Heathrow, biggest airpark

[A T Lascart]

The openskies agreement is going to heap more and more ridicule on airlines at Heathrow due to cogestion and soon to be unfavourable slot times. With more States long haul leaving Gatwick and EU airlines offering direct flights to the States from LHR the fallout could be horrendous.

The reason Biz & Corp jets very rarely fly to/from LHR is because of congestion, can you imagine a large shift of airlines from EWR to JFK? it just could not handle it (but probably better than LHR) The open skies agreement is to the detriment of the passengers (our meal ticket) inbound and outbound holding times will increase fuel costs hence higher ticket prices.

Both LGW and STN are 30 mins from central London by train and with pretty good spare capcity, which means less delays if I'm a passenger I know where I'd prefer to depart from

[HZ123]

Well you would say that if you live in W Sussex. It is far more pleasant travelling in and out of LGW, still fondly remembered as the hub without the hubbub. Surely this may well change when LGW belongs to someone else. Also consider the current monetary situation which may curtail everyones plans and cause a number of failures.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

I thought what we were seeing was more carriers, especially American ones, migrating to Heathrow, ie. away from Gatwick. Some of these airlines have recently paid pretty serious money for slots at Heathrow, despite their terrible financial condition, so there does seem to be a continuing demand for Heathrow and an assumption that its position is tenable, despite all this adverse publicity in recent months and years.

I also think you'd have a hard time getting to Stansted by rail in 30 minutes.

[A T Lascart]

OK STN is 47 mins...........

[VAFFPAX]

Continental paid a LOT of money for four slots at LHR. LHR is the most convenient airport for me, but I will take LGW at a stretch.

STN is a nightmare to get to by train. You have to go into London, then brave the Central/Circle line, then take a dirty train out to STN for 40 minutes.

Gatwick Express is not bad, neither is Heathrow Express.

S.

[radeng]

VAFFPAX,

For anyone west of London, getting to STN is a pain no matter what mode of transport you use!

[barry lloyd]

OK STN is 47 mins...........

I've travelled on this route three times, and never done it in less than an hour.
1) Signal failures (what an appropriate expression)
2) Trackwork
3) Slow train ahead (words fail me!)

[PAXboy]

Historically, LHR has held a certain magic - just as JFK and CDG, or any other capital city with more than one airport. So, folks like Continental wanted to get to LHR to be at 'the top table' and be able to brag about it. They say it's about their customers and choice, but it's actually about bragging on the golf course.

Unfortunately for CO and others, LHR is now a busted flush and no possibility of climbing back up the ladder. They should have stayed at LGW and boasted about what they could do there with less congestion and competition. It will be interesting to see how long they stay at LHR.

[Skipness One Echo]

Unfortunately for CO and others, LHR is now a busted flush and no possibility of climbing back up the ladder. They should have stayed at LGW and boasted about what they could do there with less congestion and competition. It will be interesting to see how long they stay at LHR.
Today 17:18

Yes and any rise on yield and high bookings are merely a figment of our imagination. You should write to the CEO of Delta, Continental, NWA and all, they'd be delighted to here that they've embarked on a massive folly.......

[PAXboy]

Skipness As it happens, I think that LHR will continue to be in enormous demand by pax, due to historical patterns of use. I think that the CO folly is to spend money getting into a rather unpleasant location.

Whether they have actually embarked on a great folly - we will find out over the next five years or so. But the recession is going to affect many of the variables in the interim and this could break both ways.