[IP] more oA sorry story that highlights the flaws of aviation policy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Giles Robertson <gwjr2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 23, 2006 5:33:28 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] more oA sorry story that highlights the flaws of
aviation policy
I really can't understand the so-called problem, and indeed, the
article ends with the solution. It's stupid that so many people
should book long-haul flights that terminate at LHR, but it's their
own problem. Paris is far more convenient and pleasant, and if you
don't like that Schiphol and Frankfurt are just as good. Heathrow is
merely nasty, and I have simply stopped using it unless I plan to end
my trip in England.
In fairness to Heathrow, the vast majority of the cancellations have
been UK
domestic flights, where you often need to change at LHR. People using
Heathrow as a long-haul hub, or a place to go to European
destinations other
than Paris or Brussels (cancelled because they're easy to get to by
train)
have usually got through, though with delays. This isn't out of line
with
other airports - ORD, when fogged up, will usually take some time to
get the
flights off the ground.
Building runways may not be the whole answer - if Heathrow and
Stansted get
an extra one each, we may run out of airspace in southern England to
cope;
this has been a major problem with plans for a whole new airport.
The people most affected were Brits flying in or out for Christmas - I
believe the decision to cancel all BA domestic flights was taken
because it
helps ease the pressure on the terminals; if people know that all BA
internal flights are done for, they're much less likely to turn up
than if
80% of them are.
That said, I live under a Heathrow approach, and the reduction in
aircraft
noise has been welcome.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/