STN Grubby Airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN Grubby Airport
Yesterday was my first visit to Essex's international airport. I was surprised at how tatty and dirty the terminal was.
As you enter the short stay car park the road signs are askew. Walk from zone c and the floor is covered in chewing gum spots. Up the ramp towards the terminal building, look to your left and it's clear the place hasn't been cleaned since it was built.
Signboard directions to the arrivals area is unclear. Again the whole area is tatty and very dirty, floor covered in spent chewing gum again. Seat covers are filthy. Above all the BAA have jammed in as many retail outlets into the terminal building as they can. The place looks more like a retail shanty town than an international terminal building.
I'm sure that falling revenues that is associated from low cost airline customers may have contributed to some of this. But there is no excuse for the filthyness of the place.
.BAA Stansted; buck up please
As you enter the short stay car park the road signs are askew. Walk from zone c and the floor is covered in chewing gum spots. Up the ramp towards the terminal building, look to your left and it's clear the place hasn't been cleaned since it was built.
Signboard directions to the arrivals area is unclear. Again the whole area is tatty and very dirty, floor covered in spent chewing gum again. Seat covers are filthy. Above all the BAA have jammed in as many retail outlets into the terminal building as they can. The place looks more like a retail shanty town than an international terminal building.
I'm sure that falling revenues that is associated from low cost airline customers may have contributed to some of this. But there is no excuse for the filthyness of the place.
.BAA Stansted; buck up please
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Teesside, UK
Age: 33
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that falling revenues that is associated from low cost airline customers may have contributed to some of this
mmeteesside
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 35,000ft
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that i flew through Stansted in March as a passenger, arrived at 0430 for an early morning flight and the airport was like a homeless shelter!
I mean no joke, there were more people asleep on the floor and in the retail outlet doorways than there is at centrepoint over the christmas period!!!
Now I understand that the lo-co's operate here in a big number and obviously attract a lot of "student types" who wont pay the room price for the Hilton or the Radisson, but something has to be done! The reason I say this is because I honestly had to step over "sleeping beautys" in the que for check-in who were wrapped up like eskimo's and refused to budge! How rude! It made the airport look an absolute mess.
Now I work from Gatwick and yes people do sleep in the terminal overnight, but no where near the numbers that do at Stansted. You cannot see the floor! Think I'm joking? - Take a look for yourself at that time of day and you will agree!
It is a fabulous building, or at least looked it when it openned in 1991, BAA you do have an issue here, sorry.
I mean no joke, there were more people asleep on the floor and in the retail outlet doorways than there is at centrepoint over the christmas period!!!
Now I understand that the lo-co's operate here in a big number and obviously attract a lot of "student types" who wont pay the room price for the Hilton or the Radisson, but something has to be done! The reason I say this is because I honestly had to step over "sleeping beautys" in the que for check-in who were wrapped up like eskimo's and refused to budge! How rude! It made the airport look an absolute mess.
Now I work from Gatwick and yes people do sleep in the terminal overnight, but no where near the numbers that do at Stansted. You cannot see the floor! Think I'm joking? - Take a look for yourself at that time of day and you will agree!
It is a fabulous building, or at least looked it when it openned in 1991, BAA you do have an issue here, sorry.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever tried to check in at Stansted, there are so many shops, the queues usually end up out of the main doors!
When the terminal opened it was fantastic, albeit, the BAA had to lure airlines with all kinds of incentives.
I flew from there a couple of years ago and not having been inside the terminal for 10 years, I was shocked! Too many shops, not enough room to check in.
The palce was horrible, a clear reason not to replicate such a 'dive' anywhere else!
If stansted has grown on the back of cross subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick, then I agree with MOL, that the £ Billions that the BAA need for terminal 2 and a second runway are a complete over spend, if you compare just what their customers are faced with today, even my bear palace looks like the business lounge when compared with Essex finest!
Goodness only knows what the £ Billions will be spent on after a new terminal and runway have been paid for?
When the terminal opened it was fantastic, albeit, the BAA had to lure airlines with all kinds of incentives.
I flew from there a couple of years ago and not having been inside the terminal for 10 years, I was shocked! Too many shops, not enough room to check in.
The palce was horrible, a clear reason not to replicate such a 'dive' anywhere else!
If stansted has grown on the back of cross subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick, then I agree with MOL, that the £ Billions that the BAA need for terminal 2 and a second runway are a complete over spend, if you compare just what their customers are faced with today, even my bear palace looks like the business lounge when compared with Essex finest!
Goodness only knows what the £ Billions will be spent on after a new terminal and runway have been paid for?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think it is bad now should have seen it in 1988 
Remember driving to STN on the day it was announced, on the radio, it would be UK third main airport. The road to the main terminal was covered in horse droppings
wish I had a camera that day.
Remember driving to STN on the day it was announced, on the radio, it would be UK third main airport. The road to the main terminal was covered in horse droppings
wish I had a camera that day.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Troon
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used STN a fair bit and have had no problem with check-in queues or feeling that the terminal was any dirtier than LHR. In fact my vote for the most grubby terminal has to go to LGW's South Terminal - dark, dank with the EZY check-in an absolute nightmare on occasion. Must confess though I have not flown late night or early morning so can't comment on the 'overnighters' at STN.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 49
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am at STN 3-4 times per week - and 100% agree! No matter how busy a public place gets, a half decent management team could maintain an appropriate cleaning schedule.
I think STN's terminal is the most stunning design of any airport in the UK - but build a place out of steal and glass...it's not rocket science to work out you're going to need a few window cleaners!!
The glass tunnels from the car park/station level - in fact all the glass in the place is constantly filthy!
I think STN's terminal is the most stunning design of any airport in the UK - but build a place out of steal and glass...it's not rocket science to work out you're going to need a few window cleaners!!
The glass tunnels from the car park/station level - in fact all the glass in the place is constantly filthy!
PPRuNe Playmate of the Month
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Donington, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't passed through STN for around 18 months now but the standard of cleanliness of the ladies' loos was pretty poor. The ones by the baggage reclaim were dreadful, probably because they're so inadequate for the numbers using them.
Terminal 1 at Heathrow isn't too bad, quite acceptable, but Glasgow is a shining example of proper maintenance even to the extent of small vases of fresh flowers.
Terminal 1 at Heathrow isn't too bad, quite acceptable, but Glasgow is a shining example of proper maintenance even to the extent of small vases of fresh flowers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my complaint and the endorsements of many contributors to this thread prompts BAA Stansted management to clean up their act, I would be grateful if someone could let us know.
It would be nice to know that Pprune has some clout.
It would be nice to know that Pprune has some clout.
A possibility of the above - a recent huge thread here on PPRuNe about the Stansted security staff being rude and jobsworth in comparison to other bases was followed by an improvement and it would be nice to think things were connected.
However, BSA (British Shopping Authority) unfortunately have an approach of contracting out everything they can think of, and then feeling that the management task is done apart from regular financial reviews that costs are below budget or revenues above.
There's a current management ethos that in service industries money spent on providing a "good" product, whether in supervision or product provided, is money wasted because it doesn't contribute to the bottom line this year. Impact on future years is ignored as those involved hope to be up and away with their bonuses by then.
And it's not just confined to the low costs end. A recent discussion on another Frequent Flier website was concerned with how standards in the BA Concorde Lounge, for F passengers at Heathrow T4, have fallen way down in recent times.
Part of the Stansted problem is the large number of low cost tickets sold for early departure (0600 - 0730) for whom no effective reasonable-priced accommodation is available. Even if you stay in Central London the one hour train journey at that hour (by trains departing from Liverpool Street before the London Underground is up and running to get you there), the low-cost carriers' long check-in times and "lose it if you're late" attitude, and the scheduling of large numbers of based aircraft to depart very early in the morning, all leads to this shanty-town atmosphere.
But I agree there is no excuse for having to negotiate mounds of uncleared food-strewn crockery and cutlery all over the floor at 0600 in the Stansted departure lounge. Except that no one has bothered to have any staff on duty to clear it, and even if there were there would certainly be no management on duty to supervise them (which therefore amounts to the same thing).
However, BSA (British Shopping Authority) unfortunately have an approach of contracting out everything they can think of, and then feeling that the management task is done apart from regular financial reviews that costs are below budget or revenues above.
There's a current management ethos that in service industries money spent on providing a "good" product, whether in supervision or product provided, is money wasted because it doesn't contribute to the bottom line this year. Impact on future years is ignored as those involved hope to be up and away with their bonuses by then.
And it's not just confined to the low costs end. A recent discussion on another Frequent Flier website was concerned with how standards in the BA Concorde Lounge, for F passengers at Heathrow T4, have fallen way down in recent times.
Part of the Stansted problem is the large number of low cost tickets sold for early departure (0600 - 0730) for whom no effective reasonable-priced accommodation is available. Even if you stay in Central London the one hour train journey at that hour (by trains departing from Liverpool Street before the London Underground is up and running to get you there), the low-cost carriers' long check-in times and "lose it if you're late" attitude, and the scheduling of large numbers of based aircraft to depart very early in the morning, all leads to this shanty-town atmosphere.
But I agree there is no excuse for having to negotiate mounds of uncleared food-strewn crockery and cutlery all over the floor at 0600 in the Stansted departure lounge. Except that no one has bothered to have any staff on duty to clear it, and even if there were there would certainly be no management on duty to supervise them (which therefore amounts to the same thing).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with many of these posts on airport terminal cleanliness, however there are a number of things that should be taken into account when discussing STN or any other airport which experiences significant numbers of LCC's.
The airlines need to utilise the aircraft at least for 3 x rotations a day to make it work, so this means departing early so as to return late evening. This inevitably results in peak numbers of departing passengers going through the terminal between 0400-0700 period and arriving late evening.
Keeping airport terminals clean is a major challenge and much is done to try to achieve this while keeping it operational. Unfortunately many of us humans don't think about keeping public places clean and dump rubbish all over the place without any thought for others.
I think STN does well to do over 21 million pax a year in one terminal and all the staff involved should be praised for what they do.
The airlines need to utilise the aircraft at least for 3 x rotations a day to make it work, so this means departing early so as to return late evening. This inevitably results in peak numbers of departing passengers going through the terminal between 0400-0700 period and arriving late evening.
Keeping airport terminals clean is a major challenge and much is done to try to achieve this while keeping it operational. Unfortunately many of us humans don't think about keeping public places clean and dump rubbish all over the place without any thought for others.
I think STN does well to do over 21 million pax a year in one terminal and all the staff involved should be praised for what they do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M90
Firstly there are other airports handling much more than STN, H24, and still manage to have clean and tidy passenger terminals. So I cannot agree with you on that point.
Secondly, you can't praise staff for doing a good job when, clearly, they are not.
I think STN does well to do over 21 million pax a year in one terminal and all the staff involved should be praised for what they do.
Secondly, you can't praise staff for doing a good job when, clearly, they are not.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that your comments are a mere reflection of all the BAA SE airports because having used STN a couple of weeks ago if you consider it bad then where does that leave LHR which is the pits and I work within it several days a week.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it's not quite as bad for people dossing overnight (despite the 25 to 30 departures between about 0645 and 0815 each weekday morning), unfortunately LTN also suffers from the 'chewing gum & discarded wrappers syndrome' and since the common denominator must be the lo-co operators' passengers, it's obviously got something to do with the calibre of the customer...
Combine this with a ruthlessly cost-focussed management (= low numbers of relatively low-paid low-motivated staff) and the question of whether 90% of the customers would either notice or care (presumably, if you're only paying say, £15 for a return trip to Rome, you don't expect anything better) and you can begin to see why such locations don't quite measure up on the international cleanliness scale.
Contrast STN, LTN etc., with LCY for example where 90% of the passengers are premium-rate business travellers who pay for and expect, something slightly more up market.
It's 'horses for courses' I'm afraid - and as MOL (or was it Gerald Ratner????) once said, to make money you just pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap...
Combine this with a ruthlessly cost-focussed management (= low numbers of relatively low-paid low-motivated staff) and the question of whether 90% of the customers would either notice or care (presumably, if you're only paying say, £15 for a return trip to Rome, you don't expect anything better) and you can begin to see why such locations don't quite measure up on the international cleanliness scale.
Contrast STN, LTN etc., with LCY for example where 90% of the passengers are premium-rate business travellers who pay for and expect, something slightly more up market.
It's 'horses for courses' I'm afraid - and as MOL (or was it Gerald Ratner????) once said, to make money you just pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap...
Last edited by ebenezer; 8th Jun 2005 at 05:27.
as MOL (or was it Gerald Ratner????) once said, to make money you just pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap...
Probably qualifies for an "anorak off".
