London Stansted - Why not successful?

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 27 Feb 2006, 04:20

I don't understand why STN wasn't so successful to major carriers. Heathrow is completely congested, People think Gatwick is the alternative. It is convenient for me, but I am sure it is convenient for other people in the east midlands/ east anglia. Now that the gatwick express is going, it has a plus with the stansted express to liverpool street. I think it would be a great hub if a new trans-atlantic airline started up (other than an all business class one). Thoughts?
Rudi

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 27 Feb 2006, 09:04

Cause it is just soo bloody far away from the city-center of London!

Whereas the Paddington Express takes 15 minutes, the Stansted express takes 45 minutes at least!

Also the south-east of London is where most business travellers work. Essex is far less developped business wise.

Thirdly, I think airlines imitate eachother. Why leave Heathrow with its huge amounts of international connections for Stansted, european low cost hub?

Oh nearly forgot: Wasn't PIA going to fly there? And if I'm correct there are 2 "luxury" airlines flying to New-York from there no?

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 27 Feb 2006, 12:13

Indeed, there are 2 business class carriers flying from STN.
I would think Low Cost International carriers would make more sense, given the large amount of 'transfer' possibilities...

regi · Post by **regi** » 27 Feb 2006, 12:20

Ariana tried to make Stansted its UK base some years ago.

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 28 Feb 2006, 04:34

but none of them stayed. I can name countless airlines that DID serve and stopped.
QN, Z4, OK....

Low Cost is crap because they only serve people over 16, with limited baggage, and to destinations hard to get to.

The two airlines flying business class routes doesn't exactly work, because I have to go to JFK/IAD and I can't really afford buisness

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 28 Feb 2006, 05:06

Welcome to the real world!!! Here in the U.S. you either have to connect to a hub with a regional airline, or drive for at least 2 hours to get to a hub. It's just how the system works.

LN-KGL · Post by **LN-KGL** » 28 Feb 2006, 10:10

I sampled STN for the first time some few weeks ago - flying in from Oslo with Norwegian (DY/NAX) on 1 February and returning to Oslo with the same airline on 5 February. On arrival at the airport a coach was waiting for us, but for the return it was a bit different - here is a quote for the report I wrote which pretty much agree with what Vinnie-Winnie said above:

After spending three days in Bournemouth and a day in London, it was time for me to fly home to Norway. I left for the airport a wee bit earlier than I had too – for obvious reasons. The Stansted Express was a monumental disappointment. They promised for the first class “a calm and spacious environment with complimentary newspaper and tea/coffee”. I wonder where that went – it certainly was very lacking from my experience. I couldn't even concentrate on the latest issue of Airliners (not that my good colleague would mind). The newspapers must have been left at Liverpool Street Station along with the coffee… The biggest challenge was where to place the luggage on this dirty old train. In fact, some the interior panels had taken a leave of absence. Adding insult to injury, they call it an “airport express train”. Covering 54 km (33 miles) in 45 minutes sounds more like a local train to me. The Airport Express train serving Oslo Airport covers the same distance in much less than half the time. Even after speed restrictions were imposed it only takes 19 minutes from the airport to downtown Oslo. And then there is the price! The British complain that Norway is expensive. Well, if you measure things by the price of a pint of beer, yes. But if you measure it by airport express train fares, then no! The fare from Liverpool Street Station to Stansted (in Essex and not London) on second class is a good £2 more expensive than from Oslo Central Station to Oslo Airport. And the Brits have the audacity to say that Oslo is expensive…

If you want to see the complete spotter report for STN - you will find it here: http://www.plane-spotter.com/Reports/ST ... /index.htm

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 28 Feb 2006, 10:34

heathrow wrote:
Low Cost is crap because they only serve people over 16, with limited baggage, and to destinations hard to get to.

The two airlines flying business class routes doesn't exactly work, because I have to go to JFK/IAD and I can't really afford buisness

Untill you realise that you are very lucky to be able to fly on your own being underage. Consider yourself very lucky to be able to fly far away, most kids or even adults don't have that chance.

Airlines generally chase customers which provide the highest profit margins, not some special low yield interest groups!

Post by **sn26567** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:48

Ryanair just published a press releaseboasting they had flown 70 million passengers through Stansted!

Humberside · Post by **Humberside** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:53

heathrow wrote:but none of them stayed. I can name countless airlines that DID serve and stopped.
QN, Z4, OK....

These are STN's current full service/major airlines:

Atlantic Airlines (or the Faroe Islands)
Aurigny
Blue1 (part of SAS)
CSA Czech
Cyprus Airways
El Al
Eos
MaxJet
Kibris Turkish
Turkish Airlines

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 01 Mar 2006, 06:14

Vinnie-Winnie wrote:
Untill you realise that you are very lucky to be able to fly on your own being underage. Consider yourself very lucky to be able to fly far away, most kids or even adults don't have that chance.

I only fly alone because no one will come with me. I work damn hard for a ticket, so I don't see why I should be looked at any differently. I just would have thought this airport would have more opportunites. I guess it's just like YMX.

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 01 Mar 2006, 09:26

heathrow wrote:
I only fly alone because no one will come with me. I work damn hard for a ticket, so I don't see why I should be looked at any differently. I just would have thought this airport would have more opportunites. I guess it's just like YMX.

Well without going into that age issue, just wait a few years and U'll be treated no differently (And that special attention is sometimes nice btw!). But yeah there must be some safeguards even though U might me mature, clever whatever enough to travel on your own!

Back to the topic though I find it already amazing that LDN has 2 major airports and 1 or 2 more or less specifically dedicated to low costs! It's every travellers dream!

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 01 Mar 2006, 11:03

plus a "business" airport (LCY) which is great to fly to as well if you manage to... it is 2nd convenient to Heathrow in my experience. As a matter of fact LHR (and LGW) are too chaotic, something you totally lack in LCY due to its compact size. once had a very very nice turn over central London in a KLM F50 during the final approach to LCY.

anyways... STN is way out, train is expensive, and most intercontinental (and continental) full-service airlines are located in LGW and LHR for onward connections.

One reason i guess why lot of airlines with a fair deal of transito passengers wont fly to STN - I mean.. would you yourself consider a transatlantic flight if the european partner airline you get your european flight with is flying from LGW/LHR while yours arrives in STN?? it would cost you 2 hours at least in transito.. not to mention all the fuzz.

on top of that.. the only other tourist spot close by Stansted is Cambridge... while LGW and LHR offer a way better onward travel/destination choice nearby.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 01 Mar 2006, 11:33

jelger wrote:plus a "business" airport (LCY) which is great to fly to as well if you manage to... it is 2nd convenient to Heathrow in my experience. As a matter of fact LHR (and LGW) are too chaotic, something you totally lack in LCY due to its compact size. once had a very very nice turn over central London in a KLM F50 during the final approach to LCY.

anyways... STN is way out, train is expensive, and most intercontinental (and continental) full-service airlines are located in LGW and LHR for onward connections.

One reason i guess why lot of airlines with a fair deal of transito passengers wont fly to STN - I mean.. would you yourself consider a transatlantic flight if the european partner airline you get your european flight with is flying from LGW/LHR while yours arrives in STN?? it would cost you 2 hours at least in transito.. not to mention all the fuzz.

on top of that.. the only other tourist spot close by Stansted is Cambridge... while LGW and LHR offer a way better onward travel/destination choice nearby.

What exactly would happen to this when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Stratford International open? Will it be feasible to move between Stansted and Eurostar?

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 01 Mar 2006, 12:01

heathrow wrote: I guess it's just like YMX.

It's in no way anything like Mirabel, except maybe for the distance to Londen. It is a thriving airport, wich has projects for a second runway & new terminals... Mirabel has just been closed for pax trafic I believe.
Where's the resemblence?

The fact that BA doesn't fly there doesn't mean that it's less of an airport...

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 01 Mar 2006, 12:06

As a sidenote: Did you know that the terminal of STN (build by Sir Norman Foster) has become the prototype of the '2nd generation' airport (a lot of light, high ceilings, straightforward, services under the main floor,..) ?
It inspired new airport terminals around the world...

Post by **sn26567** » 01 Mar 2006, 12:21

About the cost of the Stansted Express, just look at the press releaseissued by Ryanair today!

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 01 Mar 2006, 22:48

Vinnie-Winnie wrote:
heathrow wrote:
I only fly alone because no one will come with me. I work damn hard for a ticket, so I don't see why I should be looked at any differently. I just would have thought this airport would have more opportunites. I guess it's just like YMX.
Well without going into that age issue, just wait a few years and U'll be treated no differently (And that special attention is sometimes nice btw!). But yeah there must be some safeguards even though U might me mature, clever whatever enough to travel on your own!

Back to the topic though I find it already amazing that LDN has 2 major airports and 1 or 2 more or less specifically dedicated to low costs! It's every travellers dream!

I get no special attention mate! I fly BA so I'm an adult. They look at me like an adult there.

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 01 Mar 2006, 23:48

heathrow wrote:
I get no special attention mate! I fly BA so I'm an adult. They look at me like an adult there.

Ok then I get it I got it wrong U'r more like moaning about the fact that LCC's in europe don't want U on board cause you are below 16 am I right?

I assume the rationality of that is that for LCC's underage people are a burden. What kind of burden would it be if as you stated previously you are not treated differently in airlines that accept underage people?

Don't get me wrong I'm just curious...

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 02 Mar 2006, 03:58

Vinnie-Winnie wrote:
heathrow wrote:
I get no special attention mate! I fly BA so I'm an adult. They look at me like an adult there.
Ok then I get it I got it wrong U'r more like moaning about the fact that LCC's in europe don't want U on board cause you are below 16 am I right?

I assume the rationality of that is that for LCC's underage people are a burden. What kind of burden would it be if as you stated previously you are not treated differently in airlines that accept underage people?

Don't get me wrong I'm just curious...

Well yes. I mean, STN is the LCC hub, and it's annoying that I can't really fly any because of my age. I mean, wouldn't they make more money by charging adults at younger age?