SN Brussels to London City

sab319 · Post by **sab319** » 22 Dec 2004, 17:26

When travelling Eurostar you only have to be at the station 30 mins before departure vs 2 hours when flying. Besides Eurostar goes from Center to center so you don't have to get an airport transfer too...

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 22 Dec 2004, 17:59

Comet: you are just irritating people on purpose, isn't it? Djeezes...

@sab319: you can check-in for your VG flight until 30 minutes before departure.

@Yvo: VG have no flights on January 22 between BRU and LCY. I tried January 20-23 (Thursday to Sunday), and depending on the departure time, the fare was €130-160-190 return tax inclusive. A morning departure - evening return was possible for €160.

@the pro-Eurostar brigade over here

: why take the train if you can fly BA?

Frederic

OO-SBZ · Post by **OO-SBZ** » 22 Dec 2004, 19:43

Sabena_690 wrote:@Comet: you are just irritating people on purpose, isn't it? Djeezes...

It looks like she aims to replace the Iron Lady, aka M. Thatcher 8O

Sabena_690 wrote:@the pro-Eurostar brigade over here : why take the train if you can fly BA?

Well, as a new member of the "pro-Eurosta brigade", I admit i joined it for a simple reason.
Cheap fares on BA flights tend to sell rather -too- quickly whereas low-priced tickets are available up to 21 days before the departure of the Eurostar...

However, if a member of the "pro-VLM brigade" is ready to offer me a return BRU-LCY ticket, I would be delighted to fly this carrier and post a report afterwards.

Moreover should VLM consider a LGG-LCY route (

) I would be happy to be invited on the launch flight

Regards

BeN

Note to Mr VLM: Ever considered LGG-LCY?

BRU-CPH · Post by **BRU-CPH** » 22 Dec 2004, 20:41

Ozzie1969 wrote: By the way, BRU-CPH : I can understand your reasoning with congestion making short haul flights perhaps undesirable in the future, but trains don't run on water either, you know. With such a small percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources, your train is going to be polluting as well!

There is the Chunnel to the UK, and to destinations in mainland Europe you don't have to cross water.
Of course trains are also polluting, but not that much than (short-haul) planes are doing.

London isn't that much further than Paris, and if you see what happened with the Paris bound flights to Brussels, one can foresee what is going to happen with London flights once the High Speed Rail Link will be finished in England...

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 22 Dec 2004, 21:58

BRU-CPH wrote:
Ozzie1969 wrote: By the way, BRU-CPH : I can understand your reasoning with congestion making short haul flights perhaps undesirable in the future, but trains don't run on water either, you know. With such a small percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources, your train is going to be polluting as well!

There is the Chunnel to the UK, and to destinations in mainland Europe you don't have to cross water.
Of course trains are also polluting, but not that much than (short-haul) planes are doing.

London isn't that much further than Paris, and if you see what happened with the Paris bound flights to Brussels, one can foresee what is going to happen with London flights once the High Speed Rail Link will be finished in England...

Well, that high speed rail link has definitely cost enough to the tax payer, so we might as well use it, I guess. Didn't KLM stop flying between AMS and CDG recently (or did they announce it for the near future, I can't quite remember). I certainly have no problem taking the train instead of an airplane, if it gets me where I want to be faster and/or cheaper, and possible as close to my ultimate destination as possible. But what if there are no more flights between A and B, only a rail link? If a person living in A has to get to B to catch a flight to C, does it really help if he has to take the train which brings him to the center of B, but not at the airport of B where he's supposed to be? People in Belgium know all to well that to get out of Europe, one almost always has to make a stop at a larger (larger than BRU) airport in one of the neighbouring countries. But if I went on a shopping trip to London, I for one would always prefer to take the train over a flight.

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 22 Dec 2004, 22:32

Hi BRU-CPH.
I'm totaly agree with you .
Regards
Pat

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 22 Dec 2004, 22:52

@Ozzie: KL stop flying between AMS and CDG? En contraire: thanks to the partnership between KL and AF, more than 15 daily flights are offered between both hubs (operated by both KL and AF).

Going by Thalys from AMS to CDG isn't easy at the moment, due to the long time it takes.

Frederic

Post by **sn26567** » 23 Dec 2004, 09:26

Ozzie1969 wrote:But what if there are no more flights between A and B, only a rail link? If a person living in A has to get to B to catch a flight to C, does it really help if he has to take the train which brings him to the center of B, but not at the airport of B where he's supposed to be?

That's why more and more high speed train stations are built at airports (CDG, AMS, FRA, LYS, ... and even Thalys goes to BRU).

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 23 Dec 2004, 12:19

sn26567 wrote: That's why more and more high speed train stations are built at airports (CDG, AMS, FRA, LYS, ... and even Thalys goes to BRU).

And if you are really lucky you can bag a heavy duty with double decker carriages at BRU as well! That is a better bagging than the Thalys.

(And don't anyone say that locos cannot go into the airport station because I have the photos to prove that they can

)

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 23 Dec 2004, 12:50

If we discuss about money, then it all cascades down to saving.

If we discuss about class, then service is the key issue.

But in both the cases, have we not experienced that people are always demanding more when given the basics.

I read somewhere that more than the cost aspect QUALITY IS A STATE OF THE MIND.

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 23 Dec 2004, 16:09

Sabena_690 wrote:.. more than 15 daily flights are offered between both hubs (operated by both KL and AF).

Going by Thalys from AMS to CDG isn't easy at the moment, due to the long time it takes.

Frederic

Even if you had a fast and confortable train link between the 2 airports (which should be the case in a near future), I bet that the airlink will still prevail.
Because as you said Frederic, the 2 airports being integrated by the joint KL/AF operation, this link is vital for the transit flow of both companies and therefore the integration of their respective network.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 23 Dec 2004, 20:06

In my opinion we shouldn't compare this situation with the AMS-CDG situation. As sn-remember mentioned, due to the KL/AF alliance the link might well be kept alive.

Sabena_690 wrote: @the pro-Eurostar brigade over here : why take the train if you can fly BA?

We all know that, "we" aviation enthusiasts will most of the time prefer the airlink opposed to the train link, but if we think in a practical way a train link from BRU to the center of london can be very convenient as well.
This being said, I would be delighted to take the BA plane to LHR for 99€

Chris

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 23 Dec 2004, 21:07

@Chris: I agree that, for the 'normal' people (read: non-aviation enthusiastics) wanting to go to the Centre of London, the Eurostar wins hands down! Not only in terms of price, but also in terms of 'easiness' (is this a correct English word?).

Frederic

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 24 Dec 2004, 00:00

Sabena_690 wrote:@Ozzie: KL stop flying between AMS and CDG? En contraire: thanks to the partnership between KL and AF, more than 15 daily flights are offered between both hubs (operated by both KL and AF).

Going by Thalys from AMS to CDG isn't easy at the moment, due to the long time it takes.

Frederic

My mistake! Apparently the link between ROTTerdam and Paris has been discontinued.