Originally Posted by
Dave Noble
I disagree that Heathrow is closer in time than Gatwick from Central London unless you class Paddington station as being the basis for central London
From Victoria the train journey to Gatwick takes 30 minutes and from London Bridge it is 29 minutes
This is slower than the Heathrow Express from paddington at 15 minutes ( cost GBP25 ) but not faster than the Connect service at 32 minutes ( cost GBP10.30 )
With only 15 minutes in the train journey time, location in Central London can easily offset that saving.
Seriously - that Easyjet uses Gatwick makes it worse?
I would take Gatwick every time over Heathrow - that it is cheaper is a bonus. That was able to fly into LGW was a reason for picking EK on last trip
Well I would argue that trains are not the benchmark of distance that you are claiming them to be.
Birmingham is an hour and ten minutes from Euston station, not a huge amount of time in the grand scale of things, but from out here in the western part of central London, using only trains, it would take me another 30-40 minutes to get to Euston, and the trains to Birmingham run only every hour, so in a best case scenario we would be waiting at Euston for say 20 mins till the next train. Making Birmingham in fact (using exclusively trains) take circa 2 hours plus. By car I don't think many people would assume Central London to the centre of Birmingham takes less than 2.5 hours.
Central London is also indeed a very west centric term, and don't forget Heathrow is in West London. Kensington/White City/Chelsea/Fulham/Notting Hill etc. etc. are all considered to be Central London, although theoretically West London.
Hop in a black cab from Harrods, between 10am and 3pm most weekdays and unless something drastically goes wrong, you will be at Heathrow in less than 30 minutes I guarantee you.
Say the same, even if you're in Waterloo/Victoria/London Bridge (anywhere in Central London 'closer' to Gatwick), how long do you think you would be reaching Gatwick in by taxi?
Not to forget the area between Earls Court and Hounslow is a city onto itself otherwise known as West London, with big corporate offices (Brentford area), decent roads, and several sizeable commercial centres like Richmond, Kingston, Hammersmith and more on the way. I don't think you can say the same for the swath of South London between the Thames and Gatwick, sure there's Brixton and Croydon even the smallest of western suburbs dwarfs them in economic importance. Yes I know Croydon is big but it isn't exactly thriving.
Victoria vs Paddington, well you can walk to Oxford Street from Paddington and you can walk to Westminster from Victoria, so yes both are equally well located I agree there.
But honestly, have you ever driven from Central London to Gatwick? Is that really a comparison to a quick cruise along the M4?
And yes I've used Easyjet, but I won't say their passengers are all pleasant. I'd use Easyjet again, but if I'm flying long haul EK my expectations would be a tad higher. Why put yourself through that when you don't have to.
Oh and whilst trains can work out for short European hops, I think the luggage entailed with long haul travel usually makes trains impractical, so whilst YMMV I think taxis/chauffeur drive is the more logical choice here. I get it someone might fly in from Dubai to London for two days, take the HEX, stay in W1, be at meetings throughout and take the HEX straight back to Heathrow. I can't
really imagine the same traveller doing that through LGW. Like sure hedge funds in Mayfair (who will invariably prefer LHR), but with the City in the state that its in, two days in and out of London through Gatwick (convent perhaps for EC4 not so much W1)? That sounds like 2005 not 2017 to me. Or some people just travel very light, and good for them if they do.