Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
STN Expansion Approved  
User currently offlineVS773ER From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 279 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

"Controversial plans for an expansion of Stansted Airport in Essex have been given the go-ahead by the government.

Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7660806.stm

So, after all these years, it's finally gonna happen.

I for one think it's the next logical step, anything to help reduce LHRs raffic must be a good thing?

It doesn't mention anything about the 2nd runway plans, do we assume this is part of the deal?

Thoughts?

[Edited 2008-10-09 03:05:21]

[Edited 2008-10-09 03:05:59]

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2783 times:



Quoting VS773ER (Thread starter):
It doesn't mention anything about the 2nd runway plans, do we assume this is part of the deal?

No, the 2nd runway is a seperate planning application and will proceed through it's own public inquiry beginning April next year.

Today's news simply raises the ceiling on passengers per annum from 25mppa to 35mppa.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12600 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Has HMG made a decision on introducing Mixed Mode at LHR and raising the ceiling on flights there (or does it have to)?

User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2724 times:



Quoting VS773ER (Thread starter):
I for one think it's the next logical step, anything to help reduce LHRs raffic must be a good thing?

It wont reduce LHR 's traffic one little bit. They are two completly differant markets.
Do you expect BA to move their 747's to STN or something like that.
It will just mean more Ryanair flights and other cheap crap airlines may move it


User currently offline8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2665 times:



Quoting Antonovman (Reply 3):
It wont reduce LHR 's traffic one little bit. They are two completly differant markets.
Do you expect BA to move their 747's to STN or something like that.
It will just mean more Ryanair flights and other cheap crap airlines may move it

Exactly. BA are at Heathrow for a reason, despite lack of slots: Location, Location, Location!

STN, as you say above, will be more Ryanair flights (for O'Leary to start flying to the States), other European airlines and maybe a few more charters.

Can't see any other US airlines starting to fly to STN anytime soon either. They all want to fly to LHR, or LGW if your lucky!

I reckon a daily Emirates A330 flight to Dubai could work, but thats would be it for the decent airlines!


User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

There are some "decent" airlines at Stansted. Aegean 2 x daily to Athens- a full service airline with business class- Lufthansa partner.

Perhaps this is the start of new scheduled airlines at Stansted?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

I for one totally applaud this decision. Further, I am heartily sick of the comments of the so-called pressure groups in the news. They claim to represent me, the local resident, yet have no mandate whatsover. I live very close to STN. The noise does not bother me even slightly. It's my place of work and provides me with a living. I love the convenience of being able to fly from so close to home on a regular basis. I know the UK needs more airport capacity and that it will help us economically. The overall environmental impact will be negligible in the grand scheme of things. I wish these clowns, and NIMBYs, for that is also what they are, would quit trying to have people believe that they speak for the people and the common man. I am a citizen of this country, and I WANT THIS!


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2496 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
I for one totally applaud this decision

Nice one RussianJet. I agree with every word you said (or wrote)  Smile


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2395 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
I am a citizen of this country, and I WANT THIS!

And there are many other citizens who don't want it. That's why they have enquiries, that's what democracy is all about.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2324 times:



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 8):

And there are many other citizens who don't want it. That's why they have enquiries, that's what democracy is all about.

Obviously. But, if you read what I wrote, these people have no right to claim to speak for all of us, which they frequently do.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSAAB900 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2219 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):

RussianJet I also agree with you 100%. It's about time that the NIMBY's were put in their place! Most of the time the airport's were there long before the NIMBY's moved in!

Dave(SAAB900)


User currently offlineGAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Airport expansion will always be in somebody's back yard - so regardless of the claims objectors make, just because they're local people, does that really make them clowns with invalid points of view?

Stop Stansted Expansion, and other groups, might not represent your point of view, but they certainly represent those of thousands of others. Yes some of them make absurd claims (I remember reading a few years ago in the paper that BAA had secretly built the new runway at night and then covered it over again with grass), you can't write off the thoughts of local people just because they are local. Airport expansion is always going to be an issue of local, national and even international concern.

I suspect there are probably campaign groups reading this forum today and making their own judgements about gung-ho aviation junkies, even if STN is a source of employment for some of us.

Right now, STN traffic is decline, and in all honesty it hasn't shifted too far from a ~20MPPA plateau for some time. Who knows what the future holds (especially on today of all days) but what the UK definintely needs is joined up thinking from top to bottom. Whilst I have no objections to making the best use of the resources we have (of which the Stansted G1 project is an example), a new runway at LHR and a new runway at STN will not satisfy the demands of the present market, neither passengers or airlines. London needs a 21st century hub airport, not a bit here and a bit more there. When and where? That's probably another can of worms all together...

And yes, I am an aviation junkie myself. I no longer live in the area, but my username hints that I might have spent a fair bit of time hanging around the STN perimiter fence whilst growing up!

[Edited 2008-10-10 05:47:51]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2128 times:



Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
Airport expansion will always be in somebody's back yard - so regardless of the claims objectors make, just because they're local people, does that really make them clowns with invalid points of view?

Not always, and a minority of people will undoubtedly suffer. However, in the case of much of the rhetoric quoted from groups like Plane Stupid in relation to STN expansion, yes - because, as you say, it is to a large extent because of the fact that it is to do with their back yard rather than the advantages to the wider community and economy. For that, read selfishness.

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
Stop Stansted Expansion, and other groups, might not represent your point of view, but they certainly represent those of thousands of others

That point was never in contention. I just happen to strongly disagree with them.

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
you can't write off the thoughts of local people just because they are local

No, but then you can't claim, as many do, that all local people are against the whole thing. I'm local, many other locals I know are also in favour.

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
I suspect there are probably campaign groups reading this forum today and making their own judgements about gung-ho aviation junkies, even if STN is a source of employment for some of us

Undoubtedly they are. And, they are very sensationalist about it. Many of them probably drive cars that pollute more than my regular flights.

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
And yes, I am an aviation junkie myself. I no longer live in the area, but my username hints that I might have spent a fair bit of time hanging around the STN perimiter fence whilst growing up!

If you did still live here, would you be for or against expansion and why?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 905 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2116 times:

This is another example of the South having what it wants and stuff the Midlands. The "" Government " has stopped the Coventry Terminal option with a reduction in M6 travel problems and is making passengers travel to BHX via a very overloaded A45 and M6. This will not reduce the flights planned just make the terminal not as pleasant for the locals that lfy?
I think we should not pay as much tax as we do not get the services!!


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2095 times:



Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 13):
This is another example of the South having what it wants and stuff the Midlands. The "" Government " has stopped the Coventry Terminal option with a reduction in M6 travel problems and is making passengers travel to BHX via a very overloaded A45 and M6. This will not reduce the flights planned just make the terminal not as pleasant for the locals that lfy?
I think we should not pay as much tax as we do not get the services!!

Er, no. You cannot compare Coventry Airport with the desperate need for extra capacity in the most densely-populated and economically-important area of the whole country. That truly is comparing chalk and cheese.

It's hardly a case of either or, and I'm afraid that no matter how unfair you think the Coventry decision to be, Coventry is not London and does not carry such huge national significance. Do you think People living in other parts of the UK never use London airports? Do you not realise that having adequate capacity for London and the surrounding area is essential for the WHOLE country?

This is not an issue of north vs. south, or south vs. midlands, or anything else of the sort. London is massive, and like it or not, it is the capital and is of vital importance to all of us. We are needing to compete here on a European and world scale. Coventry is hardly part of that debate right now.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2078 times:



Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
Right now, STN traffic is decline, and in all honesty it hasn't shifted too far from a ~20MPPA plateau for some time. Who knows what the future holds (especially on today of all days) but what the UK definintely needs is joined up thinking from top to bottom. Whilst I have no objections to making the best use of the resources we have (of which the Stansted G1 project is an example), a new runway at LHR and a new runway at STN will not satisfy the demands of the present market, neither passengers or airlines. London needs a 21st century hub airport, not a bit here and a bit more there. When and where? That's probably another can of worms all together...

I'm not sure I follow you. You argue that STN traffic has plateaued but you also point out that a new runway at STN and LHR will not satisfy the demands of the present market. I think those 2 new runways will hugely alleviate demand. It is very difficult to look so far into the future to when those runways will be full too.

Those runways seem to be the only likely options to me at the moment. Traffic has plateaued in STN because FR is having a war with it.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2032 times:



Quoting EI564 (Reply 15):
Those runways seem to be the only likely options to me at the moment. Traffic has plateaued in STN because FR is having a war with it

Exactly, and also the situation now cannot be compared to how it will be when the whole airport demographic changes and huge amounts of extra capacity in new places open up opportunities that did not previously exist.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2022 times:



Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 13):
The "" Government " has stopped the Coventry Terminal option

With Coventry on the brink of losing pretty much all service as it is, expanding it would be a complete waste of money. Why do you need a fully developed airport in Coventry anyway? Last time I travelled up to Birmingham on the train, the time between Coventry station and Birmingham Airport was about 12 minutes.

Having said that, expanding London's fourth choice of airport isn't exactly what the capital needs. All it will do is provide Ryanair with more space to expand their operations, it's going to do very little to attract new airlines, especially from the other London airports.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1986 times:



Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 17):
Having said that, expanding London's fourth choice of airport isn't exactly what the capital needs.

Come again? You mean London's fourth choice of airport which is already the nation's third busiest?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1957 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 18):
Come again? You mean London's fourth choice of airport which is already the nation's third busiest?

Well London City isn't exactly going to challenge it on passenger figures is it?


User currently offlineGAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1919 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 12):
Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
Stop Stansted Expansion, and other groups, might not represent your point of view, but they certainly represent those of thousands of others

That point was never in contention. I just happen to strongly disagree with them.

My point was more in response to your remark about pressure groups not having a mandate. I'm not sure that any voluntary pressure group can have a mandate in the same sense that a local authority (for example) has a mandate, but even so, they represent the tens of thousands of people that support them, and regardless of the case in had, they've made a pretty good job of it!

Quoting EI564 (Reply 15):
I'm not sure I follow you. You argue that STN traffic has plateaued but you also point out that a new runway at STN and LHR will not satisfy the demands of the present market. I think those 2 new runways will hugely alleviate demand. It is very difficult to look so far into the future to when those runways will be full too.

Those runways seem to be the only likely options to me at the moment. Traffic has plateaued in STN because FR is having a war with it.

By the demands of the present market I do not mean raw supply and demand figures, but rather, the demand for the way in which any extra capacity is delivered to the market. Legacy carriers have little interest in STN (although Aegean going 3x daily at STN is encouraging) but are desperate to get into and grow at LHR. STN has long had trouble keeping legacy and full-service carriers (the exit list now is far too long - Lufthansa, SAS, Luxair, KLM, Swissair, Alitalia, Croatia Airlines, Air One, Malev, CSA, PIA, Blue1, Continental, American, Maxjet, Eos) and I can't see that changing overnight.

With the advent of open skies, we've seen that even LGW is now struggling to keep it's transatlantic customers. I'd be willing to bet money that only policy/regulation will be able to draw airlines and passengers away from the natural pull of a global hub like LHR, second runways at STN and LHR or not. (Particularly if FR get their way and a new terminal at STN is just a larger replica of the third/FR satellite at STN. That's not an experience that is going to appeal to customers flying long-haul.)

Again, I really believe that the UK and the south east needs...

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 11):
a 21st century hub airport, not a bit here and a bit more there.



Quoting EI564 (Reply 15):
Those runways seem to be the only likely options to me at the moment. Traffic has plateaued in STN because FR is having a war with it.

You're point about FR is a good one, but in my opinion, it's just another indication of the degree to which STN is highly dependant on one carrier, or two or three if you consider EZY and AB as the only other significant carriers. Never mind the fact that FR only jumped ship from LTN to STN in 1991 because BAA offered rock bottom fees. Had BAA charged the going rate at STN from day one, rather than cross-subsidising within the group, STN might well be a white elephant still. Enticing competitive fees out of airports is of course an integral and perfectly valid component of the FR business model, but it'd be fascinating to consider whether they would be the success story that they are today if they didn't get the original helping hand at Stansted from BAA 1991 onwards?

Indeed, if traffic is plateauing at STN because FR is upset at the BAA price hikes and is all of a sudden finding itself out-of-sorts at STN, where does that leave the traffic forecast figures of the 2002 national consultation document, the DNA of which runs through the case for the G1 and G2 projects? I believe FR based aircraft at STN recently peaked at 40, which is only 10 short of the ~50 aircraft that MOL once remarked as the most FR aircraft that he could utilize at STN (admitably, before he then started talking about a transatlantic operation). At the moment it's not altogether obvious where 35MPPA will come from, let alone the 68MPPA quoted with a second runway...

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 12):

If you did still live here, would you be for or against expansion and why?

35MPPA? Yes, and up to full single-runway capacity. Again, making best uses of the resources we have.

A second runway? No. See my previous post. The Cliffe/Hoo Peninsula proposal (very Maplin Sands-esque) in the 2002 consultation document was the most recent proposal for new airport capacity in the south east that would get my vote. A four-runway hub airport with solid integrated road and rail links (not just a single track each way) is what I believe is needed in the UK. Sadly, Cliffe was, for two reasons, just a red herring - a) it seemed to show that the government was looking at other options, and b) it made proposals for STN and LHR look distinctly green in comparison! Yes the bill for such a project would be huge but it would be worth every last penny.

Boris Johnson hit the nail on the head for me the other day... "you can't endlessly expand Heathrow in the suburbs of west London and entrench what was really a planning error of decades ago".

I fully support that notion that LHR and UK plc needs to compete with the likes of AMS, FRA and CDG, and I would support a (single) new hub airport all the way.

But at STN, the world's favourite airport? Or at LHR, inside the M25? Come on...


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

I got into this thread hoping to hear something about the 2nd runway. How naive of me to think that. Hell will freeze over before we ever see a runway built in southern England.

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1892 times:



Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 19):
Well London City isn't exactly going to challenge it on passenger figures is it?

No, so by what measures do you assert that STN is the 'fourth choice'? For who?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 22):
No, so by what measures do you assert that STN is the 'fourth choice'? For who?

Oh come on, do you honestly expect anybody within the boundaries of London, or anybody from overseas coming into London to want to specifically fly to Stansted over Heathrow, Gatwick or City? Yes there will be local passengers, but even the large amount of people I know who live in Hertfordshire and North London say they would look for flights from Heathrow and Gatwick before they do Stansted.

Stansted is only the third busiest airport in the country because it is the only London airport that isn't full to the brim. Even Luton can accommodate very little extra traffic, at least in terms of night-stopping aircraft. Gatwick and Heathrow are both slot-restricted, and City would be 10 times busier if space wasn't an issue.

Without Ryanair, Stansted wouldn't be anything close to the nation's third busiest airport - and with services generally declining, and strong rumours of easyJet pulling out, it won't be long before Manchester overtakes it anyway. A second runway at Stansted would be a big mistake.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1853 times:



Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 23):
Oh come on, do you honestly expect anybody within the boundaries of London, or anybody from overseas coming into London to want to specifically fly to Stansted over Heathrow, Gatwick or City? Yes there will be local passengers, but even the large amount of people I know who live in Hertfordshire and North London say they would look for flights from Heathrow and Gatwick before they do Stansted.

Stansted is only the third busiest airport in the country because it is the only London airport that isn't full to the brim. Even Luton can accommodate very little extra traffic, at least in terms of night-stopping aircraft. Gatwick and Heathrow are both slot-restricted, and City would be 10 times busier if space wasn't an issue.

Without Ryanair, Stansted wouldn't be anything close to the nation's third busiest airport - and with services generally declining, and strong rumours of easyJet pulling out, it won't be long before Manchester overtakes it anyway. A second runway at Stansted would be a big mistake.

I expect, and in fact know, that huge amounts of people 'choose' Stansted over other airports precisely because airlines like Ryanair are there, and the European route network is vast and the prices affordable! It entirely depends on your needs and your means, but you cannot argue with the figures. Without FR STN wouldn't be the third busiest airport - yes, but it does have FR doesn't it? As for EZY pulling out, sure there would be decline, but I have no doubt that in time the fall would be made up and others would move in. Also, as I have previously alluded to in other posts, you, like others, are saying that extra capacity at STN would be useless because of the way the airport is now and the people who operate there. News flash - it will be different when expanded, and will not be the same place, and different factors and opportunities will come into play. Infrastructure will be improved, incentives will probably be offered if necessary, and in the long run, natural growth over time will mean that carriers will go where the space exists. Also, as has been discussed around a billion times before, despite people often wishing to give impressions to the contrary, STN is closer to London than many successful, large international airports are to the cities they serve.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
25 LHR27C : Generally agree with your post, but... people in Hertfordshire would look for flights out of LGW before they would STN?? STN is far more convenient t
26 HT : But this is alse the one that is the most difficult one to build and the one that has a direct impact on the most people (let alone: "The most expens
27 Planesarecool : Yes, but Heathrow, Gatwick, City and Luton are still closer. There isn't much point bringing Stansted up to the standards of an International gateway
28 RussianJet : Luton - barely, for practical purposes no difference. LCY - damn close, but a bit of a freak in terms of how limited it is and the niche it occupies.
29 Planesarecool : I'd tend to disagree. I live to the South of London, but would happily fly from Luton if it's more convenient for who I'm travelling with, simply bec
30 RussianJet : Fine, it's more convenient for some people such as yourself because of existing transport links. The same is not true for many others, and future dev
31 EI564 : A lot of interesting comments here. People may not be a huge fan of Ryanair but they do provide a very popular service, so I don't see what is wrong w
32 Planesarecool : Indeed, but remember that existing infrastructure is already there, and therefore the cost of any developments will ultimately be lower as there will
33 GAWZU : It could be a quick fix, but you're absolutely right in that we're probably a good decade away from seeing a 3rd runway at LHR, and that's presuming
34 LHR27C : Even a 2000m runway will help LHR for a long time to come. Don't forget it has survived on (effectively) two runways ever since it was first built, d
35 David_itl : I wonder what the likelihood of getting the majority of the domestic services plus the shortest-haul European route (BRU/AMS/DUB/CDG) using the new r
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
MAXjet Approved For STN-Middle East & Open Skies posted Thu Jul 19 2007 21:21:44 by ThirteenRight
Edmonton Int'l Approved For $200 Mln Expansion posted Mon Nov 20 2006 02:00:11 by Kevin
FAA Approved Multimillion Dollar Expansion Of Gary posted Sat Mar 19 2005 15:43:52 by KarlB737
UK Airport Expansion Announced STN Wins posted Tue Dec 16 2003 14:29:07 by ManchesterMAN
ORD Expansion Project Approved By City posted Thu Aug 7 2003 21:32:34 by MCIB757
Airport Terminal Expansion At LPL Approved posted Tue Aug 20 2002 20:06:05 by David_itl
ARN Expansion An Road Tolls.... posted Tue Sep 30 2008 10:29:06 by Northstar
First Choice - FCA5216, STN-PFO Today posted Wed Sep 24 2008 05:54:27 by Jetset409
Germania Scheduled Expansion posted Mon Sep 15 2008 06:21:54 by Humberside
1h 15m Plane Change In STN, Possible? posted Mon Sep 15 2008 03:36:08 by LH4116