Free Parking for Gatwick in Horley?

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Well something's going over yours What company are you talking about? Gatwick airport was built in the 1950's, when there probably weren't parking issues in neighbouring locations because families didn't tend to have multiple cars, and on-airport parking was probably sufficient. Or did you expect "the company" to predict parking requirements 65 years into the future?

You may not know this but they didn't build the entire thing in the 1950s. As it expended they added to it.

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

rigolith said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

Which is not something I actually argued.

Come on, third time's the charm. Do you understand this now?

I was just commenting on a part of what you actually posted, even if it's not what you meant (the wording is quoted above), but as already stated am not disagreeing with the main thrust of your wider argument.

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Well something's going over yours What company are you talking about? Gatwick airport was built in the 1950's, when there probably weren't parking issues in neighbouring locations because families didn't tend to have multiple cars, and on-airport parking was probably sufficient. Or did you expect "the company" to predict parking requirements 65 years into the future?

You may not know this but they didn't build the entire thing in the 1950s. As it expended they added to it.

You said "build" not expand. Or even expend. Pointless continuing a discussion where you continually pretend you said something different in an earlier post even though it's quoted for all to see... TTFN.

zagfles

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

rigolith said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

Which is not something I actually argued.

Come on, third time's the charm. Do you understand this now?

I was just commenting on a part of what you actually posted, even if it's not what you meant (the wording is quoted above), but as already stated am not disagreeing with the main thrust of your wider argument.

As above....

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

rigolith said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

Which is not something I actually argued.

Come on, third time's the charm. Do you understand this now?

I was just commenting on a part of what you actually posted, even if it's not what you meant (the wording is quoted above), but as already stated am not disagreeing with the main thrust of your wider argument.

I wrote what I meant, you just didn't understand it. Problem is on your end.

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Well something's going over yours What company are you talking about? Gatwick airport was built in the 1950's, when there probably weren't parking issues in neighbouring locations because families didn't tend to have multiple cars, and on-airport parking was probably sufficient. Or did you expect "the company" to predict parking requirements 65 years into the future?

You may not know this but they didn't build the entire thing in the 1950s. As it expended they added to it.

You said "build" not expand. Or even expend. Pointless continuing a discussion where you continually pretend you said something different in an earlier post even though it's quoted for all to see... TTFN.

Pedantry is a concession.

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

Which is not something I actually argued.

Come on, third time's the charm. Do you understand this now?

I was just commenting on a part of what you actually posted, even if it's not what you meant (the wording is quoted above), but as already stated am not disagreeing with the main thrust of your wider argument.

I wrote what I meant, you just didn't understand it. Problem is on your end.

Go on then, why don't you try to explain exactly what you actually meant by "they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places", as to me it seems to mean 'they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places'?

[Deleted User]

Maybe you could start by explaining what part of it you don't understand.

eskbanker

What I don't understand is whatever you may have meant by "they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places" that isn't 'they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places', as those words are self-explanatory....

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

What I don't understand is whatever you may have meant by "they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places" that isn't 'they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places', as those words are self-explanatory....

Your mistake was not reading the earlier posts in the thread, that give this context.

Good luck figuring it out.