LCY Expansion to go ahead

Old Feb 9, 2015, 10:27 am
  #61  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Originally Posted by MHendo84
But a lot like London's transport system, not everything is as easy as we would all like. You've just got to make the best of what you have.
Absolutely, and the same goes for public transport systems everywhere.

But here was an opportunity to make things very easy for a very common change: air <--> rail. But (like at a number of other airports in the UK) it will be more difficult than it need have been.

Maybe it's London's equivalent of the US' "all pax must clear immigration and customs at the first US port", regardless of where else they're going. Just as the US system sometimes seems to exude disbelief that an air passenger landing at a US airport might have the temerity to want to fly to another country without stepping foot in the US, London airports sometimes seem to exude disbelief that anyone who's got as far as the exit from customs might wish to go anywhere other than into London.
Globaliser is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2015, 10:43 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BA, Marriott, Hertz, Dennis The Menace Fan Club
Posts: 2,015
Originally Posted by Jordan D
Without wanting to take this to OMNI, don't forget that the SNP administration came to power in 2007, and then cancelled EARL [Edinburgh Airport Rail Link] and GARL [Glasgow Airport Rail Link]. The former of which would have put a station underneath the airport, which would have connected to the whole Scottish rail network ... and it was cancelled on the ground of cost as "the tram is a much cheaper project".

Indeed.
And without wishing to drag us OT, but wanting to have a mini rant, both EA and GARL could have both been achieved for a fraction of the cost of the Edinburgh tram system if a station had been built close to the end of the respective runways. It didn't need an underground station or a separate terminal or any of the nonsense that was proposed. I'm sure the same logic could have been applied at LCY.
nobbyclark is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2015, 11:30 am
  #63  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Spire, Radisson Gold
Posts: 991
Today has reminded me why I'd like an LCY lounge. I know you all wax about it being fast and convenient, and yes, I agree, but today for example I finished my affairs in London early, long before my flight to GLA.
I ended up going to Canary Wharf and sitting in Jubilee Park with a cup o' Starbucks for an hour or so - but it would have been nice to just head to LCY and crash in a lounge for a couple of hours.

On an unrelated note, what on earth have they done to LCY security?! Not sure when it started, but they now have some crazy arrangement whereby you queue at individual desks to speak with a security agent and put all your belongings in trays etc. - and the security agent then puts the trays on the belt whilst you go around seperately. The problem is, as there are several desks, the trays end up in a totally random order and thus the queues the other side rack up as people wait for all their trays to get through. Seems rather inefficient.
hcuk94 is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2015, 12:04 pm
  #64  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,168
someone else posted this image earlier in the thread but it's worth posting again

https://constructionetc.files.wordpr...nnaught-ga.jpg

would those requesting a Cross Rail station at LCY please say where they think it would fit?

Factor in that CR trains will be 200 m long and that platforms should be in a straight length and that the tunnels etc to Woolwich have already started construction.

A stop at LCY would have already been included if it was cost effective and feasible to construct. It was neither.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2015, 4:29 pm
  #65  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
would those requesting a Cross Rail station at LCY please say where they think it would fit?
Perhaps that could have been determined as a high priority early on during the planning rather than considering international connectivity as a vague afterthought?
Calchas is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2015, 5:10 am
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC GGL, HHonors Diamond, IHG Uninspired, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium, UK AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,151
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
someone else posted this image earlier in the thread but it's worth posting again

https://constructionetc.files.wordpr...nnaught-ga.jpg

would those requesting a Cross Rail station at LCY please say where they think it would fit?
If you also installed LHR-style underground passageways with travelators, much as between the various bits of public transport and T1/T2/T3, then I don't see why it couldn't go just as the line straightens out on the map you've shown.

From the western edge of a station there, to the buildings at LCY looks under 250m, which seems fine to me compared to what you sometimes have to walk at T1/T2/T3, and significantly better than what you get a Manchester between the station and the BA terminal!
Gagravarr is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2015, 5:21 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, LH Sen, MUCCI, Junior Jet Club.
Posts: 8,095
Originally Posted by nobbyclark
And without wishing to drag us OT, but wanting to have a mini rant, both EA and GARL could have both been achieved for a fraction of the cost of the Edinburgh tram system if a station had been built close to the end of the respective runways. It didn't need an underground station or a separate terminal or any of the nonsense that was proposed. I'm sure the same logic could have been applied at LCY.
The problem with EARL was that the options were either

- underground station, at vast cost, and actually almost impossible because of the gradient trains would have to negotiate to get out of the tunnel onto the main line

- mainline station at the end of the runway - but then you'd have people like Globaliser moaning that the station was in the middle of nowhere and miles from the terminal

Ditto GLA - you don't have to run the line into the terminal at vast expense, but if you don't you'd again get the moans!

The fact is that there are very few 'green-field' UK airport developments which have taken place since inter-modal connections became viewed as important. STN is the only one I can think of which, surprise surprise, has an integrated railway station.

Ironically the reason LGW has a integrated railway station is that the airport was built on the site of a racecourse, which had its own station from 1891 (like Kempton Park does today) with the aerodrome opening in the 1920s.
BahrainLad is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2015, 5:30 am
  #68  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London. Edinburgh, Cornwall
Programs: BA GGL, British Midland Lifetime* Loser
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by BahrainLad
The problem with EARL was that the options were either

- underground station, at vast cost, and actually almost impossible because of the gradient trains would have to negotiate to get out of the tunnel onto the main line

- mainline station at the end of the runway - but then you'd have people like Globaliser moaning that the station was in the middle of nowhere and miles from the terminal
And of course the trams proved to be so much more cost-effective
ajamieson is offline  
Old Feb 26, 2015, 10:04 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London Town
Programs: BA Silver, AF Silver
Posts: 465
Getting back to the original thread, I think expanding LCY is a perfectly fine idea, but expansion would need to include some kind of lounges. BA & Cityjet are the biggest operators with the most scope for expansion, no reason why lounges couldn't be baked into any expansion plan for both airlines and their partners.

I started commuting out of City almost 15 years ago, when there were just 9 gates, a single security point, one restaurant, and as an Air France status passenger I got a free shoe shine and free car parking. Those were the days.... Luckily, as the airport has expanded over the years, the facilities have improved and there are more food & drink options, and less space wasted on fashion retail. The problem for me is that the main departure lounge has not really increased much in size, hence the need for lounges.

At the same time, BA really needs to rethink its priority boarding here - making it Gold only is unfair to Silvers, who enjoy that minor perk at pretty much every other airport.
Kevlondon is offline  
Old Feb 26, 2015, 10:08 am
  #70  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Kevlondon
Getting back to the original thread, I think expanding LCY is a perfectly fine idea, but expansion would need to include some kind of lounges. BA & Cityjet are the biggest operators with the most scope for expansion, no reason why lounges couldn't be baked into any expansion plan for both airlines and their partners.

I started commuting out of City almost 15 years ago, when there were just 9 gates, a single security point, one restaurant, and as an Air France status passenger I got a free shoe shine and free car parking. Those were the days.... Luckily, as the airport has expanded over the years, the facilities have improved and there are more food & drink options, and less space wasted on fashion retail. The problem for me is that the main departure lounge has not really increased much in size, hence the need for lounges.

At the same time, BA really needs to rethink its priority boarding here - making it Gold only is unfair to Silvers, who enjoy that minor perk at pretty much every other airport.
Almost everyone at that airport would qualify for lounge access and priority boarding.
Calchas is offline  
Old Feb 26, 2015, 10:16 am
  #71  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London. Or a plane.
Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
Posts: 2,773
Originally Posted by Calchas
Almost everyone at that airport would qualify for lounge access and priority boarding.
Right - there's a reason BA Cityflyer pre-boarding is Gold/OW Emerald *only*
alexwuk is offline  
Old Feb 26, 2015, 10:40 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by paul4040
I don't think an A318 can reach Bermuda on account that it's rated for only 180 minutes ETOPS. This means on any route it flies it cannot be more than 180 minutes away from a suitable diversion airfield. Its fine until it gets to the mid Atlantic, I think, and then it just becomes too remote.
I'm not sure what the engine-out speed of a 318 is but assuming it's at least as good as a Gulfstream IV or V which is slower than a 757 for example then ETOPS 120 is all that would be needed to get to Bermuda. In fact if it can get to NYC without taking a ridiculous round-about route then it looks like it should be able to get to Bermuda too. In fact it looks like it would have to make a small diversion to stay within etops 120 to jfk but not to bda.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lcy-bda...&EV=370&EU=kts
zkzkz is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2015, 4:38 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,746
BBC London News reporting just now that Boris has refused permission for the expansion plan, despite the approval from Newham. Yet again insisting that the only airport solution is Boris Island. Give it up Boris!
Ldnn1 is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2015, 5:04 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,981
Poor show from the Mayor!
South London Bon Viveur is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2015, 5:05 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
BBC London News reporting just now that Boris has refused permission for the expansion plan, despite the approval from Newham. Yet again insisting that the only airport solution is Boris Island. Give it up Boris!
Bah

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-10137328.html
Calchas is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.