In message , at 13:16:49 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:

don't forget they just decided to cut
the last two trains to London in the evening.

I guess you're referring to the 0100 and 0130 trains which only ran on
Friday and Saturday mornings, rather than throughout the week.

The announcement just said "the current 0100 and 0130 services", no
mentions of days of the week.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:59:33 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

But presumably Stansted is far better than either?

Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside Europe.
And even then, the last two European trips booked by household members
used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on account of
route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no good for the
USA, although during the short periods when that continent was
available, we did use it.

I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very
limited"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger

How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las
Vegas planned for next year).

I used to fly to Geneva a lot (on business all year round) and all they
seem to have now is one seasonal route.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:46:32 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, Neil Williams remarked:
For me, for instance, driving and parking at Luton for a weekend is
usually cheaper than two taxis, the only other viable way to get
there/back if travelling on early morning/late evening flights.

I used to drive to Luton (where the parking in the mid-stay just outside
the tunnel[1], from where you can walk to the terminal) wasn't too bad.
Like you, the times of the flights ruled out using public transport.

[1] Or sometimes I'd park at the station (not free) and get the shuttle
bus.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/09/2014 13:43, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:16:49 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:

don't forget they just decided to cut
the last two trains to London in the evening.

I guess you're referring to the 0100 and 0130 trains which only ran on
Friday and Saturday mornings, rather than throughout the week.

The announcement just said "the current 0100 and 0130 services", no
mentions of days of the week.

They only ever ran on Friday and Saturday mornings. Thus the
announcement is not inaccurate.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:00:25 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:50:36 -0500
Recliner wrote:
wrote:


The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a small
fraction of businesses in this country.

Got a proper example?

Perhaps the Royal Company of Self-Employed Contract Programmers Who Don't
Fly Very Often has a view?

That'll be a no then.

It'll be a no to answering your repeated silly questions.

On 03/09/2014 13:50, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

But presumably Stansted is far better than either?

Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside Europe.
And even then, the last two European trips booked by household members
used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on account of
route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no good for the
USA, although during the short periods when that continent was
available, we did use it.

I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very
limited"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger

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


I used to fly to Geneva a lot (on business all year round) and all they
seem to have now is one seasonal route.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:22:53 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 02/09/2014 14:02, Recliner wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:14:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:07:29 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
Basically, BA puts as many flights into Heathrow as will fit, with the
overflow left in Gatwick. As long haul is more profitable, it's
largely in Heathrow, apart from beach flights. Virgin does exactly the
same.

Exactly - and it's those beach flights which are the ones least likely
to be benefiting from a hub effect.

True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.


Stansted might be short of business, but I don't think the same could be
said of Gatwick, the world's busiest single runway airport. Easyjet
likes Gatwick because of the higher fares it can charge compared to say
Stansted or Luton.

You might think Gatwick is full, but it's not:

From:
http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/wtm-2...685816.article
Gatwick's chief executive, Stewart Wingate, said his airport had the
ability to significantly increase its passenger numbers.

“Even off the single runway we have capacity to grow the airport to 45
million passengers and with the current economic environment we see
that capacity actually seeing us through until sometime in the mid
2020s,” he said.

“When we say that there's a capacity crunch there is a capacity
crunch, but it is coming on a London system basis in the mid 2020s to
the late 2020s.

“To put it in context we have 11 million passengers of spare capacity
today at Gatwick, that's more than the entire size of Birmingham
airport. If I go around the M25, Stansted has somewhere close to 20
million passengers of spare capacity.


And from:
https://www.london.gov.uk/media/asse...rused-says-new
New research commissioned by the Assembly on the usage of London's
airports shows:

- Stansted Airport: 47 per cent of runway slots are available
- Luton Airport: 51 per cent of runway slots are available
- Gatwick Airport: 12 per cent of runway slots are currently
available
- Heathrow Airport: at 99 per cent capacity, Heathrow's runway
capacity is nearly full, but some evidence submitted suggests
increasing aircraft size would allow it to increase capacity

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:33:02 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 04:08:12
on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, remarked:
I must admit I'm surprised by how relatively unpopular Gatwick is compared
to Heathrow, given that it's located in a prosperous area between London
and Brighton, and has both good rail and road links. Heathrow isn't a
better airport to fly through, so it must be the magnetic attraction of a
hub airport.

Can't disagree with what you say about Gatwick. I'm not sure what that
attraction of a hub airport is to people flying from London, though.

One obvious attraction is that transit passengers (using it as a hub)
make a wider range of destinations viable than would be the case if
there were only point-to-point passengers.

Yes, that's the main reason for wanting a major hub airport. The UK's
failure to allow the development of a major hub means Brits and
visitors to Britain are forced to fly via Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris
and Madrid.

The other reason is that the hub airport itself is a profitable
activity.

On 03/09/2014 14:06, Recliner wrote:
[...]
True, but the demand is for more hub flights, which is why it's
Heathrow that's bursting at the seams, while LCC-focused Stansted and
Gatwick are short of business. With six international airports, London
isn't really short of runway capacity, but it desperately needs a
bigger hub airport.


Stansted might be short of business, but I don't think the same could be
said of Gatwick, the world's busiest single runway airport. Easyjet
likes Gatwick because of the higher fares it can charge compared to say
Stansted or Luton.

You might think Gatwick is full, but it's not:

I didn't say it was full, I said I don't think Gatwick could be
described as being "short of business" (your phrase). Not being at
capacity doesn't mean it's short of business.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:01:06 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 03/09/2014 13:50, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

But presumably Stansted is far better than either?

Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside Europe.
And even then, the last two European trips booked by household members
used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on account of
route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no good for the
USA, although during the short periods when that continent was
available, we did use it.

I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very
limited"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger

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

But don't some have very limited schedules (not even daily, let alone
multiple times a day)?