Comments on: Oh last I heard she's sleeping rough/back on the Heathrow Beat

Oh last I heard she's sleeping rough/back on the Heathrow Beat

dw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:40 -0800

All those passengers delayed amid the chaotic opening of Heathrow Airport's new Terminal 5? Some are actually homeless locals wearing "floral shirts, fanny packs and other travel accessories to blend in."

By: DU

DU — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:44:54 -0800

And their increasing creativity — and ability to disappear in Heathrow's swelling crowds of delayed passengers — has prompted the airport to try a new approach. I would like to point out the unexamined assumption here. Why must any approach be taken at all? If passengers sleeping on the furniture is OK, why not people who are indistinguishable from them? Of course, I've never gotten how homelessness is still a problem. It would take, what, maybe 10 minutes of the Iraq war's funding to set these people all up with their own homes, jobs and/or psychiatric help?

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:50:44 -0800

Of course, I've never gotten how homelessness is still a problem. Because human will isn't some homogeneous substance that comes out of a central bucket and can be applied equally to each and every situation?

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:51:19 -0800

Oof, I hope Terminal 5's problems are over by next month with the wife and I will be flying in to England for two weeks. I mean, given how frazzled we look when we fly and the continued tanking of the dollar, we'll be pretty much indistinguishable from hobos anyways. I'd hate to get caught up in a sweep!

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:51:50 -0800

It would take, what, maybe 10 minutes of the Iraq war's funding to set these people all up with their own homes, jobs and/or psychiatric help? Yes, but that would be communism.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:52:02 -0800

It would take, what, maybe 10 minutes of the Iraq war's funding to set these people all up with their own homes, jobs and/or psychiatric help? they're not blowing themselves up in public places, no one cares.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:54:06 -0800

One BA insider told how baggage came off the first flight from Hong Kong only because senior managers had helped to unload them from the aircraft. Heh. I wonder how long they thought they could keep that up.

By: Naberius

Naberius — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:59:43 -0800

they're not blowing themselves up in public places, no one cares. As a writer, just let me say that this thread has already paid for my metafilter initiation fee in mind-twisting ideas.

By: mhoye

mhoye — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:14:38 -0800

That would certainly explain why a full ten thousand of the fifteen thousand pieces of lost luggage at Terminal 5 are shopping carts full of soda cans.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:16:25 -0800

Perhaps they should just shut down the terminal for the night. Reminds me of one of the times my parents came to visit me in Japan. They had to leave from Nagoya Airport (it was still located just north of the city at that time) on mid-morning flight back to Canada. They thought they could save money on a hotel (maybe $120?) and bus and taxi fare by arriving the night before and staying at the airport until their flight left the next day (I had to go back to work). So, we got to the airport at about 9 or 10 in the evening, and my parents hunkered down in the nearly-deserted terminal. About ten minutes passed before a security guard came over and said "We're closing the airport for the night - get out!" So I had to take them into town where they stayed at a business hotel. I had to drive back home (about an hour up the highway), but I kept getting phone calls from my mother, worried about "people walking by outside on the street". It was Japan, so I told here not to worry.

By: mincus

mincus — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:18:44 -0800

My wife and I spent a night at Heathrow to see if we could catch an early flight back to the states. It was incredibly odd to say the least. The only thing that made it bearable was the fact that we figured out how to get free internet from the kiosks. In the morning when food places started to open back up, they had to clear out the people that had snuck into the eating areas to sleep on the tables. It was really surreal to watch them emerge.

By: jontyjago

jontyjago — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:22:13 -0800

Perhaps they should just shut down the terminal for the night I think this is only happening because since T5 opened on Thursday about 50 flights have been cancelled every day, so they are hundreds, if not thousands of fare-paying passengers with nowhere to go to wait for their next available flight. The article says the homeless people are making the most of travel delays. I'm assuming that once the delays have been sorted, the terminal will be closing after the last flight leaves. I'm pretty sure this is the case for the other 4 Heathrow terminals.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:22:47 -0800

I saw the movie. It starred Tom Hanks.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:45 -0800

"These men and women may seem to embody the English tradition of the plucky Dickensian Dodger" - WTF? No, these sound like pretty generic homeless people - they need a warm place to hang out and one was available so they drifted in.

By: rusty

rusty — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0800

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:59 -0800

The airport in our city keeps the homeless out by being 20 miles away from the actual city.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:31:51 -0800

That's what Londons well heated underground homeless-transportation system is for.

By: The Straightener

The Straightener — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:32:18 -0800

I think the majority of people still feel that homelessness is an acceptable form of punishment for choosing to not participate in the labor force. It crystallizes a persistent set of misunderstandings about the causes of the problem that advocates have struggled to clarify in recent years. I think headway's been made; more and more people understand that refusal to participate in the labor market is the cause behind very few cases of actual chronic, persistent homelessness.

By: quin

quin — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:42:05 -0800

Yes, but that would be communism. I've long believed when you are at the very bottom, all economic models look pretty much the same: "Are we standing out to get government shoes tonight, comrade?" "Didn't you hear? There was a big switch. We are capitalists now!" "That is excellent news for us, I guess. So... Are we standing outside of the soup kitchen then?"

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:43:03 -0800

I'm still worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got there.

By: sandking

sandking — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:44:56 -0800

I'm so worried about the new baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow!

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:46:32 -0800

Heathrow has a baggage retrieval system? I thought it was strictly a one-way conduit. To the plane of elemenental chaos.

By: gallois

gallois — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:48:36 -0800

What The Straightener said. There's an implicit assumption that unless you're a productive participant in society you haven't earned entitlement to the goods and comforts society has to offer and you can go freeze your ass off in a bus kiosk until you get religion. It's convenient to dismiss the suffering of others while the stage managers of civilization hustle them off to the sidelines so we don't have to look at them. Directly helping those in distress is considered socialism, yet market forces have yet to deem them human (unless there's a buck to be made off of it somehow.)

By: DU

DU — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:03:12 -0800

Because human will isn't some homogeneous substance that comes out of a central bucket and can be applied equally to each and every situation? Wha? By this argument, if I understand it, nothing would ever get done above the level of the individual.

By: eriko

eriko — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:03:28 -0800

Oof, I hope Terminal 5's problems are over by next month with the wife and I will be flying in to England for two weeks. It won't affect you unless you are flying BA. If you are, be aware that BA hasn't moved the entire operation to T5 yet, there's still about 150 departures from T4, so you might have a T5-T4 change in your future, which looks to be a PITA. You won't want to use the Tube for this one -- you'll have to go to T 1-2-3, then to T4. The HEX might be a better option, but I don't know if the HEX is running to T5, or how it connects. There will doubtless be buses and the like as well. That's what Londons well heated underground homeless-transportation system is for. Which doesn't run at night, and they really notice you sleeping on the night buses. As if you could sleep on your typical night bus.

By: eriko

eriko — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:07:38 -0800

Correcting myself -- if you're flying a airline that's just starting to fly to LHR thanks to Open Skies, this *might* affect you. If BA can't get out of T4, there may not be gates for airlines like Delta and Continental, who can finally fly to LHR. Before, only four airlines had rights to fly US-LHR and back -- UA and AA on the American side, BA and VA on the UK side. If you're on UA, AA or VA, you'll be fine. Other than having to deal with Terminal 3. Bring your walking shoes -- T3 is *big* and there will be a great deal of walking.

By: ~

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:28:17 -0800

Wha? By this argument, if I understand it, nothing would ever get done above the level of the individual. No, you're both vastly oversimplifying. He or she was suggesting that one cannot look at a certain use of labour, capital, creativity and passion in a modern economy and simply redirect it towards another goal. That said, the original poster was obscuring the problem, since even though economic activity is part of a complex dynamic arrangement, it's hard to imagine that we do not have the resources to solve homelessness. Even without defining that point carefully, I certainly believe that we do. There might be less separating your two points of view than you think, if you were to discuss it in a generous frame of mind, perhaps over a nice cup of coffee or tea.

By: aihal

aihal — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:32:53 -0800

To the plane of elemental chaos. That'll be an Aeroflot flight, right?

By: ALongDecember

ALongDecember — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:34:48 -0800

Couldn't an airport homeless problem be solved by requiring everyone in the terminal to have a boarding pass, like the US does? Does the UK not do this?

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:37:07 -0800

Say what you like about the Tu-154 (Nato codename: Careless) (possible things you might like to say: Those crash a lot), the Aeroflot flight I had on one had the most legroom of any flight I've ever been on.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:38:59 -0800

Couldn't an airport homeless problem be solved by requiring everyone in the terminal to have a boarding pass, like the US does? Does the UK not do this? In prtty much any airport (including in the US) theres a bit of the terminal before you check in and a bit of the terminal after you check in. I would suspect these travellers are not getting to check in.

By: DU

DU — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:44:29 -0800

..if you were to discuss it in a generous frame of mind, perhaps over a nice cup of coffee or tea. You must be new to the Internet.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:53:41 -0800

You gotta wonder, though: are they really gonna blend in with fanny packs? Does anyone still wear those things?

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:56:43 -0800

BTW, dw, nice Richard Thompson reference there in your title.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:00:09 -0800

I beleive that it IS still possible to see American tourist in traditional garb when traveling through the airports of Europe, yes.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:03:30 -0800

Arriving at Heathrow is like deplaning directly into the third world. I swear the last time I was there someone was killing and plucking a (formerly) live chicken, in preparation for roasting it over an impromptu mid-terminal campfire. This was after an extremely long night with a very unhappy toddler, mind you, so I may have been hallucinating. Have you flown into D.C. lately? Specifically Dulles? At the right time of night that, my friend, is nearly indistinguishable from Entebbe International Airport. Complete with machine gun toting goons, desperate screams from interrogation rooms, and broken pipes leaking god knows what down walls. My favorite airport is Zurich. It's just like the space station from 2001.

By: Stonestock Relentless

Stonestock Relentless — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:21:51 -0800

I'm interested in the Dickensian aspects of this new Terminal.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:09:10 -0800

Presumably it has cobblestones.

By: Nick Verstayne

Nick Verstayne — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:28:38 -0800

As a young Local Government Clerk for Hounslow Council back in 1990 I was charged with compiling the Council's formal response to the Local Government Boundary Commission's final proposals for Hounslow, Spelthorne and Hillingdon Councils' The principal problem? Heathrow Airport lay in an area that straddled the boundaries of all three local government areas. By the time I was tasked with the problem, a draft report had already suggested uniting the entire airport with Hounslow's boundaries. Hounslow, in those days, was, and had been for the longest time, a staunchly Labour controlled borough, and had been opposed to the expansion of Heathrow (both Terminal 5 and Runway 3 were very much in the plans). Hounslow, lying on an approximate east west line (more or less directly under the final approach ofmost aircraft landing at Heathrow) had a lot of skin in the game. Spelthorne was a small district council, not a London Borough, so no one thought they'd get the decision; Hillingdon at the time was Tory controlled, but the Airport was at its very southern tip, and had little or no overflight and noise pollution issues. There was a Tory government in Westminster at the time. Guess what happened – The Boundary Commission, in an astonishing u-turn, decided at the last minute to alter the boundary to the BAA-friendly Hillingdon Council, leaving Hounslow Council, and me, twisting in the limp windsock of political backstabbing. And my former colleagues still to this day accuse me of misplacing an airport.

By: Nick Verstayne

Nick Verstayne — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:34:16 -0800

OK so that first sentence could do with some better grammar - the responses were to the Boundary Commission, but you get my drift.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:38:37 -0800

Nick - You do kind of make it sound like the Hounslow decision would have been a disaster for the airport.

By: birdherder

birdherder — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:53:33 -0800

I thought in Britain "fanny" was meant something else than it does in the US.

By: Foam Pants

Foam Pants — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:01:21 -0800

The last time I visited an airport, they don't let you past the baggage checkin without a ticket and an ID. How are these folks even making it in with their shopping carts? I hope they have all of their liquids in small bottles and collected in one plastic bag. These people could have lucrative careers training al qaeda to be sneaky. I'm going to go check the back bedroom for people who have snuck in posing as a relative.

By: Nick Verstayne

Nick Verstayne — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:12:10 -0800

Artw - you may be right. They might - just might - only have 4 terminals and 2 runways right now. I do concede, though, that the whole debate has been contentious even in Hounslow. There are a boatload of local people who have jobs at the airport. Our offices at the council were directly under one of the principal final landing approaches - we used to go for lunch at a pub around the corner, and every minute and a half or so the aircraft came over - silencing the conversation in the pub's garden seating area. Twice a week or so I played football (ok, soccer) at Feltham Arena, which was even closer to the runway, and when Concord came over (at five past six every evening, I think) we had to stop and cover our ears. Sort of makes you want to have a say on how the airport is run - not that it would be much.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:15:41 -0800

birdherder- You are correct, and they used to be called "bum bags" in the UK. Now their fanny packs and everyone knows that in that particular usage fanny is not fanny. That's creeping Americanization for you. Nick - Go with football. Fuck the yankie imperialist pig dogs and their half-assed stop-go Rugby variant.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:03 -0800

I thought in Britain "fanny" was meant something else than it does in the US. I think it just means the same. Though, you don't see homeless people called "bums" in this article because that would be like fanny.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:22 -0800

Oh, and I'm going to have to stop to get misty eyed at the thought of the demise of Concord (clearly impractical and doomed for years as it was)

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:26:44 -0800

Ah Concorde...

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:32:00 -0800

...you don't see homeless people called "bums" in this article because that would be like fanny. Hmmm... Bum packs? Creeping Americanized bum packs? For your creeping Americanized bum?

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:35:46 -0800

Bum BAGS. Pay attention!

By: Nick Verstayne

Nick Verstayne — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:16:37 -0800

But they're not worn over the bum so much, are they? They're worn over the fanny. Or at least for 51% of the population - not that the beloved 51sters are all fanny pack wearers (fanny packers?) or anything. OK - back to the beer.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:21:27 -0800

I've heard of people attempting a sort of over-the-chest bandolier way of wearing them, but I beleive that sort of thing is best left to Italians.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:56:42 -0800

Bum BAGS. Pay attention! To what? We're talking fanny bags, now? Guess I missed the memo. Otherwise, bum is Brit for fanny, no? Perhaps an expert on the subject (that is, Artw) might confirm this?

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:59:45 -0800

Sigh... Acceptable in the UK: Bum Bag Fanny Pack (may raise sniggers in some quarters) Acceptable in the US: Fanny Pack Not accepted anywhere: Fanny Bag Bum Pack Fanny Bag would probably get you hit if you used it in conversation in a pub.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:03:17 -0800

Thanks so much for clearing this all up, Artie! It's just amazing the things you can learn on MetaFilter!

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:05:24 -0800

"Fanny bag" just raises horrible images of some kind of medical or contraceptive device.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:09:52 -0800

Oh, absolutely. And in fact, soon after those things appeared on the market, lots of folks in the states were already derisively referring to them as colostomy bags. Charming.

By: aihal

aihal — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:25:02 -0800

I thought in Britain "fanny" was meant something else than it does in the US. I think it just means the same. American 'fanny' is a euphemism for bottom, which we Brits call a 'bum'. British 'fanny' is a euphemism for vagina, which you Americans call 'bananas'.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:29:26 -0800

Also next time you guys pop over to jolly old Londontowne UK to have some eel pies and warm beers you should definately ask for the best places to go "cottaging", which is a delightful quaint english passtime.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:30:43 -0800

And by "you guys" I mean "chaps" obviously. Pip pip and all that! Toodleloo! dammit

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:32:58 -0800

Yes! We have no bananas! We have no bananas today! Always knew there was a deeper meaning to that song...

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:35:22 -0800

The pants/trousers/underwear thing is hilarious if you want to bring that up, and I'm sure we could get several dozen comments out of it.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:38:53 -0800

Well, it'd be derail territory for sure, but... Here in Japan, "pants" means underpants, so that word sometimes gets a giggle out of little kids.

By: webhund

webhund — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:05:05 -0800

I heard on the news this morning that T5 was 19 years in the making. 19 years and they can't get it right? Oh well, at least we Americans apparently no longer have a monopoly on new airport fiascos.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:15:06 -0800

The last time I visited an airport, they don't let you past the baggage checkin without a ticket and an ID. How are these folks even making it in with their shopping carts? Many airports have open concourses and shopping/dining areas adjacent to ticketing counters -- and far from the security check-in areas and boarding gate areas. The new terminal 5/Heathrow has plenty of dining and shopping in these public areas. Many international airports here in the States boast similar "public areas" -- such as the Philadelphia MarketPlace at Philadelphia's airport.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:15:42 -0800

...at least we Americans apparently no longer have a monopoly on new airport fiascos. The relatively new Kansai International has been losing money for years: a big fat debacle, Japan-style.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:22:40 -0800

Another example: Boston Logan's Terminal C -- pre-security amenities and shops.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:28:19 -0800

And lest we forget the shopping, dining and slot machine banks ("Nothing says Las Vegas like the sound of slot machines. Take a chance on one of the many popular games located throughout...") at Las Vegas's McCarran Airport.

By: rusty

rusty — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:33:37 -0800

tkchrist: No, haven't been to Dulles in ages, thank God. I always thought the worst thing about Dulles was the weird travelling waiting rooms. And the fact that it was considered an airport serving DC, despite being statistically almost certainly farther from DC than wherever you started. I can imagine with the current state of airports in general, it hasn't gotten any better.

By: ArkhanJG

ArkhanJG — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:35:09 -0800

And just think - London is putting on the olympics in 4 years. If one of our biggest companies can't handle the opening of its new terminal that's been in the works for nearly 2 decades, mainly due to completely shitty training, understaffing and lack of testing - how the hell are we going to run something as complex as the olympics? Especially with the heavy emphasis on eco-friendly public transport. London 2012 is going to make Atlanta '96 look like it had a really well run, undercommercialised games with an excellent transport system.

By: flummox

flummox — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:36:20 -0800

April Fools?

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:18:36 -0800

Ah well, maybe the China thing will put people off the Olympics for the next decade or so...

By: loiseau

loiseau — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:56:02 -0800

sleepinginairports.net

By: the cydonian

the cydonian — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:35:43 -0800

Just to pitch in with a totally off-topic Indian perspective, they just opened a new airport in Hyderabad and apparently, people are now going to the airport for a picnic. Which, of course, is only slightly better than Changi Airport here in Singapore. In Singapore, many school-kids prepare for their exams and such at the airport; apparently, it's quite calming and peaceful for them.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:57:35 -0800

Many international airports here in the States boast similar "public areas" -- such as the Philadelphia MarketPlace at Philadelphia's airport. I think this is behind security.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:06:27 -0800

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:00:25 -0800

Changi Airport here in Singapore Which really is the gold standard of commercial airports...

By: garius

garius — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:41:20 -0800

The funny part is you could probably fly to a different airport in a different english city and take the train to london - it is probably just as fast. The downside is that London has no awareness of the rest of England at all so the locals would never do it. So instead they build a larger and larger dysfunctional airport and moan about it like it was inevitable and they had no choice. Then it rains. I read this and thought: "Midlander" And lo, it was so... Not that you're wrong, by the way - this Londoner agrees with you completely. Heathrow needs to exist, because quite frankly more people want to visit us than visit you and therefore not having a major international airport within spitting distance of the capital would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean, however, that having an epic airport out in the sticks somewhere with some bad-arse high speed rail links and a couple of eight-lane motorways linking it up to the lands of both the southern pansies and northern monkeys wouldn't be a bloody good idea though. Not every journey needs to take place within 15 minutes walk of a tube train. Basically Terminal 5 was a good excuse to stop, think about it for a second, and then demolish Northampton and replace it with a new mega-airport but we didn't take it.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:25:25 -0800

Heathrow needs to exist, because quite frankly more people want to visit us than visit you and therefore not having a major international airport within spitting distance of the capital would be ludicrous. Notice I never suggested anybody actually visit the Midlands. It's worse than just being a midlander though. I am a Canadian by way of Toronto which doesn't even really have an airport. YYZ is in a different city (Mississauga - big ups 905!) because it makes more sense to put an airport where it can fit. When I visited London before moving here I was surprised how painful getting to and from Heathrow was and how strange it was that the major train lines, or at least the ones I needed, didn't come near it. Birmingham's airport is a nice lovely small airport - easily accessible by train, no lost luggage woes, almost never any cancellations. The only problem with it is that it is in Birmingham.

By: Nick Verstayne

Nick Verstayne — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:11:02 -0800

The funny part is you could probably fly to a different airport in a different english city and take the train to london - You can. - It's called Stanstead. Rather marketingly called "London Stanstead", which is just hillarious.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:36:28 -0800

No, I do not want to get off a major international flight and put up with the Midlands. Thanks!

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:27:25 -0800

Supermodel Campbell arrested at T5