Is Heathrow fit for purpose?
Jun 10, 2011, 10:21 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,046
LHR is not fit for purpose as transit passengers are a key part of BA's business just as they are for any other airline. Ultimately these passengers are necessary and if they were not carried airlines would be forced to offer a more limited range of destinations at higher fares.
vla had the right idea about an airport for London in this thread.
vla had the right idea about an airport for London in this thread.
Learn the lessons from the privatisation of the former British Airports Authority and British Rail. Build it at the Channel Tunnel entrance, have every Eurostar stop at the station, build and/or connect alternate rail routes from all parts of London, have four parallel runways running roughly north-east to south-west (to take advantage of prevailing winds) and two parallel runways at 90 degree angles. Space the runways more than a mile apart, make them 14000x200, CAT III ILS autoland throughout, design the taxiways intelligently and minded for growth, replicate T5/Stansted's airy aesthetics throughout the airfield, and be sure to make it expensive to arrive and depart. Kick BAA's retail model to the kerb.
Then simultaneously close Heathrow and Gatwick, redevelop those sites into housing and commercial (like Denver did with Stapleton Airport), funnel secondary traffic through Luton and Stansted and then get to work on building High Speed Two, High Speed Three and High Speed Four.
And call the damn thing Winston Churchill International Airport.
Simple.
Then simultaneously close Heathrow and Gatwick, redevelop those sites into housing and commercial (like Denver did with Stapleton Airport), funnel secondary traffic through Luton and Stansted and then get to work on building High Speed Two, High Speed Three and High Speed Four.
And call the damn thing Winston Churchill International Airport.
Simple.
Jun 10, 2011, 10:26 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,046
Tim Clark's comments about traffic between Shanghai and Cote d'Ivoire are prescient.
The reason EK, EY and QR exist is not really to serve Europe, although they do, but to serve the booming economies in africa, the indian subcontinent and the far east.
If only 1% of the population of China and India start flying longhaul once a year then that is 25 million passengers.
The reason EK, EY and QR exist is not really to serve Europe, although they do, but to serve the booming economies in africa, the indian subcontinent and the far east.
If only 1% of the population of China and India start flying longhaul once a year then that is 25 million passengers.
Jun 10, 2011, 10:26 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2008
Programs: I am a lowly ant
Posts: 1,751
Well quite. We aren't entirely bovvered are we, if people fly through here or not. Whereas for the good (?) folk of Dubai, the entire house/indoor ski slope/ridiculous manmade islands built on the sand depends on it.
Jun 10, 2011, 10:30 am
#19
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,774
I wouldn't go as far as not really bothered, but you make a good point. What is Dubai actually for, apart from the airport?
Jun 10, 2011, 10:35 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,146
What he said!!
"An airport does not a Nation make" [copyright T8191, 2011].
The Eastern half of the Planet can do many things, but flying Europe to North America isn't one of them.
"An airport does not a Nation make" [copyright T8191, 2011].
The Eastern half of the Planet can do many things, but flying Europe to North America isn't one of them.
Jun 10, 2011, 10:38 am
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Earth
Programs: Proud owner of 3 Mucci's (yes, 3!) the latest being Chevaliere des Bains Chauds, BA Silver (6 yrs)
Posts: 10,985
Jun 10, 2011, 10:44 am
#23
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
The comparisons with HKG,SIN,BJS,DXB are a bit too obvious and unfair. Chuck enough money at something and it's bound to be bigger and better.
My guess is that most of those airports were funded by Government money.....one way or another.
My guess is that most of those airports were funded by Government money.....one way or another.
Jun 10, 2011, 10:48 am
#24
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Programs: BA gold
Posts: 3,902
I find DXB one of the better airports for originating and for connecting at and miles ahead of LHR ( which I do my best to avoid ) plus the 1st/business annexe for check in at T3 is excellent. Singapore pretty much is the airport which I like most for connecting though rarely connect there these days
That LHR is constricted by position is irrelevent; Heathrow (ime) is better than connecting in the USA but still a poor airport
That LHR is constricted by position is irrelevent; Heathrow (ime) is better than connecting in the USA but still a poor airport
On departing DXB... check-in process was diabolical starting with the huge queues for pre-screening prior to check-in. After check-in, another security point with big queues but not as bad as the initial one. I couldn't tell you which terminals I used - Emirates in, Qatar out.
LHR is constrained by position and mis-management - noise limits, snow (where to even put the cleared snow?), runways, available space to do improve things - everything has to be improved in-situ with the space available. All this and other unseen consequences are relevant to the passenger experience at the end of the day.
T5 is a good start, I've come to like using T5 for connections/origin/departure and am personally keen to see how the refurbished terminals fare.
I agree with you about Singapore... SIN is my favourite, it is just so easy, even on my first visit.
I am amused by the Torygraph comments appearing to praise Charles de Gaulle!
Jun 10, 2011, 10:52 am
#25
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Programs: BA gold
Posts: 3,902
vla had the right idea about an airport for London in this thread.
Great idea! Now who's going to pay for it? 
Jun 10, 2011, 10:53 am
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
The UK could, if it wanted to, invest money in setting up a high quality airport like some other countries have done
Jun 10, 2011, 10:59 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Europe
Programs: Mucci, BAEC Gold, Aegean Gold
Posts: 2,115
Churchill International. You know you want it. You know it makes sense.
Boris, I'm in town for the next few weeks. Give me a call.
Jun 10, 2011, 11:04 am
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
If they had compared LHR to CDG, FRA, AMS then there would have been a more level playing field. As it is LHR compares pretty favourable with those airports I would say.
Jun 10, 2011, 11:40 am
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, SQ Gold, KQ Platinum, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,349
Yes it is fit for purpose by and large, although there are areas for improvement, which are being worked on.
Jun 10, 2011, 11:47 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,146
However, after that sweeping statement, please advise the UK where it should place this airport of yours. I'm sure you're completely familiar with the extant infrastructure, the vast empty prairies where we could build it and the potential cost of connecting "Dave International" to the rest of the UK.
It would be interesting to hear your solution ... it has evaded UK Governments for decades.
Over to you ...
