|
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 6, 10:46*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote The Sunday Times newspaper reported Mr Hammond was considering building a new railway station at Heathrow that would see up to four shuttle services per hour from Reading. The most sensible thing would be to use the HEx station at T5. This would enable 4 tph Paddington - T123 - T4 - Staines (HEx) using a bit of the Airtrack plans. 4 tph Crossrail - T123 - T4 4 tph Crossrail - T123 - T5 - Reading. I would run the Reading trains on the Relief Lines, calling at Slough and Maidenhead. Paths should be available, as Crossrail will only run 4 or 6 tph down the GWML west of Hayes and Harlington. Apart from saving the cost of another Heathrow station, this would enable trains from Reading to serve T123 as well as T5, and via a cross-platform change at T123 to reach T4. Extending HEx to Staines would give most of the advantages of Airtrack (by connection at Staines) without the disadvantage of additional trains over congested level crossings. That would certainly be the case. Since there is a track bed to Staines, it would seem the logical place to end Heathrow Connect. Such would give a very good connection to a large swathe of SWT territory. It is a pity no one service can reach all Heathrow Terminals. Heathrow really needs an internal transit system, like Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On 07/09/2011 10:03, 1506 wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:46 am, "Peter wrote: "Mizter wrote The Sunday Times newspaper reported Mr Hammond was considering building a new railway station at Heathrow that would see up to four shuttle services per hour from Reading. The most sensible thing would be to use the HEx station at T5. This would enable 4 tph Paddington - T123 - T4 - Staines (HEx) using a bit of the Airtrack plans. 4 tph Crossrail - T123 - T4 4 tph Crossrail - T123 - T5 - Reading. I would run the Reading trains on the Relief Lines, calling at Slough and Maidenhead. Paths should be available, as Crossrail will only run 4 or 6 tph down the GWML west of Hayes and Harlington. Apart from saving the cost of another Heathrow station, this would enable trains from Reading to serve T123 as well as T5, and via a cross-platform change at T123 to reach T4. Extending HEx to Staines would give most of the advantages of Airtrack (by connection at Staines) without the disadvantage of additional trains over congested level crossings. That would certainly be the case. Since there is a track bed to Staines, it would seem the logical place to end Heathrow Connect. Such would give a very good connection to a large swathe of SWT territory. It is a pity no one service can reach all Heathrow Terminals. Heathrow really needs an internal transit system, like Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson. It has one but not obviously. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message
, at 02:03:04 on Wed, 7 Sep 2011, 1506 remarked: It is a pity no one service can reach all Heathrow Terminals. Heathrow really needs an internal transit system, like Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson. I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. Although I agree that elsewhere (I can think of Chicago, DFW, Newark as well as ATL in USA, then CDG and Frankfurt in Europe) they have Gatwick style people mover. At Brisbane there's a proper suburban train which calls at both terminals, but they charge $5 for it[1]. That train also has the interesting property that the ticket price includes free "missed flight" insurance if caused by a railway delay. [1] There's also a bus, but that's $5 too. There doesn't seem to be any way to get a free transfer, and it's too far to walk easily. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 9, 2:32*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Neil |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message
, at 05:53:02 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Neil Williams remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). If you wanted to transfer via Terminal B, or the other two terminal A satellites, you'd have to go landside and re-enter security. [1] One of three satellites. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 05:53:02 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Neil Williams remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. tim |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 9, 10:05*pm, Jeremy Double wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. At most UK airports the majority of passengers are making international journeys. Flying Los Angeles to Edinburgh, I have often cleared Immigration in London, but Customs at Edinburgh. Very helpful, it saves lugging cases, et al, around Heathrow. So people in this country tend to forget that, even at a major international airport like Newark, the vast majority of passengers passing through a US airport are making domestic journeys. *In the US, airports serve more-or-less the same role as inter-city railway stations in this country. Very much the case at airports like Louisville, KY, or Omaha, NE. Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK, one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage pickup, customs check, and agricultural check. And I, too, have used the airside bus at Newark to transfer from an internal to an international flight, so it can't be very uncommon. *You wouldn't want to brave the security queues at Newark if you were trying to make a connection onto a transatlantic flight... |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"1506" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 10:05 pm, Jeremy Double wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. At most UK airports the majority of passengers are making international journeys. Flying Los Angeles to Edinburgh, I have often cleared Immigration in London, but Customs at Edinburgh. Very helpful, it saves lugging cases, et al, around Heathrow. So people in this country tend to forget that, even at a major international airport like Newark, the vast majority of passengers passing through a US airport are making domestic journeys. In the US, airports serve more-or-less the same role as inter-city railway stations in this country. Very much the case at airports like Louisville, KY, or Omaha, NE. Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK, one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage pickup, customs check, and agricultural check. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. [1] Which used to be a through service offered by NZ, don't know if it still is tim |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 10, 5:21*am, "tim...." wrote:
"1506" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 10:05 pm, Jeremy Double wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. At most UK airports the majority of passengers are making international journeys. Flying Los Angeles to Edinburgh, I have often cleared Immigration in London, but Customs at Edinburgh. *Very helpful, it saves lugging cases, et al, around Heathrow. So people in this country tend to forget that, even at a major international airport like Newark, the vast majority of passengers passing through a US airport are making domestic journeys. In the US, airports serve more-or-less the same role as inter-city railway stations in this country. Very much the case at airports like Louisville, KY, or Omaha, NE. Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK, one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage pickup, customs check, and agricultural check. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. I have exactly that issue a few days from now. Travelling to Panama I have to pass thru US immigration even though I am only "in transit". This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. [1] Which used to be a through service offered by NZ, don't know if it still is Ah, Air New Zealand, my favorite airline on which to cross the Atlantic. They have an old fashioned service ethic |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 13:21:07 on Sat, 10 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked: Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. Although the lack of airside transit means you are in fact entering the country, however briefly. This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. Indeed. And the Visa Waiver costs money now (via the ESTA scheme). It's just one more variable to take into account when planning the route. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message
, at 05:33:24 on Sat, 10 Sep 2011, 1506 remarked: Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. I have exactly that issue a few days from now. Travelling to Panama I have to pass thru US immigration even though I am only "in transit". Pre 9/11 anyway, it's all about passenger segregation, and whether the airports have a way to keep transit passengers "international airside" as well as simply "security checked airside". This becomes impossible if (as at many USA airports) you have flights departing to both domestic and international destinations at adjacent gates. The economy of scale of having "international gates" doesn't work so well when their model is to cluster gates by airline rather than type of destination. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 13:15:51 on Sat, 10 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked... "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep 2011, tim.... remarked: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights). I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the demand for air side transfers somewhat. Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the regional feeder airport was sufficient). It's only the international-domestic which have that issue. -- Roland Perry .... nothing :) -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"tim." wrote in message
Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. .... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for less than 3 months. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , Roland Perry
wrote: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, Completely OT, but I got to use the airside bus at Stansted last week. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message
, 1506 wrote: Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK, one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage pickup, customs check, and agricultural check. That depends. BA certainly used to have "set-down only" stops. So the flight from London to Pittsburgh (IIRC) had a set-down stop at Washington Dulles. Those passengers to Pittsburgh just stayed on the plane while those to Washington got off, after which the plane continued on its journey. I had an "interesting" experience when Dulles was fogged in. Normally about 90% of the passengers got off in Washington. Pittsburgh had one short set of rollers (not even a belt) for the luggage and two immigration officers. For a full 747. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 11:28:01 on
Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked: Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. ... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for less than 3 months. Most people I know flying to Australia do it via Singapore. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 11:28:01 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked: Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever entering the country. This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport. ... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for less than 3 months. Most people I know flying to Australia do it via Singapore. Yes, but New Zealand is some 1400 miles further east, so the optimum stopover point is different. In particular, the route via the US is shorter for New Zealand, whereas an Asian stopover is shorter for Oz. But the US visa for transit requirement tips the balance towards HK rather than LA. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:44:50 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: Yes, but New Zealand is some 1400 miles further east, so the optimum stopover point is different. In particular, the route via the US is shorter for New Zealand, whereas an Asian stopover is shorter for Oz. But the US visa for transit requirement tips the balance towards HK rather than LA. Anyone who spends 24 hours in an aircraft to go to a land full of sheep and hills must be ****ing insane. B2003 |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message e.net, at
14:21:13 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mark Goodge remarked: I'm sure there are New Zealanders with family in Wales. Why shouldn't they want to visit them? And swap pictures of sheep :) Baa! -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:21:13 +0100
Mark Goodge wrote: Anyone who spends 24 hours in an aircraft to go to a land full of sheep and hills must be ****ing insane. I'm sure there are New Zealanders with family in Wales. Why shouldn't they want to visit them? If they loved them that much they wouldn't have relocated to the other side of the planet. B2003 |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 11:36:29 on Sun, 11
Sep 2011, Clive D. W. Feather remarked: BA certainly used to have "set-down only" stops. So the flight from London to Pittsburgh (IIRC) had a set-down stop at Washington Dulles. Those passengers to Pittsburgh just stayed on the plane while those to Washington got off, after which the plane continued on its journey. 20 years ago I recall catching a plane that flew Gatwick-Houston-Dallas, probably a route BA inherited from BCal. We didn't have to get off at Houston, but I suspect no-one got on either (trade barriers) so we could be treated as 100% international arrivals in Dallas. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 11, 11:29*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
Completely OT, but I got to use the airside bus at Stansted last week. Dulles used to have those intriguing "mobile lounge" things, did it not? Neil |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:42:16 -0700, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:29Â*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: Completely OT, but I got to use the airside bus at Stansted last week. Dulles used to have those intriguing "mobile lounge" things, did it not? Great fun, those things. Very much relics of a future-that-never-was. -- Speaking for myself, and no-one but myself |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Sep 11, 6:12*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:21:13 +0100 Mark Goodge wrote: Anyone who spends 24 hours in an aircraft to go to a land full of sheep and hills must be ****ing insane. I'm sure there are New Zealanders with family in Wales. Why shouldn't they want to visit them? If they loved them that much they wouldn't have relocated to the other side of the planet. B2003 Didn't Boltar use to be vaguely sane? What happened? Tim |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
TimB wrote: If they loved them that much they wouldn't have relocated to the other si= de of the planet. B2003 Didn't Boltar use to be vaguely sane? What happened? Oh come on, its true. If someone really loves their family they don't move to the other side of the world to live. For them family ties would be a stronger bond than moving somewhere new for the sake of it. B2003 |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
|
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:23:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: Oh come on, its true. If someone really loves their family they don't move to the other side of the world to live. For them family ties would be a stronger bond than moving somewhere new for the sake of it. You are a simple soul aren't you. My family means a lot more to me than a job and a naff condo in a cultureless country on the other side of the world. If thats being "simple" then thats fine by me. B2003 |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On 2011\09\12 14:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/09/2011 13:56, d wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:23:39 -0700 (PDT) wrote: If they loved them that much they wouldn't have relocated to the other si= de of the planet. B2003 Didn't Boltar use to be vaguely sane? What happened? Oh come on, its true. If someone really loves their family they don't move to the other side of the world to live. For them family ties would be a stronger bond than moving somewhere new for the sake of it. You are a simple soul aren't you. That would explain why his name makes everyone mutter "Aah, soul". |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
|
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 11:36:29 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Clive D. W. Feather remarked: BA certainly used to have "set-down only" stops. So the flight from London to Pittsburgh (IIRC) had a set-down stop at Washington Dulles. Those passengers to Pittsburgh just stayed on the plane while those to Washington got off, after which the plane continued on its journey. 20 years ago I recall catching a plane that flew Gatwick-Houston-Dallas, probably a route BA inherited from BCal. We didn't have to get off at Houston, but I suspect no-one got on either (trade barriers) so we could be treated as 100% international arrivals in Dallas. Exactly -- if the onward flight can pick up pax, then everyone on the arriving flight has to get off and go through security before proceeding further. As BA flights aren't allowed to pick up internal US pax, they have to be set-down only at the first US port. I think Qantas has a similar arrangement with the LAX-JFK extension of its flight from Sydney. Years ago, I used to have fly regularly to Detroit, and the BA flights used to go via Montreal for a while. BA were allowed to pick up pax for the Montreal-Detroit leg, though there seemed to be few takers. As that was an international leg, the pax from London stayed on-board during the Montreal stop, and didn't have to deal with Canadian customs and immigration. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
In message , Roland Perry wrote: I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that need. I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower frequency. Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA. I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist, Completely OT, but I got to use the airside bus at Stansted last week. Even more oddly, I once got to use the LHR airside inter-terminal bus when travelling *from* Heathrow (rather than when in transit). I was going to Lyon (on BA) and just assumed the flight left from T4, like the Paris flights. Having got through security, I was puzzled to see no sign of the flight on the departure boards and then discovered it actually left from T1. They allowed me to take the airside bus, through the northern tunnel, to T1. My main recollection of that trip is the number of times I had to clear security before eventually boarding the flight. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
In message , at 15:08:42 on
Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked: I once got to use the LHR airside inter-terminal bus when travelling *from* Heathrow (rather than when in transit). I was going to Lyon (on BA) and just assumed the flight left from T4, like the Paris flights. When I flew Lyon-LHR on BA about four years ago it arrived at T4. Having got through security, I was puzzled to see no sign of the flight on the departure boards and then discovered it actually left from T1. One of the reasons for security examining boarding cards ought to be to stop that kind of mistake happening. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:49:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:42:29 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, d remarked: My family means a lot more to me than a job and a naff condo in a cultureless country on the other side of the world. If thats being "simple" then thats fine by me. Many of the people who emigrate take their immediate family with them, and do it because of a promise of a "better life". Thats fine. But that "better life" (ie big house and flash car) obviously trumps any feelings they have for the rest of their family. A word to describe it would be "shallow". Housing is half the price of the UK, so some will then be able to afford Probably because most of the young locals have buggered off to more interesting places. Have you actually been there and experienced it at first hand (I did). No. Experience what? What can I see there that I can't see in europe apart from the southern cross? B2003 |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 15:08:42 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked: I once got to use the LHR airside inter-terminal bus when travelling *from* Heathrow (rather than when in transit). I was going to Lyon (on BA) and just assumed the flight left from T4, like the Paris flights. When I flew Lyon-LHR on BA about four years ago it arrived at T4. Having got through security, I was puzzled to see no sign of the flight on the departure boards and then discovered it actually left from T1. One of the reasons for security examining boarding cards ought to be to stop that kind of mistake happening. Indeed so. I think the automated check in T5 would prevent the problem, but human inspections are obviously fallible. They were probably more interested in checking that I had a Club class ticket with the right date as I entered the Fast track line, than they were checking that I was at the right terminal. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:42:29 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, d remarked: My family means a lot more to me than a job and a naff condo in a cultureless country on the other side of the world. If thats being "simple" then thats fine by me. Many of the people who emigrate take their immediate family with them, and do it because of a promise of a "better life". Housing is half the price of the UK, so some will then be able to afford somewhere decent to live, and the culture is still very "British Colonial" if you emigrate to the right places. Have you actually been there and experienced it at first hand (I did). It really can't have been *that* attractive if you came back. What is the point of trying to sell an idea that you yourself have so obviously rejected? |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
d wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:49:54 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:42:29 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, d remarked: My family means a lot more to me than a job and a naff condo in a cultureless country on the other side of the world. If thats being "simple" then thats fine by me. Many of the people who emigrate take their immediate family with them, and do it because of a promise of a "better life". Thats fine. But that "better life" (ie big house and flash car) obviously trumps any feelings they have for the rest of their family. A word to describe it would be "shallow". Housing is half the price of the UK, so some will then be able to afford Probably because most of the young locals have buggered off to more interesting places. It is of course true of both Australia and New Zealand that they have to encourage immigration because so many of their young people taste life elsewhere in the world, prefer it and never return. |
Heathrow to western GWML link under consideration
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk