- 08/04/2012 14:17 GMT
BAA are erecting yet another tent as an Olympic Terminal to try and ease congestion at LHR. Again being LHR they will then bus everyone as there will be no planes at the tent terminal.
I would like to know from any posters with knowledge, who is paying for this, are they filling the tent with shops like everywhere else and what is the likelihood of delays with plane loadings being managed from two locations?
Why will Heathrow be busier during the Olympics?
Are there more landing slots being squeezed in as I thought Heathrow was already at capacity.
Why is there a need to erect a "tent" or is it just creating more retail space .
I know London is going to busy, but how much busier can Heathrow actually get?
VintageKrug - 08/04/2012 14:39 GMT
There are likely to be higher numbers of passengers, as many flights will be sold out.
But I think the issue will be will outsize baggage, guns and other paraphernalia.
Not to mention the special needs of those competing in the Paralympics late August/early September.
- 08/04/2012 14:41 GMT
Allied to this, much was made of the Stratford HS1 station being anreason for the Olympics being in this area. I wonder what percentage of Europian athletes will come by train and whether any special services from destinations other than Brussels and Paris will be run? Anyone know? Like Martyn I cannot see where the extra capacity at LHR will
Come from. I suppose it is unfortunate they demolished 1 of the 3 central terminals When they did... Earlier or later would have worked better. But then with existing runways.../
- 08/04/2012 14:51 GMT
The outsize bags makes sense. I have also read some bags will be checked at the Olympic Village. After the T5 baggage issue on opening, is introducing a new temporary system the best idea rather than uaing the exisitng facilities where the bugs have been worked out? I do hope thay come up with a dignified solution for security when dealing with large number for the paralympics. Disabled people do not always get the most sensitive of treatment particularly those with metal implants.
It will be interesting to see staffing level/servicing levels at Heathrow.
Higher passenger numbers is no excuse for the airport to come to a standstill or for delays. Delays will only occur if the passenger flows from aircraft to exit are slowed.
The number of aircraft movements shouldnt increase (unless Paul Daniels and co have created more slots). Getting pax from aircraft seat to out of the airport needs to be slick.
Immigration desks need to be manned, bagage handlers need to be fast, equipment needs to be working, security personel need to concentrate on pax and not the flavour of their chewing gum or checking text messages and taxi's / transport needs to flow in and out of the airport.
At least there is no chance of snow closing the airport.............................????
VK, for your information there is a world of a difference between the Paralympics (which follow the Olympics in London on August) and which are for athletes with physical disabilities and the Special Olympics (http://www.specialolympics.org/) which are for atheletes with intellectual disabilities. It is unfair on either group to assume that they are one and the same.
JordanD - 08/04/2012 22:23 GMT
A few high level facts:
- BAA are paying for the building, which is on an old BA staff car park on the southern side of the airport.
- It will be used to check passengers (accredited individuals who may be athletes, support staff, officials, members of various International Federations, etc.)
- Passengers will be bussed to their gates
- Baggage will be checked in from within the secure zone inside the Athlete's Village or at the temporary terminal
Basically, what the building is doing is funnelling the people coming from the various Athlete's Villages and other accredited places into one spot, allowing the rest of the public to go about their business as normal
I'd imagine some luggage will take longer to load, but that's something for the various airlines and their ground handlers to be mindful of.
In terms of extra capacity - I'd imagine a lot of 'specials' going to STN (espeically diplomatic/Heads of Government/State flights), LTN & LGW, with fewer at LHR.
LeTigre - 08/04/2012 22:39 GMT
Of course the VIPs will all bring their jets into the smaller airports but LHR will cater for most due to the fact that lots of support staff (unsung heroes in their thousands) will be flying in biz with BA, etc.
- 08/04/2012 22:58 GMT
Thanks TdC searched and nothing came up.
Pinot_Noir - 09/04/2012 00:45 GMT
Whilst the cost is being administered by BAA, they are not paying for it at all. The cost has been equitably distributed between all the carriers operating at LHR, which isn't equitable at all given that only about 10% of the airlines will actually see any benefit at all from the facilities.
- 09/04/2012 09:37 GMT
On the contrary Pinot_Noir - if this temp terminal is designed to minimise the impact of the Olympics/Paralympics pax on the regular flow of pax through the permanent terminals by segregating them, then surely all airlines will benefit.
- 09/04/2012 09:54 GMT
Surely that depends on the traffic? I am unclear crom the posts whether airlines were charged by number of flights, number of PAX, whether they are the official Airline for their country olympic team or just by being at LHR. It would be undair for BA to pay around 50% as most UK athletes are in UK. Equally Russia or US normally have big teams so their official
Airline should pay more than say Air Malta.
Pinot_Noir - 09/04/2012 10:19 GMT
My understanding is that it has nothing to do with the airlines
Olympic activity, but simply the airlines scheduled capacity during the games. However, as previous posters have indicated, LHR is near capacity (particularly at this specific time of year).
Clearly the group that will benefit from the facilities will be the athletes, officials and press that can use the dedicated facility. I believe it's a bit lamentable to contest that every passenger has benefited because these Olympic individuals won't be processed through the regular channels, and so regular passengers will still be processed in near regular time. It's a shame that these airlines have to pay extra just to maintain their existing level of service.
Personally I think the costs should have been absorbed by LOCOG, given that (particularly accentuated by our Island nature, and the global nature of the Olympics) these costs must have been predictable, and they've made no attempt to avoid them (ie sending team charters into another airport with capacity, such as LGW)...
- 09/04/2012 10:38 GMT
It seems incredible that the body charged with making the profit does not have to pay any costs. Airlines habe to pay for this terminal, Londoners have to pay for the security costs from the police, the installation of and removal of special lanes and will no doubt have to suffer all the delays without compensation for industry.
But I guess doing this they will be able to report a good profit.
Pinot-Noir, do you know for certain that 'Team Charters' will be using LHR during the Olympics? I suspect that many athletes and officials will be travelling on scheduled flights to LHR (as the British team did in 2008 when I remember sharing BA027 to Hong Kong with a large contingent of gymnasts). If there are charters as such outwith normal scheduled flights, I suspect that these will use other airports. So what is the problem? I am sure airlines are covering themslves with increased fares during the period in question anyway!!
Pinot_Noir - 09/04/2012 11:23 GMT
Given that the average team is only 40% athletes, anything more than 50 athletes would warrant chartering a flight, with 'overspill' going on scheduled - as in the case of the British at China 2008... The bulk of the party travelled on BA charters... Given that the whole of the dedicated facility will be branded with Olympic and sponsor logo's I'm pretty certain as many of the key athletes as possible will be channeled through this facility.
I'm not sure about the rationale of Covering costs specific to the Olympics, and simply delivering existing quality levels during the Olympics, across non-Olympic traffic. Hardly seems fair for other families trying to travel during that period...
JordanD - 09/04/2012 12:59 GMT
Pinot_Noir, sorry but you are categorically wrong on that one. It was the other way round - nearly all the British team travelled to China on BA scheduled, with a few others going other routes (mostly to HKG, as the holding camp was in Macau). On some days, the BOA block booked the majority of seats on the BA flight.
Case in point - on the return flight the day after the closing ceremony, there were a handful of seats in all classes which were booked by passengers, with the majority by Team GB staff/athletes, hence its arrival at the Royal Terminal for the Press welcome - from where 'non-Team GB' were bussed to T5 for arrivals. (As an aside, I had a friend on the flight, and none were bothered by the 'extra' time it took on arrival, as they got to spend many hours in the air on a 'party' flight, getting to meet the athletes).
Pinot_Noir - 09/04/2012 13:50 GMT
Then apologies for my incorrect presumption, which was based on the rather crazy logic UK sport would take the most cost effective option!!
It doesn't answer the point though, which is why the cost of providing the temporary facilities isn't being wholly picked up by the people directly benefitting from them...