Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
Perhaps comment would be better after visiting. There is no way that T3 is better than T2 - T3 is a very old terminal with oppressively low ceilings, whereas T2 is a very modern terminal with very high ceilings and light everywhere.
It's not relevant now, but the T1 *A lounge I visited every month most certainly did have windows - quite large numbers of them, which I always sat beside. I will agree that the view was of nothing, but there were windows and there was natural light.
There is no way that the old T3 RCC was better than the new UC in T2 (other than the booze was self service. Everything else is a huge improvement. As to LHR being a 3rd world airport, it depends how you define 3rd world, I suppose. It's clearly not as glitzy as quite a few modern airports in what used to be called the 3rd world, but then it's an awful lot better than many airports in what used to be called the 1st world - LAX or ORD or IAD spring to mind. In fact T2 and T5 are really very nice and T4 is quite ok. T1 is about to be demolished so is no longer relevant. That only leaves T3, but we don't have to worry about that in this section of FT.
I think you have misunderstood me.
T3 had oppressively low ceilings, except in lounges, specifically the Red Carpet Club, where the ceilings were noticeably higher than those in the T1 Star Alliance Lounge.
It looks to me as if the T2 ceilings and United Club ceilings are much higher than both, which is great.
Regarding windows, it depends how you define them. What the T1 *A lounge had was opaque glass with artificial daylighting behind, similar to what you get in the tunnel between concourses B and C at ORD. Not real windows, and no view of the outside world.
When I say 3rd World, I mean much longer hikes without aids like travelators than any American airport I can think of. The walk in T1 was three times as long as that in T3, and now we hear (both in this thread and the other that is currently discussing T2) that it will be even worse in T2. That is not traveller-friendly. I have hated the hike to the gates from the lounge in T1 (in comparison with the easy stroll that T3 used to be, and the equally unpleasant hike from the gates to passport control on the way in. There is absolutely no excuse for building a terminal these days where that is the case.
I also mean those ghastly luggage carts which are clapped out and dirty, have square wheels, dowdy metal, are too small, and give a disgraceful impression to anyone arriving in the country. Why on earth they can't scrap them and replace them with carts based on the US design, which are easier to steer, run smoothly, have room for a decent amount of luggage, look better and last longer, I do not know.
I'll be interested to see the baggage hall in T2 when I fly into it. T3 was reasonably well organized. In T1, there was no display as you entered the hall to tell you which carousel you needed to go to. That infornation was located on a small board halfway into the hall: to get to it, you had to pass two of the carousels — often including the one you wanted, when it would be necessary to go back.
Lavatories in T1 were quite simply inadequate, and badly distributed.
Third World standards = treating pax without due consideration in my book.