A380 Move to T3 [Rumour]
#61
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London N3
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; VS Lifetime Gold
Posts: 222
The least worst option would be all JNB and CPT flights (especially if a second daily A380 to JNB is added next winter); since 1) departure and even delayed arrival times work reasonably well for T3-T5-T3 connections; ii) no direct OW competition on these routes from T3; iii) the T3 GF lounge has plenty of empty seats pm since SYD flights moved to T5; and iv) the simple message that "our flights to South Africa now operate from Terminal 3" is minimally confusing.
#62
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Programs: AA EXP, 1MM
Posts: 643
It isn't really about the people near the airport. It is about people in areas of central and west London and Surrey and Berkshire that will be under the new flight paths but have, until now, been relatively unaffected by aircraft noise. I'm not saying their interests should or should not be paramount, but it is not right to say that they knew what they were getting into.
#63
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Programs: AA EXP, 1MM
Posts: 643
I could see T3 or some other facility becoming the Oneworld USA terminal with all AA and BA's USA flights departing from the same place. There could also be pre-clearance giving Oneworld a massive advantage over other carriers and making the joint venture more seamless. I would love this.
#64
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,744
The least worst option would be all JNB and CPT flights (especially if a second daily A380 to JNB is added next winter); since 1) departure and even delayed arrival times work reasonably well for T3-T5-T3 connections; ii) no direct OW competition on these routes from T3; iii) the T3 GF lounge has plenty of empty seats pm since SYD flights moved to T5; and iv) the simple message that "our flights to South Africa now operate from Terminal 3" is minimally confusing.
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
To be frank I do not care about the voters affected by expansion. The airport in its original state predates most of the houses they live in. Most homeowners chose to buy a house nearby either in recent times or back a few decades when aviation was expanding. It does not take a genius to predict ever since man created the first flying machine the number of aircraft will only increase. In short, they knew aviation was taking off in huge numbers, if your pardon the pun, but still chose to buy a house nearby and complain.
The same goes for imbeciles who buy houses on floodplains, or homes next the edges of eroding cliffs. I have no sympathy for them. Besides, the voters who are anti-expansion are small in number and probably don't vote anyway. Just ignore them.
The same goes for imbeciles who buy houses on floodplains, or homes next the edges of eroding cliffs. I have no sympathy for them. Besides, the voters who are anti-expansion are small in number and probably don't vote anyway. Just ignore them.
Yes, expansion at LHR must happen, and relocating the airport to somewhere else is nonsense. But the airport 'in its original state' is relatively young. Nothing much was going on there until the early 1950s (expansion started after 1944), and I think you'll find that many areas of Berkshire and Surrey that are under/within the current flight path were already well-established by then. You could ask the Queen, I believe she has a rather large place directly under the flight path.
I live 25 minutes southwest of LHR watch those aircraft that have done a port turn from 27L fly high over my (pre-1950) house. I like the convenience of being close to the airport, and I encourage expansion, but believe me that the mostly-wealthy, mostly-Tory voters in these areas will be vocal regarding this issue.
The tone of your argument suggests to me that you are referring to the 'poor' areas immediately to the east of Heathrow.
Back to the original topic, I'd be delighted if there were more flights from T3. I prefer those lounge facilities, the fast track is almost always faster, and I don't have to deal with a silly train. I'm still struggling with the concept of 'flagship facilities' at T5.
#67
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,666
#68
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
I'm not sure of the actual figures but I have done research into wealth and voting. The wealthier you are the more likely you are to vote. Being London way the constituencies would be likely to vote but as an overall number the way the constituencies are drawn out prevent any organised group from electing a certain MP or hugely affecting politics. I think most politicians are looking to please anyone and not make difficult decision which in the long run will be best for our country. You've said it yourself to an extent "some of them are marginal constituencies as well." - in other words political parties are putting MP seats before national decisions.
And while you, and many others, may think expanding Heathrow is crucial to the nation as a whole, there are rather a lot of people who would strongly disagree.
#69
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
#70
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 740
To be frank I do not care about the voters affected by expansion. The airport in its original state predates most of the houses they live in. Most homeowners chose to buy a house nearby either in recent times or back a few decades when aviation was expanding. It does not take a genius to predict ever since man created the first flying machine the number of aircraft will only increase. In short, they knew aviation was taking off in huge numbers, if your pardon the pun, but still chose to buy a house nearby and complain.
The same goes for imbeciles who buy houses on floodplains, or homes next the edges of eroding cliffs. I have no sympathy for them. Besides, the voters who are anti-expansion are small in number and probably don't vote anyway. Just ignore them.
The same goes for imbeciles who buy houses on floodplains, or homes next the edges of eroding cliffs. I have no sympathy for them. Besides, the voters who are anti-expansion are small in number and probably don't vote anyway. Just ignore them.
I use Heathrow frequently, and the proximity's one reason why I chose to live in the rather nice bit of the country that I do. In fact, I can't think of another part of the country, or indeed London where I'd rather live.
I was well aware of aircraft flying overhead when I bought the house. We get them for a few hours each day. They've not been over yet today, but they probably will this evening. It doesn't bother me because it's not all day. If Heathrow were to be expanded it probably will bother me. If it were to operate flights all night, it would definitely bother me.
What's the most annoying is all the talk of it benefiting the economy. Nobody around here works at the airport. I benefit from the availability of flights, which in their current state are more than I need. None of the money made by Heathrow comes to me. It all goes to its Spanish owner, who is only interested in attracting transit passengers.
If they were willing to pay those of us who live here to put up with the extra noise we might consider it. They'd also have to pay for improving the roads and railways which are already over capacity.
Then there are those in the "regions" who will moan at yet more money going to London. And they'd be right.
So if we were all to be as selfish as you, I'd say that Heathrow's fine the way it is. I've never had a problem getting a flight to where I want to go, when I want to go. I can be on a plane within an hour of leaving my house. Why on Earth should that change just to please those of you "imbeciles" who are too stupid to buy a house close to a major airport?
There is always more than one side to an argument
#71
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
What's the most annoying is all the talk of it benefiting the economy. Nobody around here works at the airport.
Many pilots and cabin crew live many miles away and commute, as indeed do some of the staff in the terminals and BA World Cargo. If you studied a copy of Heathrow Airport's Security Pass database, you would find nearly every postcode area in the UK contains a passholder or two. At any given time, at any motorway services station in the UK, I can find cars with "Heathrow Staff Car Park permits in the windscreen!
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Programs: Marriott Platinum and BAEC blue again :'(
Posts: 376
I don't know if someone did a wee-wee in your cereal bowl, or if you are always this myopic, but this is a bit simplistic. Your tone suggests to me that you are referring to the 'poor' areas immediately to the east of Heathrow. Let me give you a different perspective.
Yes, expansion at LHR must happen, and relocating the airport to somewhere else is nonsense. But the airport 'in its original state' is relatively young. Nothing much was going on there until the early 1950s (expansion started after 1944), and I think you'll find that many areas of Berkshire and Surrey that are under/within the current flight path were already well-established by then. You could ask the Queen, I believe she has a rather large place directly under the flight path.
I live 25 minutes southwest of LHR watch those aircraft that have done a port turn from 27L fly high over my (pre-1950) house. I like the convenience of being close to the airport, and I encourage expansion, but believe me that the mostly-wealthy, mostly-Tory voters in these areas will be vocal regarding this issue.
Back to the original topic, I'd be delighted if there were more flights from T3. I prefer those lounge facilities, the fast track is almost always faster, and I don't have to deal with a silly train. I'm still struggling with the concept of 'flagship facilities' at T5.
Yes, expansion at LHR must happen, and relocating the airport to somewhere else is nonsense. But the airport 'in its original state' is relatively young. Nothing much was going on there until the early 1950s (expansion started after 1944), and I think you'll find that many areas of Berkshire and Surrey that are under/within the current flight path were already well-established by then. You could ask the Queen, I believe she has a rather large place directly under the flight path.
I live 25 minutes southwest of LHR watch those aircraft that have done a port turn from 27L fly high over my (pre-1950) house. I like the convenience of being close to the airport, and I encourage expansion, but believe me that the mostly-wealthy, mostly-Tory voters in these areas will be vocal regarding this issue.
Back to the original topic, I'd be delighted if there were more flights from T3. I prefer those lounge facilities, the fast track is almost always faster, and I don't have to deal with a silly train. I'm still struggling with the concept of 'flagship facilities' at T5.
You are sooooooo wrong. The voters who are anti-expansion are generally the majority. Or at least they are in South West London and I'm one of them. Yes, my house is under the flight path. My previous house was too. For what it's worth, my house is about 110 years old, but I've only spent the last 6 here.
I use Heathrow frequently, and the proximity's one reason why I chose to live in the rather nice bit of the country that I do. In fact, I can't think of another part of the country, or indeed London where I'd rather live.
I was well aware of aircraft flying overhead when I bought the house. We get them for a few hours each day. They've not been over yet today, but they probably will this evening. It doesn't bother me because it's not all day. If Heathrow were to be expanded it probably will bother me. If it were to operate flights all night, it would definitely bother me.
What's the most annoying is all the talk of it benefiting the economy. Nobody around here works at the airport. I benefit from the availability of flights, which in their current state are more than I need. None of the money made by Heathrow comes to me. It all goes to its Spanish owner, who is only interested in attracting transit passengers.
If they were willing to pay those of us who live here to put up with the extra noise we might consider it. They'd also have to pay for improving the roads and railways which are already over capacity.
Then there are those in the "regions" who will moan at yet more money going to London. And they'd be right.
So if we were all to be as selfish as you, I'd say that Heathrow's fine the way it is. I've never had a problem getting a flight to where I want to go, when I want to go. I can be on a plane within an hour of leaving my house. Why on Earth should that change just to please those of you "imbeciles" who are too stupid to buy a house close to a major airport?
There is always more than one side to an argument
I use Heathrow frequently, and the proximity's one reason why I chose to live in the rather nice bit of the country that I do. In fact, I can't think of another part of the country, or indeed London where I'd rather live.
I was well aware of aircraft flying overhead when I bought the house. We get them for a few hours each day. They've not been over yet today, but they probably will this evening. It doesn't bother me because it's not all day. If Heathrow were to be expanded it probably will bother me. If it were to operate flights all night, it would definitely bother me.
What's the most annoying is all the talk of it benefiting the economy. Nobody around here works at the airport. I benefit from the availability of flights, which in their current state are more than I need. None of the money made by Heathrow comes to me. It all goes to its Spanish owner, who is only interested in attracting transit passengers.
If they were willing to pay those of us who live here to put up with the extra noise we might consider it. They'd also have to pay for improving the roads and railways which are already over capacity.
Then there are those in the "regions" who will moan at yet more money going to London. And they'd be right.
So if we were all to be as selfish as you, I'd say that Heathrow's fine the way it is. I've never had a problem getting a flight to where I want to go, when I want to go. I can be on a plane within an hour of leaving my house. Why on Earth should that change just to please those of you "imbeciles" who are too stupid to buy a house close to a major airport?
There is always more than one side to an argument
Five miles from where I live a few fields are having houses built on (it's at planning application stage). I'm not going to move by the fields and campaign against the application. Don't be ridiculous. If I don't want houses I move to a more rural location. Similarly if you don't want night flights you shouldn't have moved to a location by a busy airport where night flying was being discussed and still is.
The benefit is it not the people it employs nearby but the jobs created in construction, the apprenticeships created in it, attraction of the 30 airlines on a waiting list who don't currently fly to the UK preferring Heathrow over all other airport, more planes arriving means more equipment to service them (UK industry bost there), more capacity gives more APD revenue, more business people in, more leisure people in etc... It's widely accepted Heathrow is the best option for expansion.
When was the last time your plane took off late as you were sitting on taxiways for ages?
When was the last time you had to wait for a gate to become available?
When was the last time you heard of LHR cancelling flights in snow as their infrastructure cannot cope with deicing?
When was the last time you heard about someone being bussed to a plane or needing to fly out of T3 instead of T5 due to capacity constraints?
When was the last time you saw overcrowded lounges?
When was the last time you heard about a delayed flight at Heathrow?
I bet your answers to all of these was 'Not that long ago' - Is Heathrow really fine the way it is? I think not...
Regions complain about London getting money but no other region is calling to build an airport. Build one everywhere for all I care. If a region wants one, allow them to build one. Heathrow airport should not be prevented from coming the world's best airport because of some disgruntled Northerners
The question is why does money go towards London and not other regions? - I blame a terrible education system leaving a skills shortage, a lack of interest in modern industries allowing old industrial towns to decline.
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
#75
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,872