skychai - 29/07/2010 23:23 GMT
BA are in talks with JAL and BAA regarding JAL's relocation into T5 of their Heathrow operation. I wonder which routes BA will move to T3 to facilitate this.
BA and JAL at T5
Posts
VintageKrug - 30/07/2010 05:40 GMT
This was reported elsewhere as having been announced on the BA Intranet yesterday afternoon.
It makes sense, I suppose, as it's only one flight per day (I think), BA is deepening its codeshare relationship with JL and it would mean JL could close its (rather basic) lounge offering at T3.
I wouldn't imagine it would require BA moving any flights out of T5, especially once T5C comes into being. All this would be less of an issue if the T5 underground shuttle was extended to T3, as has been suggested might eventually be the case.
I think JAL is an exceptional case, given its precarious financial position and the recent re-affirmation of oneworld membership and its relatively minor presence at LHR.
Still, a shame for BA to lose its "exclusivity" at T5.
Good for BAA, though, as all those profligate Japanese luxury goods shoppers will go to town in the T5 shopping mall.....
BAdboys - 30/07/2010 08:55 GMT
VK The JAL lounge at T3 has been closed since Feb. JAL pax use the Exec Lounges.
Potakas - 30/07/2010 09:57 GMT
T5 is a BA's privilege and it will be sadly to loose it, i think that it will be better to share it with iberia when they eventually merge, although maybe BA offered T5 when Jal was considering leaving oneworld. I believe that if this happen should be happen after the T5C opening, does anyone know if the thoughts for a T5D are still existing?Maybe then, all oneworld carriers should join T5.
VintageKrug - 30/07/2010 10:14 GMT
T3 is the oneworld "hub" at LHR and as such is the right place for non-BA flights, as is the case now.
In fact as T5 and T3 are actually adjacent; let's hope the plan is indeed to extend the airside underground train the whole length of the central area and make connections between terminals in LHR seamless.
continentalclub - 30/07/2010 10:15 GMT
What sounds like quite a big deal in theory might not in fact look so incongruous at all in practice.
Of course, a JAL aircraft attached to a jetty at the A gates, or the West-facing B gates might temporarily interrupt the flow of fluttering tailfin flags, but East-facing B Gates are out of sight of most observers.
And, further, regular visitors to Heathrow will know that the yet to be opened C-gates, especially their East-facing ones, are often populated with non-BA aircraft at present, though only for parking purposes - not processing,
Within T5, codeshare airlines are referred to in PAs, including Japan Airlines, so JAL boarding announcements wouldn't sound particularly unusual.
Binman62 - 03/08/2010 09:26 GMT
I am very sceptical about this. I can understand all the arguments in favour however would BA really give up its exclusive terminal just 2 years aftre getting it? . The BAA will be delighted if this happens as it will be the thin of the wedge for them to force others in and the competition will be beating on the doors demanding access. Surely making the T3 oneworld hub a real one world hub, as opposed to the conglomorate of individual airlines would be a more sensible approach.
VintageKrug - 03/08/2010 09:39 GMT
BA is not really giving up "it's" (I think you meant to write "its") exclusive terminal.
JAL only has one flight a day at present, so hardly noticeable.
And I don't actually think others will be demanding access. T4 is much improved following the landside redevelopment and the T1/T2 development once complete should be similarly impressive, and provide some breathing space for T3 redevelopment in due course.
FCTraveller - 03/08/2010 19:22 GMT
It would seem obvious to me that it makes more sense to leave JAL in T3 and bring back other BA flights that are annoyingly located in T3. Vienna, Nice, Helsinki perhaps?
VintageKrug - 03/08/2010 21:34 GMT
Helsinki is certainly there so that all oneworld Helsinki flights go from one terminal.
The Spanish flights are there because of codeshares with Iberia, ditto BKK/SIN/SYD for Qantas.
Some other flights were there because they used 757s which were not permitted at T5 because they don't (didn't) use containers for the luggage.
BUt largely as with the examples above the destinations are co-located to give oneworld flyers on flexible tickets the opportunity to switch departure times on codeshared services without switching terminals.
Following the same logic, it is therefore sensible for all Tokyo departures to leave from the same terminal and therefore move JL's one or two daily flights to T5.
I really don't think this compromises BA's exclusivity in any serious fashion.
Ausline - 03/08/2010 22:54 GMT
This is intertesting as I recall BA wanted QF to use T5 because of the JV and also QF's feed into BA's Euro services, Qantas only serves FRA in mainland Europe. At the time the request was rebuffed by BAA.
For someone who uses T3 on a regular basis the bus transfer is a pain I agree with VK that an undergound train would be ideal.
In my opinion T3 is not the greatest it is still crowded and one always seems to have to walk miles to lounges or gates, yes it has improved but is not a patch on T5.
VintageKrug - 04/08/2010 07:47 GMT
I think the reason Qantas had to use T3 was that - incredibly - BAA did not provision T5 with gates which would support the A380.
T5C which opens next year will indeed support the A380, but until that time, Qantas was restricted to T3 for its A380s.
VintageKrug - 10/08/2010 08:21 GMT
I have done a bit more digging on this, and apparently T5B is indeed provisioned with A380 gates, but only has single jetways fitted at present (there is provision for double jetways to be added when required).
JordanD - 10/08/2010 09:38 GMT
I'm surprised you weren't more clued up on the issue - it was always in the original specs to have double jetways on some of the T5B gates ... apparently to allow premium and non-premium boarding, as opposed to the triple jetway solution that is now quite common place for the A380.
VintageKrug - 10/08/2010 09:48 GMT
It's really a shame the triple jetways weren't in place from the start; having recently done an A380 trip I think the triple jetway is absolutely essential.
