Originally Posted by
orbitmic
Well one big thing missing from the theory is that none of us knows whether ba was actually part of asking for the move in the first place. I personally see significant advantages in being in south rather than north not least fewer disruptions when terminal transit has issues.
Ot but I also disagree with your view that premium leisure traffic is ba's key target at lgw. Of course they like having them but I suspect key target is leisure and premium a mere afterthought.
Apart from the time when it was being refurbished, I wasn't aware that there were regular issues with the transit, which of course only brings some not all pax to the North Terminal.
I am however aware that during the snow chaos a few years back EZ were badly affected and the fact that they were spread out over two terminals adversely affected their ability to deal with the problem effectively. There was talk that they went ballistic and demanded a single terminal solution from GAL.
I am again unware that BA also wanted a move to the South terminal, something that would greatly benefit a competitor. I don't even remember see conjuncture that that might be the case on FT.