|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 27, 2023 17:59:54 GMT
Guess what, the locals at Gatwick don't want expansion there! I’m sure they don’t with good reason but I’m sure the airport has been there a lot longer than most of them. I don’t support expanding Heathrow, it’s a horribly designed airport and isn’t modern at all. Then trouble you have is Heathrow is used as a major interchange hub. If you can't interchange at Heathrow because the flight has been moved passengers will not come. They will head to Paris,or Frankfurt instead. Number of changes is an important factor in people's decisions. Lots of jobs rely on Heathrow. Do you really want to risk those jobs by restricting growth? Heathrow is where it is, not much can be done about it now, unless it is closed and wholesale relocated. Heathrow will always be airlines and overseas passengers first choice. It has to adapt to survive. Most countries that are not massive have a single hub. Asia, you have KL, Bangkok, Changi, is Hong Kong still used?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 18:13:38 GMT
I’m sure they don’t with good reason but I’m sure the airport has been there a lot longer than most of them. I don’t support expanding Heathrow, it’s a horribly designed airport and isn’t modern at all. Then trouble you have is Heathrow is used as a major interchange hub. If you can't interchange at Heathrow because the flight has been moved passengers will not come. They will head to Paris,or Frankfurt instead. Number of changes is an important factor in people's decisions. Lots of jobs rely on Heathrow. Do you really want to risk those jobs by restricting growth? Heathrow is where it is, not much can be done about it now, unless it is closed and wholesale relocated. Heathrow will always be airlines and overseas passengers first choice. It has to adapt to survive. I don’t think it has to be about restricting growth at Heathrow but focusing major expansion capacity at Heathrow offers nothing to our diverse nation. Heathrow absolutely should adapt, only T5 is set up in the modern style of an airport. The rest need to be rebuilt and made more modern. Like I mentioned in an earlier post nobody wants to get off a long haul flight and take a 30 min+ walk from one side to another. I was at T2 recently on a late afternoon flight so I was already tired having worked most of the day, it parked in the arse end of nowhere and I was exhausted by the time I got to the bus station. It took nearly an hour to get from the stand through to security and baggage claim. By expanding capacity elsewhere it allows for Heathrow to modernise. It’s exactly the reason the government forced BAA to sell most of their other airports, to allow competition and growth elsewhere but if they aren’t being allowed what was the point if Heathrow still holds this control? Let’s just be grateful that the flight slots are independently awarded.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 27, 2023 18:28:12 GMT
Then trouble you have is Heathrow is used as a major interchange hub. If you can't interchange at Heathrow because the flight has been moved passengers will not come. They will head to Paris,or Frankfurt instead. Number of changes is an important factor in people's decisions. Lots of jobs rely on Heathrow. Do you really want to risk those jobs by restricting growth? Heathrow is where it is, not much can be done about it now, unless it is closed and wholesale relocated. Heathrow will always be airlines and overseas passengers first choice. It has to adapt to survive. I don’t think it has to be about restricting growth at Heathrow but focusing major expansion capacity at Heathrow offers nothing to our diverse nation. Heathrow absolutely should adapt, only T5 is set up in the modern style of an airport. The rest need to be rebuilt and made more modern. Like I mentioned in an earlier post nobody wants to get off a long haul flight and take a 30 min+ walk from one side to another. I was at T2 recently on a late afternoon flight so I was already tired having worked most of the day, it parked in the arse end of nowhere and I was exhausted by the time I got to the bus station. It took nearly an hour to get from the stand through to security and baggage claim. By expanding capacity elsewhere it allows for Heathrow to modernise. It’s exactly the reason the government forced BAA to sell most of their other airports, to allow competition and growth elsewhere but if they aren’t being allowed what was the point if Heathrow still holds this control? Let’s just be grateful that the flight slots are independently awarded. Your moaning about terminals need rebuilding and made more modern, you then criticize the newest terminal? It was only rebuilt in 2014!
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 27, 2023 18:31:22 GMT
I don’t think it has to be about restricting growth at Heathrow but focusing major expansion capacity at Heathrow offers nothing to our diverse nation. Heathrow absolutely should adapt, only T5 is set up in the modern style of an airport. The rest need to be rebuilt and made more modern. Like I mentioned in an earlier post nobody wants to get off a long haul flight and take a 30 min+ walk from one side to another. I was at T2 recently on a late afternoon flight so I was already tired having worked most of the day, it parked in the arse end of nowhere and I was exhausted by the time I got to the bus station. It took nearly an hour to get from the stand through to security and baggage claim. By expanding capacity elsewhere it allows for Heathrow to modernise. It’s exactly the reason the government forced BAA to sell most of their other airports, to allow competition and growth elsewhere but if they aren’t being allowed what was the point if Heathrow still holds this control? Let’s just be grateful that the flight slots are independently awarded. Your moaning about terminals need rebuilding and made more modern, you then criticize the newest terminal? It was only rebuilt in 2014! Yes, for exact reason that it is too large and expansive. A 30 minute walk after a long flight isn’t ideal and I’ve never experienced anything like it at any other airport I’ve ever been to. It might have only been rebuilt in 2014 but it doesn’t make it modern.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 27, 2023 18:49:37 GMT
Your moaning about terminals need rebuilding and made more modern, you then criticize the newest terminal? It was only rebuilt in 2014! Yes, for exact reason that it is too large and expansive. A 30 minute walk after a long flight isn’t ideal and I’ve never experienced anything like it at any other airport I’ve ever been to. It might have only been rebuilt in 2014 but it doesn’t make it modern. Sounds like you used the extension of T2 that used to be part of the old T1 site. That's what you get when you try and expand piecemeal. This is exactly why they want to repeat terminal 5 and build on fresh land, so they can build modern, not within the constraints of what they have. You just made the case for expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 27, 2023 19:51:41 GMT
The UK isn't big enough o sustain multiple hub airports. British Airways have the data to know where their northern passengers all fly, but it's always going to be at the expense of 'what if it was out of London instead'. New York and Dubai from Manchester would be popular, but they'd be even more popular out of Heathrow. Offering a direct flight out of Manchester to Dubai or New York also isn't easy when you need to get a Boeing 777 or 787 up to Manchester to fly the route which is a massive waste of money. The North just doesn't have anywhere near the demand that London does and unless Manchester becomes one of the world's biggest tourist destinations it's nothing short of a pipe dream. People will need a reason to specifically go to Manchester or incentive to fly through it. There's no incentive at all to fly through it as no hub airline has shown any interest at all of setting up there, which in itself is down to the city being completely unappealing for tourists. People also pay premiums to just fly through London, while to us Heathrow might be a mess of an airport, it still does very much set the standard for a lot of countries and British Airways is an airline people will fly premiums to fly with. Going back to my London to Chennai example, a flight with Emirates could set you back a grand while a flight with British Airways will set you back 3-4K instead as they know Heathrow has that buying power with its passengers. The UK market being geared towards Heathrow isn't down to the market but its location above all else. It's the closest airport geographically where you can often get a plane into and it's all that will ever matter. Heathrow is also privately owned so they do their own marketing to attract people so you can't just remove them from the equation too. Even if you manage to force BA out of the airport in an attempt to push people away, it's just a matter of time until other airlines take the space made available. Even EasyJet who are Gatwick's biggest airline have been trying to get into Heathrow but keep getting denied slots. I'm sure if they get slots at Heathrow they'd got a list of routes they'd not even hesitate to move into Heathrow. You can try to invest in high speed rail to Gatwick and Luton, but it still won't have an impact. Someone flying in from Qatar will not want the faff of getting a high speed rail line into the City when chances are that if they've managed to afford to fly in, they can afford the cost of getting a cab and public transport won't even be an option. When Emirates started Stansted flights they didn't even mention it was for London, they said their intention was to capture any lingering demand from Essex and despite Stansted is A380 capable of an airport they are only operating 777s in due to the demand levels. Heathrow is the only option, and will remain the only option as long as the airport is open. The only way to prevent it being an option that trumps all others is to completely close it, but that's not going to happen as doing so will not just take people away from Heathrow but also the country and give Charles de Gaulle and Schipol the passengers instead. Of course the UK is big enough to sustain multiple airport hubs. Heathrow has created a situation where it can charge what it wants to airlines so they have to keep ticket prices higher. That’s why the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line cost a small fortune because of the charges Heathrow levies to TfL. It’s also why they were refused permission to increase the passenger fees to £40 and are now faced with a forced 20% cut by the CAA. Having a second hub is about passing choice onto passengers and whilst you would have passengers who would prefer to use Heathrow if the ticket price savings were there by using a different airport then you would equally have some who would opt to use other airports. Besides think of the pollution saved by not needing to fly or drive from the north to Heathrow for a flight? It would offset the increase in flights. As for flying to the US and Dubai, both Virgin Atlantic and Emirates manage it from Manchester with the former using it as a hub for multiple US destinations. So it can work and like I said if Manchester is on track to grow in population in the next few years with an expected growth to around 3 million by 2030 it would make sense to invest in further growth now to ensure that increased population is better served without having to travel hundreds of miles. To be clear though I’m not saying Heathrow shouldn’t exist but we as a country need to have more options and instead of containing capacity to the south it is time to diversify to expand air travel options elsewhere. I’m not talking about forcing BA out of Heathrow but ultimately there is only so much it can expand before the UK aviation market loses momentum. The reason Emirates fly out of Manchester is so that they can fill planes to their own obscure destinations such as Adelaide, most people would opt for this because flying BA would result in flying down to London, then to Singapore or Doha before connecting onto a flight to Adelaide. Once again Emirates haven't saturated the market out of Manchester simply because they do not have the demand to saturate it. Virgin Atlantic fly to at most 5 destinations in the USA which is peanuts. Orlando is flown because of Virgin Holidays while the rest are flown to provide Delta connections. There isn't anything Manchester has that Heathrow doesn't have on a larger scale. There's not a massive queue of airlines waiting to get into Manchester as the existing airlines cater to the demand that's already present and the demand from there isn't increasing. Manchester fully relies on origin travel and not connecting travel like Heathrow does. The UK unfortunately has its aviation market in the south and the world has adapted to the UK having its aviation market in the South. Refusing to expand Heathrow will do nothing but cause the UK to lose out to the Middle East and European hubs who are catering for what the passengers want. The fact is nobody wants to go to Manchester apart from people who already live there or have a very specific interest in the area such as family. You can expand Manchester but all you will accomplish is a load of wasted money and a very crowded Heathrow because people are not moving away from the airport. You have to do what passengers and airlines want and they only want Heathrow. Countries around the world have worked this out, the UK is yet to work this out and has just been throwing away economic gain as a few people don't want to move out of their houses.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 27, 2023 19:54:23 GMT
Your moaning about terminals need rebuilding and made more modern, you then criticize the newest terminal? It was only rebuilt in 2014! Yes, for exact reason that it is too large and expansive. A 30 minute walk after a long flight isn’t ideal and I’ve never experienced anything like it at any other airport I’ve ever been to. It might have only been rebuilt in 2014 but it doesn’t make it modern. Dubai and Hamad are said to be some of the worlds best airports. I ended up spending 1h 30min getting from Terminal 3 Concourse A to Terminal 3 Concourse C in Dubai. That terminal is so big that you need to have internal rapid transit and bus transit to cater for the vast number of people travelling between them, and all of that is just within one terminal. Whether you like it or not, airports are being designed in the way Terminal 5 and Terminal 2 are designed because it's the most efficient use of space. People want the most planes with a variety of destinations in one airport as opposed to them being spread around multiple airports. Would you rather walk 30 minutes or travel across the city?
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 27, 2023 20:09:23 GMT
I’ve always felt the issue with Heathrow could be resolved by investing that money in Gatwick and Manchester instead. Both are reasonably sized hub airports, Gatwick would need cash for a third terminal or expansions to the existing ones, improved transport links and the upgrading of the second runway to a full time status. Likewise investing and expanding in Manchester would mean far less passengers having to travel down south for obscure destinations or for cheaper flights to long haul destinations. It would also inevitably mean more jobs in the north as a larger airport would support more jobs. Gatwick and Manchester both wouldn't be worth it at all. Airlines don't want to fly to Gatwick, if you expand Gatwick the aim is to alleviate congestion at Heathrow but that won't end up happening because none of the airlines which currently hold Heathrow at capacity will voluntarily move a flight from Heathrow to Gatwick. Airlines such as Emirates and Qatar who fly to both Heathrow and Gatwick pretty much only use Gatwick for any overspill of services that they still very much would like to have at Heathrow. Virgin themselves didn't hesitate at all to move out of Gatwick when they needed to slim their route portfolio down. There's also the argument where if you forcibly move routes then people will move to Gatwick. But it doesn't work like that either. British Airways for example have a route network of flying to Indian cities such as Hyderabad and Chennai where there's no demand to fill an A380 out everyday but you can certainly fill planes if you base them out of Heathrow. Whenever I fly to Chennai I tend to use Emirates for unrelated reasons, but British Airways have to keep a route like that at Heathrow in order to compete with Emirates and Qatar. Move something like that to Gatwick and all that will happen is the passengers for the route will fly on competition instead, which in turn will cause issues for the UK economy as you've now lost people from British Airways who tend to have a higher benefit on the UK economy as opposed to helping the economy in Doha or Dubai. Likewise these routes, and other ones heavily rely on transit passengers funnelling through a single hub airport. British Airways again for their medium demand routes require passengers from North America to help fill planes. If you're flying from Vancouver to Delhi for example you're very likely to pick British Airways if you can transfer in Heathrow without leaving the building, but you'll probably end up flying Air France or Lufthansa if the BA change requires you leaving the airport and applying for a Visa while with Air France or Lufthansa you can easily change in Charles De Gaulle or Frankfurt trouble free. Then you have the issue with Manchester. The demand up north will not be able to sustain any obscure destinations. You need to order planes to match, and baring in mind that even Heathrow relies on foreign traffic to allow BA to serve obscure destinations you stand next to zero chance at Manchester. All that will happen if you expand Manchester is the UK's second airline Emirates will sweep in and start hoovering people up to Dubai instead because British Airways will show completely no interest in a move up north. There's not much incentive for a completely new airline to start up there either as routes which require bilaterals and have caps on the amount of flights are already maxed out by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. The best solution for Manchester is the one that's already in place where people fly from Manchester to Heathrow with British Airways and change onto a larger plane at Heathrow filled with people from other corners of the world too where they can then continue their journeys. No matter what way you look at it the answer will always and every single time come back to Heathrow expansion as the only option. Expanding another airport is not the answer and while to an outsider it presents the opportunity of new jobs and local development the reality will not be the case. The Airline market is deregulated and airlines are free to do what they want, all you will end up doing is giving Dubai and Doha a massive boost to their own economies and the UK aviation economy will suffer as a result. People need to accept that and stop hindering the UK aviation economy. Dubai and Doha are already giants due to the UK's reluctance to get anything done. In the time it's taken us to even get remotely close to a decision, Doha has completely relocated its old airport to a new one which is said to be among the best in the world, and Dubai has expanded one of their Terminals with a building around the size of LHR Terminal 3. London to Dubai and London to Doha are some of the biggest aviation markets in the world and all that money is leaving the UK economy and heading straight to the Middle East as they're the people who are catering to people's travel needs. If anyone here thinks Heathrow is not the answer, I'd be very interested to hear your views in how you'd persuade private airlines to move their flights to a newly expanded Gatwick or even up North to Manchester. The British government cannot use laws to force specific airlines out, British Airways themselves are Spanish owned and aren't state owned. London's airports are not over capacity, the capacity exists at Stansted if needed. The issue is the capacity is unavailable at Heathrow and that's where everyone wants to fly. Exactly look at British Airways long haul Gatwick routes. Flying to leisure destinations like the Caribbean using very old Boeing 777-200 with no first class. These routes can work from Gatwick you move Washington/Chicago to Gatwick passengers will move to the competition at Heathrow. IAG brand Aer Lingus have a base at Manchester Airport so no reason to put British Airways there.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Aug 28, 2023 8:58:44 GMT
Would any of those 31 who said they would vote for Khan in 2021 poll, like to comment on whether they now have a different view. Unless Susan Hall makes it a front-line policy to review the overpayment of staff within London Underground you'll never ever catch me voting for a Tory. I'd vote for Khan despite his mistakes. Then vote for an independent. We have to eject Khan (says a true Londoner, even though I have the temerity to be white!)
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 1, 2023 8:23:46 GMT
Would any of those 31 who said they would vote for Khan in 2021 poll, like to comment on whether they now have a different view. Unless Susan Hall makes it a front-line policy to review the overpayment of staff within London Underground you'll never ever catch me voting for a Tory. I'd vote for Khan despite his mistakes. lol, overpayment of staff on London Underground? You are treading a very thin line.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 1, 2023 8:25:51 GMT
If you don’t vote then you cannot complain about the actions of the duly elected Mayor. Voting takes seconds and polling stations are very easy to get to - I get terribly frustrated with those who say they can’t be bothered to vote; it’s the only voice we have to tell politicians what we really think of them and it’s something that’s been fought strongly for and shouldn’t be dismissed so frivolously But what if I don't like any of the candidates Then draw a massive Mickey Mouse face on the paper to spoil your vote to show them that you are not interested in any of them.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 1, 2023 8:27:55 GMT
Would any of those 31 who said they would vote for Khan in 2021 poll, like to comment on whether they now have a different view. Unless Susan Hall makes it a front-line policy to review the overpayment of staff within London Underground you'll never ever catch me voting for a Tory. I'd vote for Khan despite his mistakes. I'm assuming you're not affected by ULEZ then?
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 1, 2023 8:39:20 GMT
Guess what, the locals at Gatwick don't want expansion there! I’m sure they don’t with good reason but I’m sure the airport has been there a lot longer than most of them. I don’t support expanding Heathrow, it’s a horribly designed airport and isn’t modern at all. The road network to it, mainly terminal 1, 2, 3 is horrible. I much prefer Gatwick over Heathrow.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 1, 2023 8:44:04 GMT
The UK isn't big enough o sustain multiple hub airports. British Airways have the data to know where their northern passengers all fly, but it's always going to be at the expense of 'what if it was out of London instead'. New York and Dubai from Manchester would be popular, but they'd be even more popular out of Heathrow. Offering a direct flight out of Manchester to Dubai or New York also isn't easy when you need to get a Boeing 777 or 787 up to Manchester to fly the route which is a massive waste of money. The North just doesn't have anywhere near the demand that London does and unless Manchester becomes one of the world's biggest tourist destinations it's nothing short of a pipe dream. People will need a reason to specifically go to Manchester or incentive to fly through it. There's no incentive at all to fly through it as no hub airline has shown any interest at all of setting up there, which in itself is down to the city being completely unappealing for tourists. People also pay premiums to just fly through London, while to us Heathrow might be a mess of an airport, it still does very much set the standard for a lot of countries and British Airways is an airline people will fly premiums to fly with. Going back to my London to Chennai example, a flight with Emirates could set you back a grand while a flight with British Airways will set you back 3-4K instead as they know Heathrow has that buying power with its passengers. The UK market being geared towards Heathrow isn't down to the market but its location above all else. It's the closest airport geographically where you can often get a plane into and it's all that will ever matter. Heathrow is also privately owned so they do their own marketing to attract people so you can't just remove them from the equation too. Even if you manage to force BA out of the airport in an attempt to push people away, it's just a matter of time until other airlines take the space made available. Even EasyJet who are Gatwick's biggest airline have been trying to get into Heathrow but keep getting denied slots. I'm sure if they get slots at Heathrow they'd got a list of routes they'd not even hesitate to move into Heathrow. You can try to invest in high speed rail to Gatwick and Luton, but it still won't have an impact. Someone flying in from Qatar will not want the faff of getting a high speed rail line into the City when chances are that if they've managed to afford to fly in, they can afford the cost of getting a cab and public transport won't even be an option. When Emirates started Stansted flights they didn't even mention it was for London, they said their intention was to capture any lingering demand from Essex and despite Stansted is A380 capable of an airport they are only operating 777s in due to the demand levels. Heathrow is the only option, and will remain the only option as long as the airport is open. The only way to prevent it being an option that trumps all others is to completely close it, but that's not going to happen as doing so will not just take people away from Heathrow but also the country and give Charles de Gaulle and Schipol the passengers instead. Of course the UK is big enough to sustain multiple airport hubs. Heathrow has created a situation where it can charge what it wants to airlines so they have to keep ticket prices higher. That’s why the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line cost a small fortune because of the charges Heathrow levies to TfL. It’s also why they were refused permission to increase the passenger fees to £40 and are now faced with a forced 20% cut by the CAA. Having a second hub is about passing choice onto passengers and whilst you would have passengers who would prefer to use Heathrow if the ticket price savings were there by using a different airport then you would equally have some who would opt to use other airports. Besides think of the pollution saved by not needing to fly or drive from the north to Heathrow for a flight? It would offset the increase in flights. As for flying to the US and Dubai, both Virgin Atlantic and Emirates manage it from Manchester with the former using it as a hub for multiple US destinations. So it can work and like I said if Manchester is on track to grow in population in the next few years with an expected growth to around 3 million by 2030 it would make sense to invest in further growth now to ensure that increased population is better served without having to travel hundreds of miles. To be clear though I’m not saying Heathrow shouldn’t exist but we as a country need to have more options and instead of containing capacity to the south it is time to diversify to expand air travel options elsewhere. I’m not talking about forcing BA out of Heathrow but ultimately there is only so much it can expand before the UK aviation market loses momentum. Not a fan of over-exaggerated prices from Heathrow mainly there to satisfy share-holders. The whole thing is a blatant rip off. The fact they bump rail ticket prices up to there to get people is a joke. It then discourages people from using the 'green option' then may as well drive the car.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 1, 2023 8:51:23 GMT
Of course the UK is big enough to sustain multiple airport hubs. Heathrow has created a situation where it can charge what it wants to airlines so they have to keep ticket prices higher. That’s why the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line cost a small fortune because of the charges Heathrow levies to TfL. It’s also why they were refused permission to increase the passenger fees to £40 and are now faced with a forced 20% cut by the CAA. Having a second hub is about passing choice onto passengers and whilst you would have passengers who would prefer to use Heathrow if the ticket price savings were there by using a different airport then you would equally have some who would opt to use other airports. Besides think of the pollution saved by not needing to fly or drive from the north to Heathrow for a flight? It would offset the increase in flights. As for flying to the US and Dubai, both Virgin Atlantic and Emirates manage it from Manchester with the former using it as a hub for multiple US destinations. So it can work and like I said if Manchester is on track to grow in population in the next few years with an expected growth to around 3 million by 2030 it would make sense to invest in further growth now to ensure that increased population is better served without having to travel hundreds of miles. To be clear though I’m not saying Heathrow shouldn’t exist but we as a country need to have more options and instead of containing capacity to the south it is time to diversify to expand air travel options elsewhere. I’m not talking about forcing BA out of Heathrow but ultimately there is only so much it can expand before the UK aviation market loses momentum. The reason Emirates fly out of Manchester is so that they can fill planes to their own obscure destinations such as Adelaide, most people would opt for this because flying BA would result in flying down to London, then to Singapore or Doha before connecting onto a flight to Adelaide. Once again Emirates haven't saturated the market out of Manchester simply because they do not have the demand to saturate it. Virgin Atlantic fly to at most 5 destinations in the USA which is peanuts. Orlando is flown because of Virgin Holidays while the rest are flown to provide Delta connections. There isn't anything Manchester has that Heathrow doesn't have on a larger scale. There's not a massive queue of airlines waiting to get into Manchester as the existing airlines cater to the demand that's already present and the demand from there isn't increasing. Manchester fully relies on origin travel and not connecting travel like Heathrow does. The UK unfortunately has its aviation market in the south and the world has adapted to the UK having its aviation market in the South. Refusing to expand Heathrow will do nothing but cause the UK to lose out to the Middle East and European hubs who are catering for what the passengers want. The fact is nobody wants to go to Manchester apart from people who already live there or have a very specific interest in the area such as family. You can expand Manchester but all you will accomplish is a load of wasted money and a very crowded Heathrow because people are not moving away from the airport. You have to do what passengers and airlines want and they only want Heathrow. Countries around the world have worked this out, the UK is yet to work this out and has just been throwing away economic gain as a few people don't want to move out of their houses. What do the passengers want?
|
|