[LPPSKrisflyer]

ChrisBuda82 – 23/04/2012 17:57 GMT
“I do not have to tell you my credentials, things change so get over it, hate you money people”

Well thank you, I assume that was aimed at me.

I think you should stop your rant and calm down. I have nothing to do with shops.

Oh and FWIW, I use T3 more than any other terminal and I know exactly how grim it is.

[Binman62]

We need a new airport and have cobbled together the mess that is LHR for too long. While LHR remains where it is the will be restrictions and as aircraft grow in size the benefits of addition passengers per flight will be eliminated by the reduction in aircraft that can actually land given the separation distances for the A380.

The environmental issues are staggering and if you wish to be a true global hub you have to operate 24/7 365… LHR barely manages to remain open past 11pm and if you want to know how bad it is pst 11pm ask the poor sods who have spent nights there with no facilities.

I do not know what is wrong with building out to the East if it is connected by rail and we have some sort of coherent transpiort strategy.

In the last 20 years they built and island to accommodate KIX, demolished a mountain to build HKG moved BKK,SEL,KUL and DEN yet we still persist with trying to make LHR work.

It won’t, it can’t and is testament to the myopic approach of too many and a failure of leadership in this country over decades.

What will it take to be rid of LHR! An accident over central London?

[LeTigre]

I think that Heathrow East should remain reserved for Star carriers and BMI moved to T3 gradually. Who should leave is anyone’s guess, perhaps BAA could even do it by shifting loads of unaligned carriers.

[Henkel.Trocken]

Thanks Binman, all good and sensible points.

I don’t care whether a new airport is built to the east or west of London but one must be built. Either that or we get more used to connections at FRA, MUC or CDG in Europe.

It’s crazy to think that LHR has the runway capacity of MUC, DUS and TXL to name a few and plenty of smaller places have greater. When will they learn.

[RichHI1]

When they make rhe connection they will get voted out of office. At the moment no politicians think it is a hot potato, promising a review is enough to keep the party faithful happy. Tax on Pasties is a much bigger concern for Mr Cameron.

[transtraxman]

Let us get our facts right. T1 is for Star Alliance. T2, when finished, will be for Star Alliance. When T2 is finished T1 will be demolished to extend T2 over the same site. T1 will disappear.

All this is laid down here….

http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/rebuilding-heathrow

If a new airport is wanted to replace LHR it should be done now – not tomorrow. In that case all new investment in LHR should be stopped. Only the half done projects should be completed. If there is no ready alternative then everyone should accept the projects for LHR and stop messing about. The situation is already serious and needs urgent solution.We have suffered far too much from prevaricating politicians. They should accept that some things must be done for the general good despite their own electoral wishes.

[transtraxman]

In my opinion there is one poster who crops up frequently on this forum (and is on this topic) who is not what he/she wants to appear to be. Please be your real self or get off.

[greyhawkgeoff]

Let’s get realistic – LHR is over full, and space and capacity of any sort is at apremium, be it terminals, stands, reunway use or ground handling. All of us have hooror stories of poor transits through it.
If we beleive the basic stats, bmi had 56 daily slots of late after the Lufthansa group cherry picked some. IAG have to surrender 14, leaving 42 slots mainly for single aisle planes. They are focused on T1 for now. This is weekly total of 294. In T3 SAS have 272 sinle aisle slots per week, Turkish 62 – a mix of single and twin while Singapore has 46, soon to be all A380’s with their own stand needs.
A quick shuffle is not on, get real, but be sure that IAG will want to consolidate somehwre soon and the *A will also. But the shuffle is not simple – witness the T5 knock on that has taken years- tough though it may be 2014 seems realistic when East becomes available and space for everything eases again just like T5 liberated the log jam.

[Hippocampus]

BAA has to tread a political tightrope at LHR in being seen not to favour any one particular airline, regardless of the relative size of carriers at the airport.

The most likely scenario is that the extra BA capacity will move in to Terminal 3 so it is in the same terminal as other Oneworld alliance partners.

A three terminal operation is far from ideal but the short term inconvenience is worth it for the long term.

[RichHI1]

Although the ongoing debate about closing LHR and building a new aiport in the Thames Estuary causes uncertainty and reduces the likelihood of investment, I think that extending the T5 tram to T3/LHR East airside would do a lot to overcome some of the issues of being spread over multiple terminals. Hopefully it could be done fairly rapidly as it would reduce vehicular traffic and not impact noise or pollution in a negative way.

[LuganoPirate]

I don’t see why BAA should not favour any one airline, and in this case I guess you mean BA Hippo?

It’s quite clear FRA favours Lufthamsa, Zurich Swiss, Paris, AF and so on. As BA now has a Spanish Brother, perhaps Spanish owned BAA will favour them even more?

[RichHI1]

I feel this thread should not have been called Terminal Changes but Terminal Decline.
I see nothing wrong in BAA looking after its biggest customer, where the issue comes is if it fails to look after others. So if BA want yet Nother New Terminal, fine. However if you cannot build a new terminal
You should nit undermine agreements with others such as *A.

[LPPSKrisflyer]

I think the reality is that BAA have never looked after any customer except BA.

I can remember the hard time BD had breaking in to T1 and BAA put every block possible in their way but SMB knocked them down one by one and in the end there was no choice.

*A got so vociferous over BA in to T5 exclusively while they were left with T2 & T3, even SkyTeam got a better deal with T4 where they are now settled. *A accepted the current situation on the basis of their taking LHR East and nothing has happened to change that. AIrlines have joined and left alliances, CO were not part of *A when the deal was done and nor were TAM, Aegean, Ethiopian or Egyptair. They need to be accomodated alongside their partners.

There will always be changes but it is in the best interests of the alliances to co-locate their services in one terminal. That is what is happening for *A, SkyTeam and to a point OW in so far as they will be in T3 with BA in T5. The non-aligned have to fit around them and that is happening.

Good point about the tram RichHI1, if that linked T3 & T5 it would simplify things for OW no end. Of course, it will take at least twenty years to build and open six months before the new airport does!

[transtraxman]

Rich
Choosing the title I meant both meanings of “terminal”.

LPPSK
When we talk about the “tram from T5” I understand that we mean it goes to T3 and the new T2, otherwise it is another half-baked solution(I called these “Chapuzas” on my blog).

For all:
the term Heathrow East has been dropped from usage. (Look at BAA´s website again)

Hooray for the sale of Edinburgh airport.

[LeTigre]

You don’t need to extend the T5 underground monorail if you just increase Heathrow Express service to make it every 5 mins rather than 20 or so. Surely there is a way of increasing intra-Heathrow frequencies while maintaining the same London-bound frequencies. What about doing Heathrow Central-T4-Central-T5-Central-London for every train? The Heathrow Express is good enough already.

[Author]

Posts