Plane Stupid

[Geo Ghost]

Well it's not just about the holding patterns is it, once you've got a third runway you can fill that one up too and still have planes circling waiting to land. Not sure why they're protesting against the second Stansted runway, it's a much better idea than the third Heathrow one, there's more space out at Stansted, although I guess they may be against the kind of short haul flights that Stansted propagate.

That's very true. Have thought of that, but i've always looked at it as Heathrow has enough planes coming in and out

I think a second runway at Stansted is a pretty good idea. A larger runway would be useful for more long-haul flights so the Airport can take a couple of larger planes (possibly with the downside of more planes - but Stansted is fairly remote anyway).

Stansted can already handle large aircraft. Until recently there were scheduled flights across the Atlantic with 767s however cargo airlines like FedEx use Stansted as a hub and MD-11s and 747s visit regularly. It's not a case of runway size it's a case of no one actually wants to fly a long distance from Stansted.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought the runway was slightly too short to handle larger aircraft. Thanks for pointing that out.

Stansted seems to have more of a relaxed 'feel' when you're there it seems.

Were you blindfolded and have earplugs in when you travelled through it? Before passing through to the gate it's awful, busy and crowded. When you're at the gate it's quiet but lacks facilities. Place is a dump to be honest.

Ameecher, there is no need for you to be that rude. Pretty uncalled for don't you think?

But anyway. I quite like Stansted still. No, I haven't traveled right through it yet. Only a couple of my friends have and I have met them there. From what I've seen being there, and from what I've seen in terms of pictures and being told, I think it's quite nice. Especially compared to some parts of Heathrow which are very low and cramped (With the exception of T5 of course which I'd like to have a look at).
You mentioned earplugs... I'm not sure why asked if I was wearing any because I personally love the sound of planes.
Everyone has their own opinion of places. I personally like Stansted, and there's no need to try and change my view of it if you dislike it.

[Ameecher]

I wasn't referring to the noise of the planes, the terminal I find is exceptionally noisy because of the crowded nature of the airport. Also seems to be a disproportionate number of pissed of people who are being charged hundreds because they missed their flight. That might just be the nature of the airlines that operate there though.

[John]

Ameecher's comments weren't that rude...


Personally I hate Stansted - It used to be a really nice airport, lots of open space and the high ceiling. Then they just get increasing passenger numbers with no increase in space. The place is absolute hell now with far too many passengers in a far too small a space, and the only thing to do airside is a weatherspoons pub...

Heathrow T5 is also a s*** hole - the standard of building would have been excellent 20 years ago, but now it's just appalling. If you want to know what a descent terminal should look like have a look at Munich's T2 or the new Beijing Terminal - far more impressive by several factors of ten.

Admittedly I have only landed at T5 and have yet to fly from it, but from what I saw landing, I really don't fancy flying from it.
And before anyone asks me for an explanation:
Landing at T5 the only good thing was the speed of the luggage - but you had to walk through long corridors to get to baggage return by walking along incredibly long corridors - the ceilings of which look like they were done on the cheap and the only improvement over the corridors of T2 is that one side is made glass. Compare this to major international airports were passengers walk back through the gate area, which is a much nicer experience.

This is why T5 is still a disappointment, even once they had sorted out all those baggage issues - it simply isn't good enough for our national carrier at (what should be) the flagship airport. It is the type of building you would expect at Stansted or Edinburgh.

Unfortunately things will not improve in the near future, with BAA determined to make as much money as possible and there being no competition between airports in the south west. Removing Gatwick from BAA ownership won't help either. Demand is currently outstripping supply too much - you fly to an airport with space, not the one you like most.

[Kevo00]

Interesting comments about airports - I think Stansted is not too bad, but it all depends on your subjective experiences of the airports. I agree that Stansted has many faults though - the check ins are poorly designed and lack barriers, and the train to the international terminal is a nightmare if you are running late for your plane (which once happened to me after a hold up at check in - not my fault), but the shops area has just the same BAA monopolies as the Heathrow or Gatwick terminals. Heathrow generally strikes me as being quite old (not been to T5) and poorly planned, though the quiet areas near the gate are good. Gatwick seems best to me, especially the restaurant that overlooks the apron. Though Luton is very relaxed, perhaps because the only time I flew from it was in January!

But then the 3 don't seem that comparable on a level playing field as I tend to visit Heathrow or Gatwick when going long haul and Stansted or Luton when going short haul, and IMO the airport bits of short haul always seem more stressful as they are by definition a longer part of the journey.

As for the national carrier, I thought Easyjet was our national carrier.

[EXTspotter]

Its obvious why longhaul is usually LHR/LGW. The whole idea of longhaul travel is that the people at the front are what make the airlines money. In this way, to intice as many wealthy and business clients to join an airlines frequent flier club, as once they have done this, they are pretty much with you for life. the best way to do this is operate to the most convenient airport for your main "target" of well to dos. In the case of London, Heathrow is the closest to London's wealthy west end. Gatwick is also similarly a secondary "longhaul" airport, however less so since the repeal of the Bermuda 2 agreement, where only 2 UK and 2 US airlines could fly between LHR and the US - (Originally Pan Am and TWA and British Airways - the UK didn't use its second slot until Virgin bought it in the 1980s). Pan Am sold its rights to American Airlines before going bankrupt, similarly TWA sold their to United before themselves being taken over by American. Because of this, every other US airline wanting to fly to London could only use Gatwick, Luton or Stansted, Gatwick being the obvious choice due to location, etc. However since the agreements repeal as part of Openskies between the EU and US, the US airlines at Gatwick have moved most if not all of their operations to Heathrow due to its superior position and easier connections to alliance partners flights. Because of this huge amount of popularity over STN and LTN, BAA charges airlines a premium for passenger services (it costs £18 per passenger for airlines to operate through Heathrow, as well as landing and parking fees, etc, it costs £8 at Gatwick and £4.50 at Stansted.) Because of this lower cost base at STN as well as LTN, low cost airlines choose these airports where other costs are much less. This is because the price concious audience they are aiming at value cost more than proximity and ease of transportation to get there, so even if the flights from there are cheaper, they are often more expensive in real terms. Similarly in this way, adding a new runway at STN, whilst helpful, is nowhere near the same as adding a 3rd at Heathrow. The real solution would be to force BAA to sell Heathrow and grow the others into a viable alternative. A better, but hugely unpopular idea would be to build an entire new airport somewhere else. An airport in the Thames estuary however is not a viable alternative. We must find other ways of making other airports more attractive to airlines. Making LHR's current runways mixed mode would be one way of increasing capacity by 10%, but by using HSR/Maglev technology to Stansted from Central London, building a new runway and keeping the current terminal as a "low cost" terminal, and building a higher quality terminal to attract world airlines, STN could be a viable alternative.

[StopRightThere]

And 3) The biggest reason for me is that my girlfriend is making her first trip to England on boxing day and arriving at Stansted. i got pretty worried there for a second, but seems like it's OK now.
If that was going affect her travel here... I'd be wanting to go and smack each person in the nose who came up with the idea of messing up the airport.

Hey, it's Christmas (almost), miracles will happen.

[iranair777]

idiots and plane stupid. Servers around the world create more co2 than aviation.

[andel]

Moved to appropriate place

[WWW]

Plane stupid are worse than cascet; they're trying to radicalis the youth of our country.