4 ms·

I've flown through Heathrow a dozen or so times, and have spent maybe $200 in various shops and restaurants. Outside the airport, I spent months working on proj

I've flown through Heathrow a dozen or so times, and have spent maybe $200 in various shops and restaurants. Outside the airport, I spent months working on projects, and both I and the projects involved much more than $200. An analysis that includes only direct spending misses the overall impact.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
All right, but if Heathrow was down for a day, what would you do? Cancel the trip, and never go at all? Or would you go a day later, or through a different airport, or fly to Manchester and take the train?
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  Even if the airline let you, why would you travel to Manchester? That's half a day and a £100 train fare away from London. There's still Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in 'London', plus Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives. If money were no object even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Hey, clueless American here. I confess I have no idea how far apart things are in the UK. "Closer than in the US" is all I've got.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      It's very reasonable, and I wouldn't hesitate to do this if it was a business trip. Many flights have been diverted to Manchester, partly because airlines with flights to Heathrow also have flights from Manchester, but are less likely to have flights from the other London airports. Manchester Airport railway station is 2 minutes walk from the airport's main entrance, I think using a covered walkway, or maybe it was underground. Going to London takes 2¾ hours with one change, trains run every 20 minutes. It would be more convenient to be diverted somewhere a bit closer, but on the scale of an intercontinental flight it's not a big deal. > Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives ... even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester! Cardiff Airport to London takes 3 hours by train, Bristol Airport about 2½ hours, both are less frequent. Amsterdam is four hours by train, Brussels is around 3 hours. Birmingham (BHX) and East Midlands (EMA) are the only airports closer to London in travel time than Manchester.
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      Ah, right! Here's an approximate comparison then, measuring from one of the terminus stations serving central London, according to railway timetable data: 0h 30m - Heathrow 1h 00m - Gatwick 1h 00m - Luton 1h 30m - Stansted 2h 30m - Manchester 3h 00m - Birmingham 3h 00m - Bristol 4h 00m - Cardiff Plus Channel Tunnel trains: 2h 00m - Brussels 4h 00m - Amsterdam Looks like I was wrong about Manchester being further than Cardiff though!!
      - masfuerte 2y ago
        Birmingham airport to London is 1h 10m though there are slower services.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - leoedin 2y ago
    By what basis are Brussels or Amsterdam closer to London from Manchester? Manchester is a 2 hour train ride from London. Brussels is similar, but there’s at least an hour of mandatory security and waiting. Amsterdam is much further away.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

All right, but if Heathrow was down for a day, what would you do? Cancel the trip, and never go at all? Or would you go a day later, or through a different airport, or fly to Manchester and take the train?

seabass-labrax 2y ago
Even if the airline let you, why would you travel to Manchester? That's half a day and a £100 train fare away from London. There's still Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in 'London', plus Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives. If money were no object even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester!
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Hey, clueless American here. I confess I have no idea how far apart things are in the UK. "Closer than in the US" is all I've got.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    It's very reasonable, and I wouldn't hesitate to do this if it was a business trip. Many flights have been diverted to Manchester, partly because airlines with flights to Heathrow also have flights from Manchester, but are less likely to have flights from the other London airports. Manchester Airport railway station is 2 minutes walk from the airport's main entrance, I think using a covered walkway, or maybe it was underground. Going to London takes 2¾ hours with one change, trains run every 20 minutes. It would be more convenient to be diverted somewhere a bit closer, but on the scale of an intercontinental flight it's not a big deal. > Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol as alternatives ... even Amsterdam Schiphol or Brussels would make for a faster journey than Manchester! Cardiff Airport to London takes 3 hours by train, Bristol Airport about 2½ hours, both are less frequent. Amsterdam is four hours by train, Brussels is around 3 hours. Birmingham (BHX) and East Midlands (EMA) are the only airports closer to London in travel time than Manchester.
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    Ah, right! Here's an approximate comparison then, measuring from one of the terminus stations serving central London, according to railway timetable data: 0h 30m - Heathrow 1h 00m - Gatwick 1h 00m - Luton 1h 30m - Stansted 2h 30m - Manchester 3h 00m - Birmingham 3h 00m - Bristol 4h 00m - Cardiff Plus Channel Tunnel trains: 2h 00m - Brussels 4h 00m - Amsterdam Looks like I was wrong about Manchester being further than Cardiff though!!
    - masfuerte 2y ago
      Birmingham airport to London is 1h 10m though there are slower services.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- leoedin 2y ago
  By what basis are Brussels or Amsterdam closer to London from Manchester? Manchester is a 2 hour train ride from London. Brussels is similar, but there’s at least an hour of mandatory security and waiting. Amsterdam is much further away.