FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3 Posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
As Stansted is being hailed the "new Heathrow" by the British Government, huge focus is being placed on the growth of the airport.
Would a US airline theoretically be allowed to switch all of its Gatwick flights to STN while beefing up frequency to The States, and offer connections via air from STN to LCY onboard an aircraft (operating in a shuttle, quick-turn manner) such as the ARJ-85 or Dash 8-300? The segment could not be sold as a separate STN-LCY flight, of course, but could be touted as a continuation service to the heart of London.
If the answer is yes, would this option actually be a good idea? Is LCY that convenient for the majority of business travellers into London? Would a LCY spur flight be more convenient than, say, taking the train from STN into the city?
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3774 times:
The point is to serve London as a city, not LCY or STN as destination airports. The LCY extension would be more of a train or coach-like service to downtown, rather than a connection airport (if that makes sense...). The LCY service would in a way compete with the train for bringing STN passengers into the city, but would be offered more as a customer perk--seamless service to Downtown with the airline versus travelling by a completely different means on an entirely separate company. Otherwise, a nice hop over to MAN and then to LCY would be perfect!
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
It would be more practicle to improve the current Stansted Express train service to Liverpool Street Station which is a lot closer to the city than LCY.
Currently the train takes 45 minutes but it runs very slow and has some stops so it shouldn't be difficult to convert it into a high speed no stop connection.
Another option could be to extend some underground lines to STN like the Piccadilly does for Heathrow.
But if you look at a map of London you can see how close to the centre is LHR compared to either Stansted, Gatwick and Luton so it will be hard to beat it.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4062 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
How about buying some niche German "Transrapid" magnetic monorails and travel with 250mph to the city centre - like the chinese have done for Shanghai-Pudong Airport (the vehicles are actually no monorails, but I don't know the correct technical term in English)
Airport charges at LCY are horrendous (Europe's most expensive airport), so I am not sure if your plan would be feasible economically (in addition to the problems that LCY has limited space at peak hours and probably would not want to waste slots for a STN service). Why not use the Battersea heliport for a heli-shuttle ... And as suggested, from AMS it is only a short across the Channel to LCY - probably not much longer than from STN when it comes to travel time....
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3734 times:
When I first read the topic I saw an AA 777 land at LCY...
As mentioned above it makes more sense to fly to CDG, FRA, AMS or elsewhere than to fly to STN and then take a connection to LCY as that would in the end take more time than the Stansted Express.
But after I have been to STN I can say that I wouldn't really want to land there coming from far away...
B-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3672 times:
With our railway system, don't think any upgrade would happen for a lon long time, I mean, it is even possible to link West Coast mainline (manchester,Birmingham) to Heathrow through a junction in West London, but yet nothing happens.