I've been reading PPRUNE for sometime now and following this thread in particular. It has been very interesting and a great insight into the goings on and reasons for failure at the recently opened Terminal 5. I was particularily intrigued at the poster BAengineering, it comes as some disappointement that this poster was recently banned.
BBC News24 its good to know that some real journos have been reading this thread. As one personally heavily involved in the
www.saynoto0870.com website and campaign I have consistently been disappointed by just how few national newspaper journalists seem to actually ever do any research of their own on the multi billion pound 084/7 NTS ripoff industry or the apparently deliberate conspiracy of the so called regulator (Ofcom) to keep it in business. Far too many journalists in this field simply seem to simply reproduce the biased official press releases of Ofcom without almost any independent minded analysis at all.
Coming back to this site I have to say this thread has been the exception that proves the rule on a site where posts are normally heavily controlled and where comments from anyone deemed not to be an aviation expert are frequently summarily removed without any indication to the poster this has happened or any explanation for doing so. I believe a completely open debate was originally permitted in this particular case because even the management of this website were so aghast at the ineptitude of BA/BAA over T5.
Obviously one can imagine that BA Engineering (if he/they actually existed as I believe he/they did) would be very hard for BA to live with and as a website of his kind is reliant on friends in the aviation industry for advertising support and other special favours it would seem that eventually pressure was brought to bear on the management to ban him they could not resist. This was probably why initially closing this thread to hide that ban seemed the easier option but then they were no doubt inundated with complaints about suppressing the debate. I find this disappointing as almost nothing BAEngineering said was actually libelous, even though it was probably mutinous and dismissable in terms of any employee's contractual obligations (if indeed that person was still a BA employee as they could for instance be a retired BA employee being regularly informed by still employed colleagues).
This appears to be because this poster was being attacked by other 'pro BA' individuals, for defending his position he has been selected for exclusion
It seems clear that BAEngineering would like to talk to a journalist such as yourself and so my suggestion would be that he uses another computer with another IP address to create another identity on this forum and then PMs you his details so you can contact him.