Stansted drop off charging??????

whatmichaelsays

mailmannz wrote: »

Crazy me, here I thought airports existed so airplanes to land and take off

Mailman

If that were the case, they wouldn't be glorified shopping malls with acres of car parking.

rustyboy21

mailmannz wrote: »

Really? Do you realy think a £2.80 charge is going to stop a terrorist from taking a VED to an aiport and detonating it?

More likely Stanstead and every other airport which charges for drop offs only saw the bottom line on this in that they could make more money off travellers for doing next to nothing for them.

Mailman

Its a bit less dangerous , a terrorist exploding a bomb in a car park quite a few 100m away from the terminal building, than it is detonating one, after driving through the terminal dors and possibly killing 1000's of people.


Don't you think?


Also it does create revenue. If you watched the series about Gatwick, it said that the average revenue from a passenger passing through there was approx. £5. They will try and get as much money as they can to repay the £millions they have borrowed for their refurbs at the airport. They are a business, not a charity.

OnlyMe123_2

At Newcastle Airport it's £1 for 15 minutes but you pay on way out.
I also think that a terrorist intent on blowing up an airport wouldn't think "I'm not paying £(whatever the airport charges) so I'll just detonate my bomb in the long stay car park."

rustyboy21

OnlyMe123 wrote: »

At Newcastle Airport it's £1 for 15 minutes but you pay on way out.
I also think that a terrorist intent on blowing up an airport wouldn't think "I'm not paying £(whatever the airport charges) so I'll just detonate my bomb in the long stay car park."

Which is far enough away from the main terminal building to prevent a massive loss of life. That is a part of the reason for not dropping off outside the terminal building.


The charge is not to deter Terrorists ! lol

martindow

Maybe the drop off was getting very congested. Charging is an effective way of controlling demand (as well as getting extra revenue).

mailmannz

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Its a bit less dangerous , a terrorist exploding a bomb in a car park quite a few 100m away from the terminal building, than it is detonating one, after driving through the terminal dors and possibly killing 1000's of people.


Don't you think?


Also it does create revenue. If you watched the series about Gatwick, it said that the average revenue from a passenger passing through there was approx. £5. They will try and get as much money as they can to repay the £millions they have borrowed for their refurbs at the airport. They are a business, not a charity.

Oh come on...engage the brain for a second! If someone is motivated enough to spontaneously detonate their car at an airport a charge of £2 or £3 ISNT going to stop them!

Mailman

jackieblack

OnlyMe123 wrote: »

I also think that a terrorist intent on blowing up an airport wouldn't think "I'm not paying £(whatever the airport charges) so I'll just detonate my bomb in the long stay car park."

They can't take their car close enough to the terminal to cause significant damage if/when they detonate it as pick-up/drop-off isn't allowed right outside the terminal (IIRC I think there is a barrier which is only raised/lowered for the buses)

And the pick up/drop off parking & shuttle bus are free so hardly a money-making venture

There is also an Express Set Down scheme and short stay car park, neither of which give a vehicle access to the immediate vicinity of the terminal and for which there is a charge, but this is for the convenience of being a short walk away (rather than having to wait for a shuttle bus), nothing to do with airport security!

jpsartre

mailmannz wrote: »

Oh come on...engage the brain for a second! If someone is motivated enough to spontaneously detonate their car at an airport a charge of £2 or £3 ISNT going to stop them!

I don't think anybody was arguing that it would.

blindman

jpsartre wrote: »

I don't think anybody was arguing that it would.

Did you miss Rustyboy21 post then?

It is similar at a number of airports now, so I cant see why you are surprised after what happened at Glasgow airport.

He seems to have missed that too:cool:

Which is far enough away from the main terminal building to prevent a massive loss of life. That is a part of the reason for not dropping off outside the terminal building.

The boys a fool:eek:

AlexMac

This idea is catching on, in that Bournemouth airport (an otherwise charming little gaff) now charge to drop off despite the fact that it's so tiny that this only involves a round trip of 200 yards in the car.
So people now climb out of mates motors in the lane through the fields, opposite the airport and stroll the necessary two minutes in...