Read the forum code of contact
By: 19th July 2013 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Largely a waste of paper, bandwidth, and time...
None of the "network" carriers will want to go to Stansted because their networks rely on both on-line and alliance connections - they won't even want to go there for London O&D traffic because they want their all of resources to be in a single London airport to contain their cost of operation, and because connections go some way to propping up O&D volume.
That still leaves Stansted firmly in the "low-fare" and charter market, no matter how much they spruce it up. And therein lays another problem - whilst ever the terminal is filled with the Jed Clampetts of this world and their families (whom I have no problem with travelling as such, but do tend to be less experienced travelers and thus clog up or slow down the processes a bit) then high-yield passengers and the airlines they typically travel on will tend to stay away.
By: 19th July 2013 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That's all very well if a single London airport could accommodate the sheer volume required, but none of them can and a third runway at Heathrow isn't a long-term solution for anybody really.
Hence, given the lack of political will to radically develop Britain's aviation facilities, we need to make better use of the likes of Gatwick and Stansted.
Posts: 460
By: AirportsEd - 19th July 2013 at 12:42
I must admit I think Stansted has a lot going for it and should be expanded as part of UK's capacity needs.
http://www.airportsinternational.com/2013/07/mag-outlines-london-stansteds-potential/14416