Originally Posted by SLF
Sure, but are you saying that mostly broken walkways, long queues at security, unattractive carpeting etc. are acceptable?
What are UK airports for? Prior to FT, I always thought that they were to move passengers and luggage around however it seems that retail profits are the prime function of a UK airport.
For the traveller, LHR is a disgrace to the UK when compared to experiences elsewhere. Putting aside how we got to this sorry state as an interesting business study for future uni students, what is important now is how the current sad state of affairs is rectified - and not just with bandage fixes such as replacing the odd moving walkway.
Ok, I've never been around LHR when the walkways have been mostly broken. I have experienced them there, just as I've experienced them at MAN, HKG and AMS - all of which are not operating as much over capacity as LHR. I've already said that the recent security was not acceptable. But unattractive carpeting?! come on - firstly that's an aesthetic subjective judgement, (I think the glitz of DXB is hideous actually!), secondly I don't mind the carpeting - so does my opinion trump yours? I do wish they didn't have any, as then they could use the dinky hand-baggage trolleys they have at AMS.
There are good and bad airports everywhere. I can think of better airports than LHR and worse airports than LHR. Bits of CDG look fantastic, but it's even worse to transfer at than LHR. FRA is a ....ehole, if I never have to transfer there again, I'd be happy. Mind you, if I never have to transfer at LHR again, I'd also be happy, it's not even close to being among my favourite airports. But as I said in my first post, it's very easy to criticise LHR if you don't know a lot about airport operations. Knowing a fair amount about the operating constraints there, I'm always amazed that it manages to work at all. But you guys look at these perfect, new, under capacity airports and expect LHR to be just like them. It can't be and it won't be - not how it exists at the moment!