Originally Posted by
Blackfriar
BFS is a bit tired after being denied expenditure while it was up for sale - classic behaviour by seller. It is not, in my experience, "carnage" or a dump. Lo-cos will pay only the minimum so no airbridges or fancy lounges. The market has decided that people will stand in the rain, put up with minimal facilities and pay outrageous amounts for parking to get a cheap flight. At the times I use BFS (0800 arrival and 2100 departure) it works very well. Security is like anywhere else (and miles better than BRS was a couple of years ago when it had huge delays). The rest is just a big shed with food and drink outlets. A bit like Waterloo or Paddington stations which are nothing special either.
It could definitely do with a spuce up but with such low landing fees as demanded by locos there is limited budget for any massive development. That is the nature of 21st Century flying. If you gave people the choice of fewer flights, higher fares and a nicer terminal they would tell you where to go.
If you want a shiny status symbol, the government or somebody else needs to pay for it, but it's not a dump and not carnage. running it down doesn't help, how about some creative solutions to making improvements without simply demanding other people spend money?
Fair point Blackfriar. I mean an airport is like a railway station for planes. It's a place where you commence or terminate a journey by plane. It's not a spa resort hotel. All airports IMO are an unpleasant experience. The whole flying experience IMO is not great. A good airport would be one where you pass through with minimum of delay or inconvenience, nothing whatsoever to do with the Architecture. I would rather travel through a dump if my flight was on time, than be delayed for 10 mins in an architectural master piece.