|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Flying is overrated (AKA: Northwest Airlines YOU SUCK!)
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-31-2007 09:44 AM
This has been going on for many years. The basic problems are that (i) the capacity at Heathrow is highly overstretched (i.e. the cram so many landings and take-offs into the day that the slightest problem causes major disruption), (ii) there is no effective opposition to Heathrow for business travel within Europe and for any travel from London on many long haul routes, and (iii) the ground staff at Heathrow are underpaid, demotivated and very effectively unionised. Added to that BA has put all its eggs in the Heathrow basket by investing in Terminal 5: they've stopped long-haul flights from Manchester and scaled them back from Gatwick. So virutally any trip on BA involves either starting from or connecting through Heathrow. It's their bottleneck, basically.
The baggage handlers know that an all out strike for any significant length of time at Heathrow could bankrupt BA. In August 2005 a wildcat strike by BA ground staff (details here) in support of another group of striking Heathrow workers allegedly cost the airline $100 million, and that was only for a few days. When the new security rules came in last summer, there were also hundreds of canceled BA flights, and once again our TV screens were full of hopping mad passengers vowing never to fly BA ever again. The car park outside Terminal Four looked like a refugee camp in Gaza.
So the baggage handlers know that they've got BA by the short and danglies, and that any serious attempt by the management to sort the problems at Heathrow out would result in a bitter industrial dispute which could sink the company. Hence the reason suitcases typically take about two hours to get from the plane to the baggage belt, they frequently don't get there at all and when they do, expect to find stuff missing from them.
It's a mystery to me why British Airways are still in business. I had my 'never again' moment in 2003, and I don't personally know anyone who would willingly fly with them, except in a dire emergency.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-31-2007 04:23 PM
Re Leo's comments:
I can't comment on BA, as I've never flown with them; the nearest I've come was to fly to the Channel Islands with BEA before they merged with BOAC to form British Airways. That was in the mid '60s, on Vickers Viscounts! I can comment on airports however.
Somebody once said that hell must be very like Tottenham Court Road Underground station; I think it must be even more like Heathrow Airport. I hated it the first time I flew from there, to Russia in 1974, and of the several trips I made to the US between April 2002 and May 2006, one outward and two return trips had to be via Heathrow. It's actually bad enough to make Gatwick seem civilised by comparison, and that's saying something. The queues seem to go on forever, transport to the airport is terrible, and for the last few days the London papers have had stories about how bad the three main London airports are. One of the reports complained that Heathrow smells of raw sewage; I don't know about that, but part of the area where the new terminal 5 is being built used to be an old sewage works, so maybe that explains it.
For those who don't know them, London has five main commercial airports:
Heathrow is the largest, it has four terminals, with terminal 5 under construction. There are two main runways, and it is on the extreme Western outskirts of London.
It is served by the London Underground, but this is slow and congested, with poor ventilation, and trains built to fit down a 12 foot diameter tunnel are not ideal for large amounts of luggage. There are dedicated main line trains from London Paddington station, but these are very expensive, and Paddington is not very convenient for most people. Only in the last 30 years or so has the Underground reached Heathrow, and the main-line railway probably less than ten. Before that there were various buses to different destinations in London, but these seemed to change fairly frequently, and were slow. Taxis tend to get held up on the congested roads. What bright spark designed a major international airport, without providing adequate land transport to it?
It used to be the world's busiest airport; I'm not sure if it still is.
Gatwick has two terminals and one main runway. It is just about due South of London, halfway to the South Coast, so about 25 miles from Central London. There are dedicated trains from London Victoria, and several other rail lines serve it. Come up the escalator of lift from the station platforms and you're inside the terminal building. It's not wonderful, but anything's better than Heathrow. Actually, it's quite a bit better than Heathrow.
Stanstead is probably about the same distance from Central London as Gatwick, but to the North East. I don't know much about it; it used to be a very small airport, but underwent a major expansion some years ago, as part of which it gained a railway station. It's served by dedicated trains from London Liverpool Street station, and by infrequent trains to the North. I've only ever been there once, and that was not to catch a plane anywhere. It struck me then that it was much quieter than most airports, but that's probably changed now. Stanstead serves a fairly limited range of destinations, and it's not terribly convenient to get to from many parts of London (this seems to be a common theme among london's airports, except Gatwick).
All three of these airports are owned and operated by BAA, and all have been strongly critised in the reports of the last few days.
Luton is the sort of mirror of Gatwick; it's about as far to the North as Gatwick is to the South. It's mainly used by charter flights to holiday destinations. It's quite close to, but not on, a railway line. Dedicated buses used to run from Luton Station, but a few years ago a new station, Luton Airport Parkway, opened. This is slightly nrearer, but still requires a bus ride to the airport. Luton itself by the way is about as unpleasant a town as you could wish to visit.
London City is actually in London, in the old Royal Docks area, to the East of the old city. It's very small, and is served only by small aircraft. It is mainly used by business travelers, flying to other EU destinations. It used to be 'served', at a distance of several hundred metres, by a very strange station called Silvertown, how many stations are only about two metres wide, and less than that in places, on an equally strange railway, but that closed last year when a new branch of the Docklands Light Railway was opened, with a station just outside the airport terminal.
So that's about it. Which would I recommend? None if I could help it, but Gatwick's probably about the least bad for an international flight. Try to avoid having to catch a connecting flight from a different airport, because that's where the fun really starts. There are direct trains between Gatwick and Luton, but the journey takes over an hour. Both of these could have been linked to Stanstead if two very short sections of railway line hadn't been closed a few decades ago. One could still be re-built, but the other couldn't. There are coaches between Gatwick and Heathrow, but they often get held up in heavy traffic. If you want to travel between just about any other combination of airports you're on your own, it's either combinations of trains, buses and Underground lines, great when you've got loads of luggage and you don't know London well, or a very expensive taxi. If you're coming to London, I'm sorry; you deserve better.
In many ways Heathrow can be compared to JFK, and Gatwick to Newark International. We don't really have anything like LGA.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-31-2007 04:41 PM
quote: Dustin Mitchell
I don't suppose filing a police report would do any good in that situation? I would try anyway.
Presumably a lot of passengers do, so they can claim on their travel insurance. All I know is that Heathrow is notorious for having stuff nicked from your checked baggage.
quote: Stephen Furley
What bright spark designed a major international airport, without providing adequate land transport to it?
If I remember correctly, Heathrow was nominated because (i) it had been requisitioned by the Air Ministry during the war, and so emergency war restrictions overrode any planning permission/NIMBY resistance, and (ii) the runway at Croydon Airport could not be lengthened to take the larger airliners that would be needed for long-haul flights after flying boats became obsolete. But I can't remember where I heard this - feel free to correct me!
My guess would be that at the time Heathrow was established as a major civil airport, passenger flights were simply so expensive that anyone who could afford one could also afford a taxi to the airport without a second thought, and that the volume of passengers was so small as to not pose a problem for traffic or car park capacity. In other words, there was no need for any public ground transportation to the airport. Again, if I'm remembering right, Croydon Airport was nowhere near any station, either.
Continuing Stephen's rant, the other problem with both Heathrow and Gatwick is that the public transport into the city centre is either phenomenally expensive or takes a very long time, depending on which option you choose.
quote: Stephen Furley
Stanstead is probably about the same distance from Central London as Gatwick, but to the North East. I don't know much about it; it used to be a very small airport, but underwent a major expansion some years ago, as part of which it gained a railway station.
Stansted and Luton are both airport which are mainly used by the budget airlines (or Low Cost Carriers, in US parlance) - Ryanair at Stansted and Easyjet at Luton. There are one or two exceptions (for example Atlantic Airways of the Faroe Islands uses Stansted for its scheduled flights to the Faroes and the Shetlands),but the major international legacy carriers all go to Heathrow and/or Gatwick.
London City is increasingly being used for domestic flights as well. The largest plane I've ever seen there is a BAe 146, though mostly it's Fokker 50s or ATRs. Again, public transport is the problem. None of London's airports offer ground transportation into the city which is both reasonably priced and takes less than 90 minutes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-31-2007 05:38 PM
[QUOTE]My guess would be that at the time Heathrow was established as a major civil airport, passenger flights were simply so expensive that anyone who could afford one could also afford a taxi to the airport without a second thought, and that the volume of passengers was so small as to not pose a problem for traffic or car park capacity. In other words, there was no need for any public ground transportation to the airport. Again, if I'm remembering right, Croydon Airport was nowhere near any station, either. [QUOTE]
Gatwick was provided with a station in the '30s, to serve this rather nice original terminal:-
web page
so the idea of people needing transport to airports goes back at least that far, though I doubt that anybody could have predicted then how great the growth would be. The station at Gatwick Airport lasted until the mid '50s when the present station was built further north, on the site of the old racecourse station, to serve the new terminal. Strangely, although the original station was built to serve the airport, it was at first named 'Tinsley Green'. The station for Croydon Airport was Waddon; it had signs saying 'Alight here for Croydon Aerodrome', or something similar, but was some distance, about half a mile I think, from the airport itself.
It depends on where you want to go in London of course; Gatwick to Victoris by train is 30 minutes, with a train every 15 minutes By Gatwick Express, and that is a dedicated train, so no stopping on the way, and plenty of room for luggage, but it's not exactly cheap. There are also trains to Watford Junction and Bedford via various places that you may want to get to, but you really need a reasonable knowledge of London, and of course, these other trains are dot designed to carry large amounts of Luggage.
Stanstead from where I live would be a real pain. Coulsdon South by train to Victoria, Victoria Line to Tottenham Hale (for those of you not from these parts that's an obscure station in North London) and then Stanstead Express train to the airport is about the best I could come up with. Lugging the luggage down onto the Underground, and trying to get in onto a crowded Victoria Line train does not greatly appeal. I'm reasonably able-bodied, travel light, speak good English and know London well, that wouldn't apply to many people wanting to travel to/from an airport.
Someone who speaks little English, but who will soon be traveling through the UK recently asked me how to get from Heathrow to Luton. I thought about it.
Heathrow Airport underground to Green Park, change (via a long walk) to Victoria line to King's Cross, walk (with luggage) to King's Cross Thameslink, train to Luton Airport Parkway, dedicated bus to Luton Airport? maybe not.
Heathrow Airport coach to Watford Junction, train (on obscure railway line) to St. Albans Abbey, walk (with luggage) across St. Albans to the City station, train to Luton Airport Parkway station, Bus to Luton Airport? Maybe not.
Heathrow Airport, train to London Paddington, Underground Circle Line to Victoria (that's pretty much going in the opposite direction to that which she needs to go), come up from the Underground at Victoria, walk up the road to the Greenline coach stops, coach to Luton Airport? Maybe not.
Any of these would be pretty daunting even for me if I had luggage, never mind somebody who's never set foot in England before, doesn't speak the language well, is very small, and not good at carrying luggage up long flights of steps. The best I could suggest was a taxi, but goodness knows how much that would cost.
Having five different airports, and a ridiculous array of London railway stations, nobody knows quite how many, it depends on which ones you include, doesn't help either, of course.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-01-2007 01:48 AM
I've seen footage of a Concorde looping the loop, but I suppose that wasn't exactly a conventional airliner.
quote: Paul Mayer
It's fun to watch their big 747-400, loaded to the gills with fuel for the long trip, haul itself out of here during our nice hot evenings. Good thing we have a 15,000' long runway.
Taking off from Amsterdam to Memphis in the DC-10 seemed to take forever, as well, and the start of the roll was incredibly slow, despite the engine noise indicating that a lot of power was being applied. On one or two occasions I was convinced we were going to go off the end of the runway (while still on the ground), and we didn't seem to climb very steeply either. The A330 is a lot quieter, so it doesn't sound as dramatic, though I imagine that the amount of runway it needs is probably similar.
'Our airports are a national disgrace', according to my paper this morning!
quote: Paul Mayer
But what would I do at Gatwick?
If I were you I'd head for the south coast! If you don't mind driving on the 'wrong' side of the road and aren't going to want to try and park it in the city centre of London, hiring a car for a few days will probably be no more expensive than using public transport, and will give you a lot more flexibility.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-01-2007 02:55 PM
OK; I've just had my 'Northwest, you suck!' moment, trying to book a flight from Teesside to Rochester, NY, for a conference at the end of September.
I got the travel authorisation form signed on Monday, and sent it to the travel agent. Excluding BA, KLM/NW had Teesside-Amsterdam-Detroit-Rochester at a good price and a sane timetable. On both the outward and return trips the layovers at Amsterdam and Detroit were all 2-3 hours: enough time to absorb a slight delay or a long queue at immigration, but not so long that you'd end up buying a load of shit lit novels you never finish and/or finding a bar and having one (or two, or three) too many. Perfect. The total journey time was 15-17 hours in both directions. I told them to go ahead, but when they tried to confirm the booking, NW's reservation system said 'Up yours, matey, you can't have that any more unless you pay another £200. If you want the original price you'll have to go through Memphis and Minneapolis.' That makes 4 flights in each direction, 23 hours on the way out and 26 on the way back, including a seven-hour wait for the final flight at Amsterdam on the way home (during which I won't be able to drink a thing other than coffee, thanks to having to drive home from Teesside at the end). It also means arriving at Rochester at nearly midnight on the Monday after 23 hours of travel hell, and then giving a conference presentation at 8.30am on the Tuesday.
Still, there's no other option except BA, so I guess it'll be time for me to feel some of Brad's pain...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic