Going to Lisbon from London -- happy, happy, happy but need advice!
Jun 6th, 2010, 06:29 PM
#21
"<i>little more confident about flying a major airline like TAP than easyjet</i>"
TAP is OK if that is the line you want to fly. But easyJet is most definitely a "major" airline. Flies more folks around Europe than any other airline except maybe RyanAir. It is much larger than TAP and carries five times more passengers.
TAP is OK if that is the line you want to fly. But easyJet is most definitely a "major" airline. Flies more folks around Europe than any other airline except maybe RyanAir. It is much larger than TAP and carries five times more passengers.
Jun 6th, 2010, 06:33 PM
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 23,813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it? I'd never heard of it before this thread and I just imagined it to be a small inter-Europe airline. One of the things I liked about TAP is that their website is so clear -- no long lists of extra charges. I realize I don't have to partake of any of them but it does feel nickle-and-dime-ish. I know we'll use easyjet and/or ryanair for other trips, though, while we're in London.
Jun 6th, 2010, 11:10 PM
#26
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agre with you on TAP. And it's a Star Alliance member, so if you collect miles on UA, Continental or US Airways (or Lufthansa et al.) you will get miles credited towards your account.
Defintely a better option than easyjet, especially since it flies out of convenient LHR.
Defintely a better option than easyjet, especially since it flies out of convenient LHR.
Jun 6th, 2010, 11:49 PM
#27
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does this absurd delusion come from that Luton or Gatwick are "less convenient" than Heathrow:
Sez who? Heathrow's certainly more convenient for me. But at least 15 million other people live in the area served by London's half-dozen international airports. For the overwhelming majority of us, Heathrow isn't the most convenient.
Heathrow IS the most convenient if you're headed for the West End - where few people live - for western suburbs and exurbs - where the nicest people live - or if you're changing planes. But for most people living here - as the poster claims she's about to - or on business here, one of City, Luton, Gatwick, Stansted or Southampton (or, as they add flights, Manston and Oxford) are quicker and cheaper to get to: both Stansted AND City are far handier to The City, for example, than Heathrow. And all are infinitely easier and quicker to get through.
Sez who? Heathrow's certainly more convenient for me. But at least 15 million other people live in the area served by London's half-dozen international airports. For the overwhelming majority of us, Heathrow isn't the most convenient.
Heathrow IS the most convenient if you're headed for the West End - where few people live - for western suburbs and exurbs - where the nicest people live - or if you're changing planes. But for most people living here - as the poster claims she's about to - or on business here, one of City, Luton, Gatwick, Stansted or Southampton (or, as they add flights, Manston and Oxford) are quicker and cheaper to get to: both Stansted AND City are far handier to The City, for example, than Heathrow. And all are infinitely easier and quicker to get through.
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:54 AM
#28
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course City is easier to get to from the City - as implied in its name (but it's not very central to many parts of the real life city, where people live as opposed to the City where people work). Most of all it's not an option for this trip.
Stansted may be easier to get to from the Eastern and some central parts of London, but it still involves a GBP 18.00 single-way overground train-trip, which is far more costly than the tube to LHR, or a bus ride (which at GBP 8.00 is still more expensive than the tube to LHR) - and is wasting precious time because one has to allow for dense traffic in the ever so great infrastructure of this city.
Last time I looked, Gatwick hadn't been connected to the tube either. A fare on the slower train amounts to GBP 12 and the ride still takes 30 min. from Victoria, so it's unlikely to be significantly quicker and cheaper to get there from somewhere central in London compared to LHR.
A train to Luton takes 25 minutes from St. Pancras plus a 10 min. shuttle bus ride. I fail to see where that is anywhere near as convenient as getting onto a Piccadilly Line train nonstop to LHR.
To mention Southampton and Oxford in this context is bordering absurdity.
Stansted may be easier to get to from the Eastern and some central parts of London, but it still involves a GBP 18.00 single-way overground train-trip, which is far more costly than the tube to LHR, or a bus ride (which at GBP 8.00 is still more expensive than the tube to LHR) - and is wasting precious time because one has to allow for dense traffic in the ever so great infrastructure of this city.
Last time I looked, Gatwick hadn't been connected to the tube either. A fare on the slower train amounts to GBP 12 and the ride still takes 30 min. from Victoria, so it's unlikely to be significantly quicker and cheaper to get there from somewhere central in London compared to LHR.
A train to Luton takes 25 minutes from St. Pancras plus a 10 min. shuttle bus ride. I fail to see where that is anywhere near as convenient as getting onto a Piccadilly Line train nonstop to LHR.
To mention Southampton and Oxford in this context is bordering absurdity.
Jun 7th, 2010, 02:29 AM
#29
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>A train to Luton takes 25 minutes from St. Pancras plus a 10 min. shuttle bus ride. I fail to see where that is anywhere near as convenient as getting onto a Piccadilly Line train nonstop to LHR.<<
That is about the same time, or slightly shorter to Luton, depending on where you start from in London. Given that the OP is starting from near West Hampstead station, Luton has a clear advantage in terms of time and convenience.
That is about the same time, or slightly shorter to Luton, depending on where you start from in London. Given that the OP is starting from near West Hampstead station, Luton has a clear advantage in terms of time and convenience.
Jun 7th, 2010, 04:08 AM
#30
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick,
I bow to the advice of more seasoned Londoners. Luton is about 15 min. of less travel time from West Hampstead if one doesn't take the LHR Express from Paddington (to save the expense).
Obviously, aiport convenience is always depending on relative location - and in so far flanneruk was correct.
I still think LHR is in general pretty straightforward to get to when living in central London and prefer it outright over any of the other airports - and I guess I would do so even if I were to start from West Hampstead. Granted, this is not about me, but in terms of cost/convenience, LHR in my opinion is hard to beat.
I bow to the advice of more seasoned Londoners. Luton is about 15 min. of less travel time from West Hampstead if one doesn't take the LHR Express from Paddington (to save the expense).
Obviously, aiport convenience is always depending on relative location - and in so far flanneruk was correct.
I still think LHR is in general pretty straightforward to get to when living in central London and prefer it outright over any of the other airports - and I guess I would do so even if I were to start from West Hampstead. Granted, this is not about me, but in terms of cost/convenience, LHR in my opinion is hard to beat.
