McTeir396;
As someone with inside knowledge, can you explain why BAA removed the two large wide-body stands on the main apron (6A and 12) and replaced them with stands on the Southeast apron without first strengthening taxiway Lima or Mike to enable these "replacement" stands to be used by higher ACN wide-body aircraft on a regular basis? Can you explain why taxiway Mike was reassessed by GIP as having a much higher PCN inside a week of them taking over and without any work having taking place to strengthen it? It raises the suspicion that BAA were deliberately understating the PCN of taxiway Mike. Can you explain why BAA allowed the centre section of taxiway Alpha to deteriorate to the stage where its usable width had to be limited? GIP remedied this. Can you explain why BAA didn't take the opportunity to upgrade the PCN of runway 06/24 when they resurfaced it? GIP upgraded the PCN of 06/24 shortly after taking ownership. Can you explain why the end sections of Taxiway Alpha were assessed by GIP as having much higher PCNs than BAA had declared? Again, it raises the suspicion that BAA were understating the PCN of these pavements
I don't disagree that BAA made a lot of improvements and presided over a huge increase in passenger numbers but the above facts suggest that BAA's ambition was not directed towards long-haul but instead focused on short to medium range flights. There may be perfectly logical explanations for these decisions. If so I'd be interested to hear them.
Last edited by Porrohman; 23rd Jan 2015 at 20:44.