tbtc
Veteran Member
Yes, but they play in North London, not Central London!!
True, but North London is London too
And Tottenham is definitely more "London" than "London Stansted Airport" is - maybe the ASA should sue Ryanair?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Stansted Express poster banned by ASA
- Thread starter stuartmoss
- Start date
- Status
True, but North London is London too
And Tottenham is definitely more "London" than "London Stansted Airport" is - maybe the ASA should sue Ryanair?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I agree, on both those points.
Us Brits probably know both of these (where London starts and how far out Stansted actually is), but international travellers or infrequent travellers will be less likely to know. With this in mind, advertising materials promoting transport to might just be expected to clarify those vague travel concepts? Not make them more confusing (eg An Essex Airport is a London Airport. Tottenham Hale is an indicative destination for international air-travellers to London.)
It was, in March/April of this year!
On the Royal Mail thing (as we're on that side track) it should be noted that no mail will be rejected for having the county on it- though the way it was written up recently by certain news outlets seemed to imply that they'd send the storm troopers round to execute you...
maddeningcrowds
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2009
- Messages
- 143
No, but superimposed against the 35 minute claim, it strengthens the implication that *central* London is 35 minutes away.
Slightly off-topic, but I was always amused by the Gatwick Express claim that they are the fastest to central London (true) but "anything else is a risk". Yes, 2-3 minutes at most if you get a Southern train stopping at East Croydon!
All the more ironic that it continued after Gatwick Express was absorbed into Southern! Not that London is out to fleece the unwary tourist...
All the more ironic that it continued after Gatwick Express was absorbed into Southern! Not that London is out to fleece the unwary tourist...
But the advert said central London - I don't think anyone would have quibbled if it had just said London, or North London!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not strictly true. Royal Mail is quite clear in stipulating that the necessary parts of an address are the house number and post code. They quite like a road name and post town too (defined as the place where your delivery office is - the place you pick up stuff that they couldn't deliver). Extra information is only required if it's a confusing - usually rural - address.
Counties are tolerated for the benefit of the old-fashioned but are not used for operational purposes.
True, I was working in Royal Mail in 1993 when the sytem was changed. Until that point, hand sorted mail was sorted by county, afterwards, it was sorted by postcode. There has been no requirment, or need, to use the county since then.
I do get mildly annoyed when a county is marked as compulsory when registering on or buying something from a website!
tbtc
Veteran Member
The advert in the BBC story (looking at the image) says "London" (with what looks like the Millenium Wheel/ London Eye behind it). Now, Tottenham is not the London Eye, but then neither is Liverpool Street.
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but since we are used to "London Luton" "London Stansted" and "London Gatwick", I find it strange to concentrate on a train company referring to Tottenham as "London"
The crux of the issue, as the ASA pointed out, is that the advert strongly implied that it was central London, by use of the image!
It's fair enough to say that airports do stretch the credibility a bit, I mean Cardiff (Wales)? For a large amount of Wales, Birmingham and Manchester are far more convenient! And I wouldn't say that any of the 'London' airports are actually in london, except for Heathrow, which is within the London Boroughs!
It's fair enough to say that airports do stretch the credibility a bit, I mean Cardiff (Wales)? For a large amount of Wales, Birmingham and Manchester are far more convenient! And I wouldn't say that any of the 'London' airports are actually in london, except for Heathrow, which is within the London Boroughs!
ChrisCooper
Established Member
I suppose the same argument against London Stansted could be given for Gatwick too (although it's a bit quicker at half an hour). Then again the latest one is "London Oxford". It's some distance from the nearest station and then you've got a good hour to get into London. Actually I expect you'd be quicker from Birmingham International to London than from Oxford (or should that be London Birmingham International). Stansted has the M11 straight past too, Oxford airport is out in the middle of nowhere.
Actually, if HS2 gets built then Birmingham International to London will probably be about the same time as Stansted to London.
Actually, if HS2 gets built then Birmingham International to London will probably be about the same time as Stansted to London.
To be fair, if they said "London Tottenham" they'd have probably got away with it. But they weren't trying to entice people to get to Tottenham were they? No, they know people want to go to central London! Or, in other words, a place that always has been London rather than a place that simply became part of London due to urbanisation!
But Cardiff is in Wales. I fail to see your point.
And London City, which is just a few miles from the heart of the City (and which is quickly becoming the airport of choice for those wishing to avoid the chav-filled low-costs from Luton and Stansted).
90019
Established Member
London City? :P
Yes, I forgot about London City! Oops!
Squaddie, Stansted is in England, why not call it Stansted (England)? It would be just as accurate as London Stansted, which is my point in describing Cardiff (Wales) as inaccurate. The old name of Glamorgan (Rhoose) airport more accurately described both its actual location and main catchment area.
Squaddie, Stansted is in England, why not call it Stansted (England)? It would be just as accurate as London Stansted, which is my point in describing Cardiff (Wales) as inaccurate. The old name of Glamorgan (Rhoose) airport more accurately described both its actual location and main catchment area.
A few years ago they had loads of posters knocking road travel (and consequently attacking their own coach service) and made all sorts of spurious claims. I think I took some photos, but they quite quickly removed them. Maybe the ASA got them then too!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Nah, that's the actual size of the London Eye when viewed from the bridge at Tottenham Hale.
krus_aragon
Established Member
Except, as the Post Office counties discussion above touched on, Glamorgan doesn't exist any more!
On the up side, Rhoose station is only 33 minutes from Cardiff Central.
Except, as the Post Office counties discussion above touched on, Glamorgan doesn't exist any more!
On the up side, Rhoose station is only 33 minutes from Cardiff Central.
Isn't there stilla Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan though?!
I think it should just be caleld Cardiff Airport really!
Isn't there stilla Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan though?!
I think it should just be caleld Cardiff Airport really!
They certainly have a cricket team. England just thrashed Pakistan at their home ground (which isn't called Sophia Gardens any more) twice in one week. Mind you, Herefordshire and Worcestershire still exist in the cricketing world.
Just found an interesting article about airports and locations. Top 10: Ryanair Airports Furthest From City. No wonder I always go by Eurostar.
Yes, and, for a change, they're doing alright this year in the County Championship, looking good for promotion to Div 1!
Even more annoying is when they don't have your county available as the drop down from a list! I have had computer generated letters addressed to my address in Bristol as in Avon (abolished 1996), Bristol (yes, I often get letters addressed Bristol, Bristol), City of Bristol (the correct one), Gloucestershire or Somerset
jamesontheroad
Established Member
I can see this thread has veered off topic a bit 
Similarly off-topic, earlier this year I flew with Ryanair from Prestwick to Stansted. About two hours before of the Stansted departure two separate people started doing the rounds of the departure hall, punting prepaid tickets to Stansted-bound passengers. One was getting commission from Stansted Express (she even had a little stand, littered with grammatical errors) and the other getting commission for selling Terravision bus tickets. She even used the lounge P/A system during a quieter moment to announce her prepaid tickets and the journey time, but got very shirty with the ground staff when the Terravision guy did the same thing. I don't think she was happy that there was someone else in the lounge pimping much cheaper tickets in to London ...
Similarly off-topic, earlier this year I flew with Ryanair from Prestwick to Stansted. About two hours before of the Stansted departure two separate people started doing the rounds of the departure hall, punting prepaid tickets to Stansted-bound passengers. One was getting commission from Stansted Express (she even had a little stand, littered with grammatical errors) and the other getting commission for selling Terravision bus tickets. She even used the lounge P/A system during a quieter moment to announce her prepaid tickets and the journey time, but got very shirty with the ground staff when the Terravision guy did the same thing. I don't think she was happy that there was someone else in the lounge pimping much cheaper tickets in to London ...
It it not nice at Stansted (or Gatwick) where BAA - although BAA no longer has Gatwick - had a pretty good deal (dare I say cartel?) going with a single taxi firm, ensuring ridiculous rates - even to Bishops Stortford that isn't far. Between the coaches, cabs and Stansted Express, it seems that people flying low-cost airlines are considered fair game.
Trying to keep on-topic (rail anyway), when will people realise that flying is getting much more expensive and the only reason it appears to still be good value is because airlines are so clever at keeping the headline figures down, then charging for everything on top - and letting people think they're given real choice. Like Apple fanboys, some will insist that it's cheap and that if you pay too much, it's your fault - nobody told you to bring friends and family, or dare to carry a bag. In fact, bags cause delays; you should be charged more!
So, you pay your bargain 50p for a flight; then pay to check in, add a bit for buying the ticket with your debit card, then pay to take a bag, to get your seat, to go to the toilet, to get to the distant airport in the first place and buy some crap food onboard - oh and £50-60 for airport tax (but you don't count that, obviously, as it's not the airlines fault)!
And then you tell everyone it was cheaper than taking the train.
I have booked two Aer Lingus flights to Dublin for next month. Flights were free - but I paid £140 in total, and they wanted another £80 for me to pick my seats so we could sit together!
Sorry, this isn't really getting back on topic at all is it!
Trying to keep on-topic (rail anyway), when will people realise that flying is getting much more expensive and the only reason it appears to still be good value is because airlines are so clever at keeping the headline figures down, then charging for everything on top - and letting people think they're given real choice. Like Apple fanboys, some will insist that it's cheap and that if you pay too much, it's your fault - nobody told you to bring friends and family, or dare to carry a bag. In fact, bags cause delays; you should be charged more!
So, you pay your bargain 50p for a flight; then pay to check in, add a bit for buying the ticket with your debit card, then pay to take a bag, to get your seat, to go to the toilet, to get to the distant airport in the first place and buy some crap food onboard - oh and £50-60 for airport tax (but you don't count that, obviously, as it's not the airlines fault)!
And then you tell everyone it was cheaper than taking the train.
I have booked two Aer Lingus flights to Dublin for next month. Flights were free - but I paid £140 in total, and they wanted another £80 for me to pick my seats so we could sit together!
Sorry, this isn't really getting back on topic at all is it!
No, but never mind!
People need to compare the true costs of travel rather than the perceived ones. With airlines, this means the cost of getting to the airport, parking, taxes, luggage charges, speedy boarding, credit card charges, booking fees or whatever.
For cars, this means the true running costs per mile, plus depreciation, or a part of the amount you might be paying per month in order to have bought a car in the first place!
This also applies when comparing trains and buses from airprots like Stansted. Price is a factor, so is speed and convenience, and I daresay comfort also has a role to play! But we also have to consider our ultimate destination - and we may decide to sacrifice speed for comfort and convenience especially if we have a lot of bags.
People need to compare the true costs of travel rather than the perceived ones. With airlines, this means the cost of getting to the airport, parking, taxes, luggage charges, speedy boarding, credit card charges, booking fees or whatever.
For cars, this means the true running costs per mile, plus depreciation, or a part of the amount you might be paying per month in order to have bought a car in the first place!
This also applies when comparing trains and buses from airprots like Stansted. Price is a factor, so is speed and convenience, and I daresay comfort also has a role to play! But we also have to consider our ultimate destination - and we may decide to sacrifice speed for comfort and convenience especially if we have a lot of bags.
In the case of a car, I accept that if you've got the car anyway (whether you bought a cheap one to run into the ground, or a luxury one on finance because you want creature comforts) then you can argue that it gets cheaper the more you use it - bar fuel and depreciation.
You always own your car, whereas you'll never buy your own plane or train (maybe the former, rather unlikely the latter!). That does make a car harder to compare, and I prefer to look at public transport as offering other advantages - such as speed, getting into the centre of town, saving on parking charges, allowing me to work/relax/drink/sleep and so on.
For long distances, flying is the only option - but let's not kid ourselves that it's cheap when the airlines are just playing games with us all.
You always own your car, whereas you'll never buy your own plane or train (maybe the former, rather unlikely the latter!). That does make a car harder to compare, and I prefer to look at public transport as offering other advantages - such as speed, getting into the centre of town, saving on parking charges, allowing me to work/relax/drink/sleep and so on.
For long distances, flying is the only option - but let's not kid ourselves that it's cheap when the airlines are just playing games with us all.
O L Leigh
Established Member
What sort of distance would you classify as "long"?
A few years back I was required by my then employer to go to Edinburgh. I have Stansted more or less in my back yard so I insisted that, as I was supposed to make the trip by air, that I would go from there and not Gatwick as everyone else would. The short version of the tale is that by the time I'd reached Edinburgh city centre I could have done the trip just as quickly and, more importantly, in greater convenience if I'd been allowed to travel by train as I had requested. Plus I wouldn't have been treated by various members of SleazyJet's staff as if I was something unpleasant they'd just trodden in.
The return leg was even more of a joke.
O L Leigh
IMO, "long" needs to be at least 1,000 miles. That's a two-hour flight at least, maybe three-hour, so you're talking medium-haul. Either that, or crossing a large body of water, so the only alternative would be a ferry. Island-hopping is pricey, but quick, compared with ferries, and some shorter routes have a true speed advantage because of operational factors. Paris-Marseilles is TGV hands down, but Marseilles-Bordeaux would be more attractive as a route, because that's cross-country and the TGV is a radial network (don't know if anyone flies that route, but never mind).
I used to call them "LazyJet". On the Aberdeen-Luton route, their punctuality record in 2005 with me on board was 30 minutes late, 2 hours late, on time, 2 hours late, 30 minutes late, 5 hours late. After that, I never flew with them again. I only ever flew with them if I had a late practical on Friday, otherwise it was 14:55 ABD-KGX (which usually arrived earlier, even allowing for the three-hour head start). The other alternative, BA to Gatwick then Thameslink/WAGN was more punctual, but a right pain in the backside, and virtually never saved any time. That's the effect of having a good rail link competing, Aberdeen-Southampton would have been a much more attractive flight option because of the time saving (although I would usually avoid it).
The train is better imho for such trips! To me anyway, long distance means places like Greece, Tenerife, North Africa, Moscow, where the alternatives to the plane (though they do exist!) involve very lengthy journeys indeed!
Geezertronic
Established Member
- Status