Why expand Heath Row and not Gatwick?

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 11:53 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and
rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing through
of near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I
wouldn't have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there


There's a rail link to Stanstead.

Ever done the 'rail transfer' to Heathrow in central London?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and
rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing through
of
near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I wouldn't
have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London
then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

No it isn't. According to my route planner Stanstead is over 20 miles
further
(using the quickest route) and takes 20 mins longer from Manchester. The
more
direct route to Stanstead takes about an hour longer. The same will be
true of
anywhere in the North West, West Midlands or anywhere where the M6/M1 or
M40 is
the best route into London. Which is probably the vast majority of the UK
population who are "50 miles north of London".

That doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Heathrow approaches are saturated.

Come from Manchester and you're quite likely to find yourself sitting on the
M25 for an hour or so, if things are quite...

But the reality is that if you live in Manchester you're far more likely to
take a short flight to one of the major European hubs and fly onwards from
there.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:06:12 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there

There's a rail link to Stanstead.

And not just to and from London.

Ever done the 'rail transfer' to Heathrow in central London?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking but I've done the
Underground to and from Heathrow a few times, including
connecting to the Underground from trains at Kings Cross Station
and at Finsbury Park. Never done Heathrow Express nor Heathrow
Connect, though.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:08:54 +0530, "William Black"

wrote:


"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and
rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily
accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and
is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing
through
of
near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I
wouldn't
have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London
then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

No it isn't. According to my route planner Stanstead is over 20 miles
further
(using the quickest route) and takes 20 mins longer from Manchester.
The
more
direct route to Stanstead takes about an hour longer. The same will be
true of
anywhere in the North West, West Midlands or anywhere where the M6/M1 or
M40 is
the best route into London. Which is probably the vast majority of the
UK
population who are "50 miles north of London".

That doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Heathrow approaches are saturated.

Come from Manchester and you're quite likely to find yourself sitting on
the
M25 for an hour or so, if things are quite...

But the reality is that if you live in Manchester you're far more likely
to
take a short flight to one of the major European hubs and fly onwards from
there.

Especially as there is no charge for the connecting flight if you use
KLM/Airfrance.

I know :-)

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:01:01 +0530, "William Black"


Especially as there is no charge for the connecting flight if you use
KLM/Airfrance.

I know :-)

I don't see it lasting indefinitely. AF/KLM is losing money and Schiphol
is
losing traffic. I suspect the Dutch tax payer is subsidising the flights
as well
as the airport.

Well as long as nobody asks me for any extra money.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:58:24 +0530, "William Black"

wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:01:01 +0530, "William Black"


Especially as there is no charge for the connecting flight if you use
KLM/Airfrance.

I know :-)

I don't see it lasting indefinitely. AF/KLM is losing money and Schiphol
is
losing traffic. I suspect the Dutch tax payer is subsidising the flights
as well
as the airport.

Well as long as nobody asks me for any extra money.

LOL

Ryanair are charging extra for duty free not carried in the hand luggage.

Ryanair would, they're a set of crooked *******s and they're never getting
any more of my money ever again...

I usually only fly long distances.

If I'm going to Europe I get on a boat.

Flights of less than two or three hours just aren't worth the trouble these
days.

I'd rather sit on a nice big boat in Hull and eat a decent dinner than get
shot somewhere I've never been and arrive stunned by airport trauma and the
price of a local taxi and then go and look for someone to buy a meal from.

It's not as if I'm going to work or anything like that.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black" wrote in message
...
If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London
then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

No it isn't. According to my route planner Stanstead is over 20 miles
further
(using the quickest route) and takes 20 mins longer from Manchester. The
more
direct route to Stanstead takes about an hour longer. The same will be
true of
anywhere in the North West, West Midlands or anywhere where the M6/M1 or
M40 is
the best route into London. Which is probably the vast majority of the UK
population who are "50 miles north of London".

That doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Heathrow approaches are saturated.

No they aren't. I do that route a lot.

Come from Manchester and you're quite likely to find yourself sitting on the
M25 for an hour or so, if things are quite...

Rubbish! It's one junction on the M25, and it's easily avoided if busy. I don't
think I've ever been stuck in a jam there - although at peak times I'd tend to
get off at the High Wycombe junction and head to the M4.

But the reality is that if you live in Manchester you're far more likely to
take a short flight to one of the major European hubs and fly onwards from
there.

It depends. I've had some cheap direct flights from Heathrow in recent years.
Flying from Manchester would have cost several hundred more plus not really
saved much time.

--
Andy

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:08:54 +0530, "William Black"

wrote:


"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and
rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily
accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and
is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing
through
of
near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I
wouldn't
have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London
then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

No it isn't. According to my route planner Stanstead is over 20 miles
further
(using the quickest route) and takes 20 mins longer from Manchester.
The
more
direct route to Stanstead takes about an hour longer. The same will be
true of
anywhere in the North West, West Midlands or anywhere where the M6/M1 or
M40 is
the best route into London. Which is probably the vast majority of the
UK
population who are "50 miles north of London".

That doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Heathrow approaches are saturated.

Come from Manchester and you're quite likely to find yourself sitting on
the
M25 for an hour or so, if things are quite...

But the reality is that if you live in Manchester you're far more likely
to
take a short flight to one of the major European hubs and fly onwards from
there.

Especially as there is no charge for the connecting flight if you use
KLM/Airfrance.

I know :-)

You just pay a fortune for the onward flight :-)

--
Andy

"William Black" wrote in message
...
I usually only fly long distances.

If I'm going to Europe I get on a boat.

So do I, if I'm going somewhere in NW Europe. After some nightmare drives, we
tend to fly when we go to southern Europe.

Flights of less than two or three hours just aren't worth the trouble these
days.

So if you were going to, say, Naples, how would you do it and how long would it
take?

--
Andy

"William Black" wrote in message
...
If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there


There's a rail link to Stanstead.

From London. Not from the North (at least National Rail enquiries website tells
me I have to go via London).

Ever done the 'rail transfer' to Heathrow in central London?

I've used the tube, and that was easy. But it might not be with a lot of
luggage - but then you've got the same problem to Stanstead as you have to get
from Euston/ Kings X to Liverpool St.

But I find it easier to avoid London altogether and get the Railair coach from
Reading.

--
Andy