![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If you were going to fly in and out of London, and the price was the same either way you did it, would you choose Gatwick or Stansted? Those are the choices, and there is apparently only a fifteen minute difference in arrival or departure.
The passenger has no special destination in London -- he's jusgt messing around on his way to California and back to Prague.
(our cheapest places to fly in and out of appeared to be London, Shannon, Dublin, Nice, Manchester, Krakow, and Malaga, in that order. The easiest places for him to get to, he said, were London and Krakow. London's cheaper than Krakow. Also probably simpler to wander in for a few days, though also probably more expensive to hang around in)
on another front, I have deadheaded the front roses. The first bloon is just about over.
The passenger has no special destination in London -- he's jusgt messing around on his way to California and back to Prague.
(our cheapest places to fly in and out of appeared to be London, Shannon, Dublin, Nice, Manchester, Krakow, and Malaga, in that order. The easiest places for him to get to, he said, were London and Krakow. London's cheaper than Krakow. Also probably simpler to wander in for a few days, though also probably more expensive to hang around in)
on another front, I have deadheaded the front roses. The first bloon is just about over.
no subject
Stansted has excellent and frequent trains to London (and Cambridge) and it's small and easy to deal with. Every single time I've been to Gatwick in my entire life it's been hell on wheels, and the trains to Victoria have been overcrowded and running late. Also, there aren't any buses, unless they've just got some. I've just paid $200 to avoid Gatwick this summer.