more oA sorry story that highlights the flaws of aviation policy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Giles Robertson <[email protected]>
Date: December 23, 2006 5:33:28 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [IP] more oA sorry story that highlights the flaws of  
aviation policy

> I really can't understand the so-called problem, and indeed, the
> article ends with the solution.  It's stupid that so many people
> should book long-haul flights that terminate at LHR, but it's their
> own problem.  Paris is far more convenient and pleasant, and if you
> don't like that Schiphol and Frankfurt are just as good.  Heathrow is
> merely nasty, and I have simply stopped using it unless I plan to end
> my trip in England.

In fairness to Heathrow, the vast majority of the cancellations have  
been UK
domestic flights, where you often need to change at LHR. People using
Heathrow as a long-haul hub, or a place to go to European  
destinations other
than Paris or Brussels (cancelled because they're easy to get to by  
train)
have usually got through, though with delays. This isn't out of line  
with
other airports - ORD, when fogged up, will usually take some time to  
get the
flights off the ground.

Building runways may not be the whole answer - if Heathrow and  
Stansted get
an extra one each, we may run out of airspace in southern England to  
cope;
this has been a major problem with plans for a whole new airport.

The people most affected were Brits flying in or out for Christmas - I
believe the decision to cancel all BA domestic flights was taken  
because it
helps ease the pressure on the terminals; if people know that all BA
internal flights are done for, they're much less likely to turn up  
than if
80% of them are.

That said, I live under a Heathrow approach, and the reduction in  
aircraft
noise has been welcome.