scottishpoet

I love T3

I flew back and forward between LHR and DXB a lot between 1998 and 2000 with EK

When I fly from T3 I get to fondly remember how things were many many many many years ago.

SpeedbirdLHR

Sorry to disappoint but BA doesn’t control the stand plan at T3 and are unable to displace any other carrier in favour of getting more on pier departures. There is a general agreement that carriers have to have similar levels of on and off pier services, which does mean that with the higher number of flights, BA will see multiple off pier daily, while other carriers may only have 1 a day or none, depending on their frequency of operation.

The BA T3 operation used to have a higher number of passengers per day than even Virgin. While I don’t know the current numbers, looking at the number of daily flights, I’d say the BA T3 numbers are likely similar to what they were back in 2019. When I was there, on peak days, BA T3 could easily have around 2000 more passengers than Virgin but that likely evened out with the ex-LGW Virgin services now in T3.

T5 already exceeds the capacity it was designed for and adding T3 numbers would just make it worse than it already is.

ijgordon

BA needs to provide chauffeur service to F passengers when their plane is departing from a remote stand. They could also provide same from T5 CCR if the pax is on a flight departing T3, just drive them there instead (I mean my JFK flight last weekend was closer to T3 than T5), and then they don't need the F facilities at T3; ALL F pax to go T5, like the Lufthansa First Class Terminal.

PlungeTEX

I’ll take T3 any day of the week over T5. Place just operates much more efficiently with the exception of the lack of first wing security and valet parking retrieval where you need an elevator. Plus I’ve had one bus gate at T3 in my flying experience. Versus probably 50+ at T5.

the810

In addition to better lounges, the bag delivery also seems to be significantly faster than in T5.

For O&D trips, I definitely prefer T3 over T5. The only issue is transfers, but I avoid LHR for transfers like a plague anyway, so I just have to swallow the pill on those very rare occasions when no other reasonable option exists.

Confus

There are a number of factors that influence terminal allocation. Connecting flows are one (both volume and length - remember MCT is longer with a terminal change), schedules and aircraft allocations are another, available facilities (e.g. domestic capability), and more. Remember to include AA in your analysis - under the JB, they and BA consider themselves one airline at LHR.

The only terminal where HAL guarantees on-pier departures is T4. And still few airlines want to move there.

jrfsp320

Crossing the runway can be a bit of a pain but generally not too bad. T4 suffers with public transport ease compared to the other terminals. I wasn't aware of T2 flights requiring bussing, or must be minimal if they do?

jrfsp320

100%, while parts of T3 are a bit dingy i prefer it to the hordes of people in T5 where you can barely move, packed lounges, a shuttle system which is woefully overcapacity. The newer / refurbed piers (Gates 1-7 and 29+ are more spacious and have more organised boarding than T5)

etiene

Which is why I said length, not size. I’m aware they’re satellites and would never have check-in space, but it seems unlikely that the architect designed a series of random-length outhouses with rambling jetbridges rather than a uniform toast-rack arrangement (which I could totally see the accountants butchering into the hodge-podge that is T5 now).

srbrenna

Pre-COVID the PRG, BUD and BCN flights were rammed with connecting passengers from AA so it wasn't strictly O&D.

jrfsp320

Thats right, The long hauls were aimed at lower yielding high O/D flights whereas the short haul flights were high capacity routes (which could be operated with the 757s) with lots of transfer traffic to AA. The retirement of the 757s has changed the T3 routes somewhat with more skew towards O/D heavy flights.

Door5L

As well as capacity at Heathrow, it must have something to do with flight profiles.

I don’t think the early T5 planning factored in the number of LGW longhaul routes which would move to Heathrow - something that really take shape mid 2000s following 9/11. Gatwick was the hub for a lot of US and Africa flights served by 744s and 777s (Houston, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Accra, Nairobi and others)

Back in the early 2000s there was a bit of a reshuffle when BA flights were split between T1, T4 and T3! Tokyo operated in and out of T1, for example, despite most BA longhauls being out of T4 at the time (apart from MIA and PHL which I recall being from T3). Apparently Tokyo being at T1 allowed Japanese passengers easier connections to the most popular European destinations for that market (Italy) which BA mainly operated out of T1. I can’t recall which other longhauls were also moved from T4 to T1 at the time. Paris and Amsterdam were (I think) the only BA Euro flights from T4.

BOH

It wasn't anything to do with 9/11, it was 2008 when the Bermuda II restrictive agreement was scrapped.

Flying Doctor

So I thought that the only way that the entire BA operation could operate out of T5 was if there was T5D - that if I recall needs relocation of some of the underground fuel tanks at LHR which sounds like a lot of work and i cannot see this being prioritised above other things that LHR needs (like the demolition of the old T1 which still has the jetways and part of the old terminal which you seen when you taxi on the Northern Runway)
Also of course you have a lot of Oneworld over at T3 so there is that dynamic as well and there is no way you could ever get the whole of Oneworld in T5, even with T5D so that might also be a reason that there is little apetite to remove the split across 2 terminals....
FD.