up at the airport and make an assessment as to whether or not it'd be worthwhile before shelling out. The new regular security area is larger and has more lanes than the old one did, though I'm aware I likely got lucky when I passed through so very quickly. One very obvious point, which applies everywhere not just at STN, is to make sure one keeps one's eyes open and don't just follow the crowd, as inevitably many people bunch up at the nearest security lanes and don't move along to the less busy ones. |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-28 13:56:19 +0000, Mizter T said:
The new regular security area is larger and has more lanes than the old one did, though I'm aware I likely got lucky when I passed through so very quickly. One very obvious point, which applies everywhere not just at STN, is to make sure one keeps one's eyes open and don't just follow the crowd, as inevitably many people bunch up at the nearest security lanes and don't move along to the less busy ones. Certainly. Indeed, LHR T2 and T5 encourage this with big electronic signs showing the best one to go to. It also worked at Schiphol passport control, though I haven't been there since the layout was changed to perimeter rather than gate security. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 14:28:34 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016,
tim... remarked: What, so the clearly branded ticket machines dotted around the terminal, nope, didn't see them. And if you haven't pre-advertised that they are there, why would I? Just normal observational skills. But perhaps you don't see(sic) why those skills are perhaps something you lack. -- Roland Perry |
Another one bites the dust
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-28 13:56:19 +0000, Mizter T said: The new regular security area is larger and has more lanes than the old one did, though I'm aware I likely got lucky when I passed through so very quickly. One very obvious point, which applies everywhere not just at STN, is to make sure one keeps one's eyes open and don't just follow the crowd, as inevitably many people bunch up at the nearest security lanes and don't move along to the less busy ones. Certainly. Indeed, LHR T2 and T5 encourage this with big electronic signs showing the best one to go to. It also worked at Schiphol passport control, though I haven't been there since the layout was changed to perimeter rather than gate security. I was there a couple of months ago, the security at the non-Schengen terminal/bit (I forget the name - at the end near the railway platforms rather than the 'main' terminal I'm more familiar with) was as big a farce as Stansted could organise & nearly had me missing my flight. This surprised me as Schipol used to be a decent airport - so I'd say maybe the changes (I didn't know they were making them) are not going so well. Munich remains far and away the best European airport to my mind. (Although even there if you arrive at one terminal and are bussed to the other one the transit security can be a bloody mess, but that's only happened once in about 25 flights this year so I forgive them.) |
Another one bites the dust
On 2016-09-28 16:23:51 +0000, Clank said:
I was there a couple of months ago, the security at the non-Schengen terminal/bit (I forget the name - at the end near the railway platforms rather than the 'main' terminal I'm more familiar with) was as big a farce as Stansted could organise & nearly had me missing my flight. This surprised me as Schipol used to be a decent airport - so I'd say maybe the changes (I didn't know they were making them) are not going so well. The H gates? Those were never good. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Another one bites the dust
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On 28/09/2016 11:10, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-28 08:07:41 +0000, Mizter T said: Er, as there is at Stansted. (£5) http://www.stanstedairport.com/at-the-airport/security/security-fasttrack/ When did they introduce that? It certainly isn't as obviously marketed as at Luton. Paid Fast Track at STN seems to have been introduced in 2011: http://www.flypark.co.uk/blog/2011/09/08/495/ http://www.btnews.co.uk/article/3920 FWIW, it features prominently on the Stansted airport front page: http://www.stanstedairport.com/ That's hardly a useful marketing tool IMHO. Just how many people visit the website of the airport that they are flying from? 1% 2%, less! tim |
Another one bites the dust
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 14:28:34 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: What, so the clearly branded ticket machines dotted around the terminal, nope, didn't see them. And if you haven't pre-advertised that they are there, why would I? Just normal observational skills. Why would I (anyone) walk into an airport lounge looking for something that they didn't know existed? As someone who had checked in online with only carry on, I would look for the signs to "departures" and follow them. Why would I notice anything else? But perhaps you don't see(sic) why those skills are perhaps something you lack. I don't see the need to walk around random places with the observation of a police detective, on the off chance that I should witness a crime perhaps, and I am amazed that you do. What's the point? If there's a fire alarm I'll look for signs to the escape route then, that why they are lit up! In any case there have been hundreds of academic exercises to see what people do take in from random locations and the results show that what they register is uniformly poor. As you seem to think differently perhaps you should offer the industry the benefit of your obviously superior intellect so that they can get it right next time. Saying that evidence that a particular marketing method doesn't work is the fault of the consumer's intelligence is shooting the messenger and can only ever fail as a scientific technique. tim |
Another one bites the dust
In message , at 09:43:50 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: What, so the clearly branded ticket machines dotted around the terminal, nope, didn't see them. And if you haven't pre-advertised that they are there, why would I? Just normal observational skills. Why would I (anyone) walk into an airport lounge looking for something that they didn't know existed? As someone who had checked in online with only carry on, I would look for the signs to "departures" and follow them. Why would I notice anything else? You might see signage indicating that departures had a fast track lane. But perhaps you don't see(sic) why those skills are perhaps something you lack. I don't see the need to walk around random places with the observation of a police detective, on the off chance that I should witness a crime perhaps, and I am amazed that you do. What's the point? There isn't an inherent "point", it just happens naturally. If there's a fire alarm I'll look for signs to the escape route then, that why they are lit up! In any case there have been hundreds of academic exercises to see what people do take in from random locations and the results show that what they register is uniformly poor. As you seem to think differently perhaps you should offer the industry the benefit of your obviously superior intellect so that they can get it right next time. I've always thought that the airport industry is one I could have had a career in. After all, it's very operations-based and a lot of queuing theory goes into their design (it's not the architects' fault that they later end up under-manned). -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk