Hate Heathrow? Then write to Andy
Jun 18, 2007, 11:24 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Programs: KrisFlyer, OnePass, SPG Gold
Posts: 121
Hate Heathrow? Then write to Andy
LONDON – InterContinental Hotel Group chief executive Andy Cosslett has been doing a lot of traveling recently.
He flew to Perth in Western Australia from IHG headquarters in Windsor, England, for IHG Asia/Pacific's Leadership Conference.
Less than three weeks later, he flew from the UK to Singapore to be on hand for the shock news that IHG Asia/Pacific chief executive Patrick Imbardelli was resigning after admitting that he had falsified his CV.
Clearly, the IHG group CEO has had enough of London's Heathrow airport.
He writes on the IHG website (www.ihgplc.com):
"My job demands a lot of international travel which leads to constant use of airports. As a proud Brit, it saddens me to the core every time I pass through London Heathrow Airport and see the poorly thought through systems and rudeness that travellers are forced to deal with.
"With 10 million of our guests going through Heathrow every year this is a concern for us.
"It is certainly true that security has to be the number one priority, but this has made travelling through airports a lot more difficult than it should be.
"From my experience of airports across the world I can see which of them have thought about the issues from the viewpoint of the passenger.
"Those that haven't are forgetting what the hotel business knows only too well, which is that everything you do should be seen as an opportunity to give the customer satisfying experiences and a good impression.
"We work every day to do this and it is a shame that Heathrow doesn't seem to be doing the same."
Log on to the IHG website because Andy wants to hear your opinions about Heathrow.
http://www.travelmole.com:80/stories/1119257.php
He flew to Perth in Western Australia from IHG headquarters in Windsor, England, for IHG Asia/Pacific's Leadership Conference.
Less than three weeks later, he flew from the UK to Singapore to be on hand for the shock news that IHG Asia/Pacific chief executive Patrick Imbardelli was resigning after admitting that he had falsified his CV.
Clearly, the IHG group CEO has had enough of London's Heathrow airport.
He writes on the IHG website (www.ihgplc.com):
"My job demands a lot of international travel which leads to constant use of airports. As a proud Brit, it saddens me to the core every time I pass through London Heathrow Airport and see the poorly thought through systems and rudeness that travellers are forced to deal with.
"With 10 million of our guests going through Heathrow every year this is a concern for us.
"It is certainly true that security has to be the number one priority, but this has made travelling through airports a lot more difficult than it should be.
"From my experience of airports across the world I can see which of them have thought about the issues from the viewpoint of the passenger.
"Those that haven't are forgetting what the hotel business knows only too well, which is that everything you do should be seen as an opportunity to give the customer satisfying experiences and a good impression.
"We work every day to do this and it is a shame that Heathrow doesn't seem to be doing the same."
Log on to the IHG website because Andy wants to hear your opinions about Heathrow.
http://www.travelmole.com:80/stories/1119257.php
Jun 19, 2007, 12:18 am
#2
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The road less traveled
Programs: UA Gold MM, AA EXP, Delta Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HHonors Diamond, Natl EE, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 5,118
I think it was Henry Kissinger who said, "Give me heaven or give me hell, but don't make me go through Heathrow." I would tend to concur. A few years ago, I transferred from a ORD-LHR flight to a LHR-DUB flight on BMI. After a 30 minute search for a bus, a ride through the dark bowels of the airport, and four (yes, FOUR) security checkpoints, we finally made it.
The most hilarious part of the visit was trying to get into the United Red Carpet Club after our flight to get a shower. (This is in 2003 or 2004.) We walk in and the agent says that we are not allowed to enter because we have not gone through security. Of course, I find this hilarious because we are standing right in front of her... clearly having been screened at some point. She directed us to a security checkpoint at the airport whose sole raison d'etre was to re-screen passengers who were already in the terminal and give us a little stamp on our boarding passes. To me, this seemed the height of stupidity. But what do I know. We returned to exactly where we started, but now with a stamp on our boarding passes, and were allowed to shower before moving on.
Ah, Heathrow.
The most hilarious part of the visit was trying to get into the United Red Carpet Club after our flight to get a shower. (This is in 2003 or 2004.) We walk in and the agent says that we are not allowed to enter because we have not gone through security. Of course, I find this hilarious because we are standing right in front of her... clearly having been screened at some point. She directed us to a security checkpoint at the airport whose sole raison d'etre was to re-screen passengers who were already in the terminal and give us a little stamp on our boarding passes. To me, this seemed the height of stupidity. But what do I know. We returned to exactly where we started, but now with a stamp on our boarding passes, and were allowed to shower before moving on.
Ah, Heathrow.
Jun 19, 2007, 6:50 am
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,735
I think it was Henry Kissinger who said, "Give me heaven or give me hell, but don't make me go through Heathrow." I would tend to concur. A few years ago, I transferred from a ORD-LHR flight to a LHR-DUB flight on BMI. After a 30 minute search for a bus, a ride through the dark bowels of the airport, and four (yes, FOUR) security checkpoints, we finally made it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3206528.stm
So I am not sure where your made-up quotation came from.
Jun 19, 2007, 8:29 am
#4
Moderator: UK and Ireland & Europe
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Biggleswade
Programs: SK*G, Lots of Blue Elsewhere
Posts: 13,611
I replied with what turned out to be a bit of a ranty essay (I'm sure it wasn't the only one...) of cobbled-together Flyertalk fact(oid)s:
Heathrow was shabby and meltdown-prone before the recent security changes, but there seem to be a number of attitude problems that will prevent the airport from improving.
As security demands doubled, so Heathrow's queues doubled. Meanwhile, down the road at City Airport, the checkpoints doubled. At Heathrow, they put minimum-wage staff on the queues to hand you plastic bags. At City, they put security personnel on the checkpoints, and queue-combers to ensure the 10-minute check-in promise could still be met.
The attitude is that delays are inevitable and should be coped with, not that security requirements have increased and therefore so should the processing capacity.
The next attitude problem is one of commercial focus. There is an ongoing joke that BAA run 'shopping malls with planes parked outside'. Where architects put effort into ensuring the efficient form, shape and passenger flows in airports like Schiphol, BAA in Heathrow Terminal 1 have diverted passengers, after screening, to follow a longer route through new shops, to get to their plane. But that's OK, you'll be at the airport early anyway, because of all the queues.
Then, when you're past the shops (which you will wander round, as the cushioned chairs were removed in favour of more wooden chairs, to encourage you to stay on your feet), there is the nasty business of boarding a plane. Yes, BAA still are obliged to get you on to these vehicles, and it's a tiresome process for them, however much they try to get HSBC to pay for it. At this point, you enter a world of 1970s chewing gum encrusted carpets, crumbling airbridges and sporadically functional travelators and escalators. Next time you pass through, just count how many broken pieces of machinery you come across.
Of course, the liquid restrictions are not the only ones to affect Heathrow in recent years. Post-9/11, it became compulsory to separate outbound and inbound passengers. At Frankfurt, they remodelled the airport to cope with this. At Heathrow, they have a farce involving staff with Tensabarriers stopping people in their stride.
None of this is revenue-generating. Shops, loss-leader shops at that, are what count in the world of BAA. If people have to buy their liquids after security and mill about (seatlessly) for hours, without wanting to head for a tatty gate area... All the better for the bottom line, no?
The next, fatal problem with Heathrow is oversubscription. Its slots are a ridiculously valuable, commodity, effectively traded by the sale of subsiduaries (see bmi/BMed), and saviour of many ex-state airlines who sold up and decamped to Gatwick. What this means is that, not only are airlines determined to squeeze every penny from a Heathrow service, but that, the moment anything goes wrong, the airport goes into meltdown.
The runway slots are at capacity all day, every day. So the moment weather, a tech fault, a security alert, a strike, anything hits the airport, everything is knocked out of kilter. Aircraft are left out of position: the knock-on effect can go on for days. You do not want to be caught up in this, and yet it can happen at any time.
But why do people put up with this?
I can't explain Heathrow's cachet, but for some bizarre reason, it still exists. I suspect its relative proximity to the more exclusive parts of London and the South East (and the immense power of the industry of the Western Corridor) have a lot to do with this.
Terminal 5 will not solve the problem: it is a sticking plaster at best. Even now, the cracks in the facade are appearing. T5 was supposed to be a congestion-beating, public transport showcasing dream. Well, the Heathrow Express will go there (an awful, horrendously priced service, taking you to an inconvenient station, with almost no connections outside London - any other country would have built an through service, or just diverted the GWR mainline years ago) but you'll have to walk ages to get to the station. Yes, the roadway is the priority, and it's just outside. Whereas Chek Lap Kok got the train as the centrepiece, at T5 it's still an afterthought.
Actually, planners years ago thought of T5 and the T4-T123 loop (which always takes 5 minutes longer than you expect) passes under it. This was far too convenient, though, and so a complex branch system was installed as well, so you can be confused as to how to get there.
Oh, and T5 won't serve capacity for BA and friends, either (I'm sure bmi, the Star Alliance and Skyteam absolutely love the fact BA is getting the commercial advantage of a single, all-new terminal). They're still going to be split over multiple terminals. I don't see the point of this, really.
Heathrow is a mess. Its current management will never focus on anything but retail revenue and even without that, there is zero chance of expanding the airport. Its oversubscription guarantees that disruptions are catastrophic. But business interests in its vicinity prevent the decent thing from happening: closing it and relocating. At best it should be a niche premium/regional airport, not a national hub. Yet it can only be political will that forces such a change, and I don't see that will coming from any side.
Heathrow was shabby and meltdown-prone before the recent security changes, but there seem to be a number of attitude problems that will prevent the airport from improving.
As security demands doubled, so Heathrow's queues doubled. Meanwhile, down the road at City Airport, the checkpoints doubled. At Heathrow, they put minimum-wage staff on the queues to hand you plastic bags. At City, they put security personnel on the checkpoints, and queue-combers to ensure the 10-minute check-in promise could still be met.
The attitude is that delays are inevitable and should be coped with, not that security requirements have increased and therefore so should the processing capacity.
The next attitude problem is one of commercial focus. There is an ongoing joke that BAA run 'shopping malls with planes parked outside'. Where architects put effort into ensuring the efficient form, shape and passenger flows in airports like Schiphol, BAA in Heathrow Terminal 1 have diverted passengers, after screening, to follow a longer route through new shops, to get to their plane. But that's OK, you'll be at the airport early anyway, because of all the queues.
Then, when you're past the shops (which you will wander round, as the cushioned chairs were removed in favour of more wooden chairs, to encourage you to stay on your feet), there is the nasty business of boarding a plane. Yes, BAA still are obliged to get you on to these vehicles, and it's a tiresome process for them, however much they try to get HSBC to pay for it. At this point, you enter a world of 1970s chewing gum encrusted carpets, crumbling airbridges and sporadically functional travelators and escalators. Next time you pass through, just count how many broken pieces of machinery you come across.
Of course, the liquid restrictions are not the only ones to affect Heathrow in recent years. Post-9/11, it became compulsory to separate outbound and inbound passengers. At Frankfurt, they remodelled the airport to cope with this. At Heathrow, they have a farce involving staff with Tensabarriers stopping people in their stride.
None of this is revenue-generating. Shops, loss-leader shops at that, are what count in the world of BAA. If people have to buy their liquids after security and mill about (seatlessly) for hours, without wanting to head for a tatty gate area... All the better for the bottom line, no?
The next, fatal problem with Heathrow is oversubscription. Its slots are a ridiculously valuable, commodity, effectively traded by the sale of subsiduaries (see bmi/BMed), and saviour of many ex-state airlines who sold up and decamped to Gatwick. What this means is that, not only are airlines determined to squeeze every penny from a Heathrow service, but that, the moment anything goes wrong, the airport goes into meltdown.
The runway slots are at capacity all day, every day. So the moment weather, a tech fault, a security alert, a strike, anything hits the airport, everything is knocked out of kilter. Aircraft are left out of position: the knock-on effect can go on for days. You do not want to be caught up in this, and yet it can happen at any time.
But why do people put up with this?
I can't explain Heathrow's cachet, but for some bizarre reason, it still exists. I suspect its relative proximity to the more exclusive parts of London and the South East (and the immense power of the industry of the Western Corridor) have a lot to do with this.
Terminal 5 will not solve the problem: it is a sticking plaster at best. Even now, the cracks in the facade are appearing. T5 was supposed to be a congestion-beating, public transport showcasing dream. Well, the Heathrow Express will go there (an awful, horrendously priced service, taking you to an inconvenient station, with almost no connections outside London - any other country would have built an through service, or just diverted the GWR mainline years ago) but you'll have to walk ages to get to the station. Yes, the roadway is the priority, and it's just outside. Whereas Chek Lap Kok got the train as the centrepiece, at T5 it's still an afterthought.
Actually, planners years ago thought of T5 and the T4-T123 loop (which always takes 5 minutes longer than you expect) passes under it. This was far too convenient, though, and so a complex branch system was installed as well, so you can be confused as to how to get there.
Oh, and T5 won't serve capacity for BA and friends, either (I'm sure bmi, the Star Alliance and Skyteam absolutely love the fact BA is getting the commercial advantage of a single, all-new terminal). They're still going to be split over multiple terminals. I don't see the point of this, really.
Heathrow is a mess. Its current management will never focus on anything but retail revenue and even without that, there is zero chance of expanding the airport. Its oversubscription guarantees that disruptions are catastrophic. But business interests in its vicinity prevent the decent thing from happening: closing it and relocating. At best it should be a niche premium/regional airport, not a national hub. Yet it can only be political will that forces such a change, and I don't see that will coming from any side.