Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Calixare t1_j9jwmkk wrote

Such a naming is absolutely stupid idea IMO. All you need as a passenger is a city name only.

−3

DameKumquat t1_j9jxfas wrote

You need more than that - London has at least 6 airports. But a specific place name should suffice.

(London Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City, Southend, Oxford, Biggin Hill, Heliport, RAF Northolt, Lydd...)

15

UncleSnowstorm t1_j9ka7k4 wrote

I never got why Oxford airport was called "London Oxford". It's 70 miles away from London.

4

bdh2 t1_j9le19y wrote

That's the same metro here in the states

−1

UncleSnowstorm t1_j9lh7cw wrote

But the UK is much more densely populated. You travel for 70 miles in England and you've passed 3 cities.

Nobody is considering Oxford to be part of the London metro area.

2

bdh2 t1_j9li762 wrote

I get it, but do you think the other 7-8 billion all do?

−3

UncleSnowstorm t1_j9lqxb7 wrote

I think anybody who thinks they've booked a flight to London and lands in Oxford is going to be confused and annoyed.

2

bdh2 t1_j9m0hbr wrote

Y'all are down voting me for telling the truth that most of the world isn't London. Yeah 70 miles is far, but if the price is right for the flight, its London.

1

xFlo2212 t1_j9owte3 wrote

The truth that London isn't the whole world, is kind of irrelevant talking regarding that the conversation focused specifically on London, taking its specific situation into consideration.

My assumption is that people really don't see your point.

1

john_vandenberghe OP t1_j9jx2cf wrote

That's one opinion. Though, I think it can be a nice way to honor a national or local hero, like naming the gateway to your country. Though I wish there were more scientists and fewer politicians.

7