Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday? see Airbus A319-111, G-EZFP, EasyJet (U2 / EZY)
Serious responses only please. Thanks in advance G-APDK
Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday?
Not sure of the specifics on this one, but probably something to do with new route launched for the winter schedule. Didn't they launch Cagliari? Not sure if this is a new route, but looking at the list of routes, I think it is.
Luxembourg got its first Gatwick flight last week which was flown by a pilot who is from Luxembourg and it too got a water canon salute...
Please can anyone explain why an easyJet flight (G-EZFG) recieved a water cannon arch greeting from the local fire service last Sunday?
Quote:
Not sure of the specifics on this one, but probably something to do with new route launched for the winter schedule. Didn't they launch Cagliari? Not sure if this is a new route, but looking at the list of routes, I think it is.
No, A4 is correct, it was a Captain's last flight before retiring!
Cagliari has been operated from Stansted for several years since moving across from Luton.
BAA said no one with connections with Ryanair were welcome and then announce TPG ............founder one David Bonderman as one of 4 preferred bidders.
Ah well its BAA where inconsistency is consistent.
For those wondering, Mr. Bonderman is Chairman of the Board of Ryanair and also a founding partner of TPG (short listed STN bidder).
This does seem to rather fly in the face of the statement about associations with RYR and the bidding process.
A4
PS With the news today that the PM and Gideon Osbourne "prefer" the idea of STN as a solution what influence is that going to have on the bidding process? I bet Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) are already foaming at the mouth!
It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems.
Am I missing something here. Was Stansted not upgraded many years ago to become London's third airport and is half empty. So where is the problem except the airlines what more capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick?
The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen.
The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen.
Quite. The only way it could be remotely competitive would be if a high-speed rail link were built (as I suppose would have to happen to Boris Island and all those other capricious ideas).
BAA turned Stansted into a loco Airport and kept major Airlines out. Stansted under BAA has high fee's for what it is and the fee's keep going up as Airlines move out. BAA wanted Stansted to decline in all areas in the hope that this would aid its fight to keep Stansted and the only reason BAA wanted to keep Stansted is so they could keep the big players at Heathrow. in my opinion I think Virgin would do well at Stansted and people need to understand that not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London. American Airlines done very well out of Stansted but we all know they only came back to Stansted to bully Eos and Maxjet, who were damaging Transatlantic demand out of Heathrow I just hope the new owners of Stansted lower the fee's and work hard to attract new Airlines whilst keeping an eye out for those Airlines that only want to come and kill the threat to other London Airports.
not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London
No, but I would think a lot of people who use Heathrow at present don't pass through London anyway as they live to the south or west of London, and these people have the money. I can't think why Virgin would possibly transfer to Stansted: and more to the point there is absolutely nothing preventing Virgin transferring there now if they so wished.
Last edited by johnnychips; 3rd Nov 2012 at 22:55.
So what about us that live north of London and there is a hell of a lot of us that travel past STN or LTN to get to LHR, both very good Airports that do not offer what we want or need.
So what about us that live north of London and there is a hell of a lot of us that travel past STN or LTN to get to LHR, both very good Airports that do not offer what we want or need
I appreciate that, but obviously not enough people for airlines to think that your desired routes from STN or LTN are commercially viable; or they can make more money by using their equipment from LHR.
I beg to differ, it worked for Ryanair and Easyjet on European routes and then the short haul Holiday market so the next step is long haul and if its not the flag carriers then it will be the low cost Airlines who will step in and fill the gap, I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or next month but it will happen and all because the flag carriers are stuck in their ways with blindfolds on its called progression.
And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted.
BAA turned Stansted into a loco Airport and kept major Airlines out.
Rubbish. Major airlines have tried Stansted and all left. Was El-Al the last one to go when it moved to Luton?
Quote:
Stansted under BAA has high fee's for what it is and the fee's keep going up as Airlines move out.
Only because they could no longer milk Heathrow of funds. They did this to take business away from Luton. Once this was stopped the good times were over for Stansted even though Stansted is a much better airport than Luton.
Quote:
And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted.
So why have the left Stansted or gone bust then? An airline can fill an aircraft and still make a loss if they can't charge high enough fares.
Quote: "It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems."
This is an airport that's losing pax and one that has plenty of capacity. So let's build another rwy there. Who's the imbecile who thought of that one?
If they can't persuade airlines and pax to shift from LHR to LGW, there isn't a cat-in-hell's chance of having them move over to STN.
Quote: "Am I mising something here. Was Stansted not upgraded many years ago to become London's third airport and is half empty. So where is the problem except the airlines what more capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick?
The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen."
Exactly, it's really is not a difficult concept to understand!
Quote: "Quite. The only way it could be remotely competitive would be if a high-speed rail link were built (as I supposewould have to happen to Boris Island and all those other capricious ideas). "
Even that would make no difference: there isn't sufficient connectivity at STN. In fact there isn't any, it's all point-to-point!
Quote: "in my opinion I think Virgin would do well at Stansted and people need to understandthat not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London."
VS had to move its hub to LHR in the late 1980s just to survive. Had it not done so, it would have gone the same way as Laker, BCAL, BUA, etc.: it's that whole business of insufficient connectivity again.
Quote: "And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted."
Fill planes maybe, but not make money: they're not at STN now!
