Currently (and I'm happy for somebody to put forward some constructive arguments to change my opinion), I think that these words the in The Telegraph comparing LHR with Stockholm yesterday are a bit unfair.

OK, Stockholm had a foot of snow yesterday, but had no cancellations except to LHR. However, the argument for ARN to have lots of de-icing equipment is a lot more compelling. I've been there several times in the last few weeks and the temperature has not risen above freezing at all for weeks! Plus, the airport is nowhere near as busy as LHR.

A couple of weeks ago I was sat on a plane at CPH waiting to depart. We were delayed one hour because it was snowing, one of the two runways was shut and arrivals were being prioritised, so no departures. Admittedly I did get away, and an hour delay wasn't that long, and it was nowhere near the disruption that has been seen at LHR but it wasn't totally business as usual in the snow there.

I do think though that whoever is responsible for deicing at LHR should be looking at how to improve the deicing process there. Can it be done more efficiently at a dedicated area that the aircraft taxi to instead of deicing equipment going to the aircraft at the stand? Would more deicing equipment solve the problem? Is more snow clearing equipment required for runways etc, or can there be a process improvement?

Unfortunately, what we have seen is that because LHR is so busy, there is no slack in the system when things start going wrong.

Fingers crossed for my flight to LHR on Thursday. The BBC's five day forecast is currently showing light snow.