HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Final T1 moves

25th March 2015 - Icelandair to T2
25th April 2015 - El Al to T4
27th May 2015 - TAM to T3

....and then it gets demolished?

[DaveReidUK]

....and then it gets demolished?

Yes, though probably not the day after.

But it will be in the way of future T2/satellite development, so expect the bulldozers before too long.

[Skipness One Echo]

Interesting that Icelandair are going to T2, the STAR ALLIANCE terminal while the non aligned and Skyteam T4 sits half empty most of the day.

Also given T2 already seems to be full, how exactly were they planning on getting BMI in there. Seems we avoided a whole lot of bussing when BA bought out BMI.

[Fairdealfrank]

Also given T2 already seems to be full, how exactly were they planning on getting BMI in there. Seems we avoided a whole lot of bussing when BA bought out BMI.

It's academic now, but a way would have been found. BD would have been by far the largest tenant of LHR-2, and would have played a vital role in feeding longhaul Star Alliance flights.

Perhaps some of the smaller, shorthaul, or less connection-orientated Star Alliance carriers would have stayed out until the second phase was built.

[c52]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?

In the former case, it's a pity there are no VC-10s left to provide a contrast. Maybe a Tornado could do the job.

[edi_local]

BMI would have taken the space of VSLR and EI (although where EI would have gone is beyond me...possibly T5 to feed into BA as they wouldn't have started BHD/DUB again). T2 was designed with BMI in mind which is why it even has the domestic and Irish arrival facilities.

I am confused as to why FI are being allowed in to T2 when they are not star alliance and AI who are over in T4 will be the only non Star alliance carrier outside of T2.

VSLR will cut down by March so that allows space for FI, and then by September they will gone totally, allowing space for possible Air India to come in.

[jdcg]

I suppose FI is fairly easy to squeeze in at this stage of the T2 development and maybe it has something to do with who most of their interlining passengers are flying with. AI will presumably follow at some point (2016?) and then some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe, albeit some way off.

[DaveReidUK]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?

According to Akbar Al Baker, Qatar's CEO, it's “to prove to the world, especially to the British community, how quiet this plane is".

http://bloga350.bl ogspot.co.uk/2014/12/qatars-a350-will-demo-sound-emissions.html

He's not on record as having singled out Hounslow residents in particular.

[Fairdealfrank]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?

Probably a bit of both, but it's the vocal whingers who live miles away from the airport that need convincing. Trouble is that they will never be persuaded, even by hard evidence.

In the former case, it's a pity there are no VC-10s left to provide a contrast. Maybe a Tornado could do the job.

Ha ha, like it.

BMI would have taken the space of VSLR and EI (although where EI would have gone is beyond me...possibly T5 to feed into BA as they wouldn't have started BHD/DUB again). T2 was designed with BMI in mind which is why it even has the domestic and Irish arrival facilities.

VS only took a tiny of bit the former BD operation which remained substantial even after cannibalisation by LH between 2009 and 2012. As you state, LHR-2 was designed with BD as the "anchor" tenant and it was planned to have EI in there as well (to share the common travel area arrivals facility). When the rebuilding of LHR-1/2 was planned there was no indication that BA would return to LHR-DUB.

I suppose FI is fairly easy to squeeze in at this stage of the T2 development and maybe it has something to do with who most of their interlining passengers are flying with. AI will presumably follow at some point (2016?) and then some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe, albeit some way off.

In a few years time it will be a completely rebuilt LHR-1/2 and it will be much bigger. It is also possible that some Oneworld carriers will find themselves there at some stage, once LHR-3 is demolished.

[PAXboy]

Whilst there are no VC10s left to give a contrast, surely there must be some 707s? Some of those looked like they were burning coal?

Get a weekend afternoon flypast with touch and goes by a 707, 747-100 and couple of others of that era. Get all the sound and vision measuring stuff lined up and record what used to happen.

Then get the 777 and 787 along with a 330 and 340 to show where we are now.

[Swedish Steve]

some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe

What sort of date will T3 be demolished.
Has anyone told BA who have moved in with new check in and lounge and a new baggage system linking T3 to T5? Seems a lot of money for a doomed terminal? And where will One world (and Virgin) go?

[davidjohnson6]

Why does T3 need to be demolished ? Alternatively what will demolishing and building a new T3 achieve ? Am wondering if there is a clear need or HAH are just overly keen on capital expenditure.

[Skipness One Echo]

Pier 7 needs arriving and departing passengers segregated manually by doors, it has no arriving facility at 313 and was truncated for the building of the new tower. Aside from Pier 6, much of the rest was also built for B707s and DC8s. It has almost no natural light and can get a fraction of the aircraft into that space as it would do were it properly aligned with T5 and T2. Knock it down. I'll drive the JCB

[DaveReidUK]

Terminal Three was designed and built in an age where a toast-rack was something on the breakfast table and satellites got songs written about them.

[PAXboy]

To see why T3 is so bad, you need an up to date aerial view. You can see how the piers snake away and have then blocked future expansion because they did not think they were going to need so much space. It is a 1950s design, that has been dragged along by 'stick-another-bit-on-there' for 50 years.

[Bagso]

Airport expansion in the South East appears to be falling foul of the usual politics !

Political deal for Gatwick expansion 'fading', says Boris Johnson - www.travelweekly.co.uk

[ATNotts]

Airport expansion in the South East appears to be fading !

Hardly surprising when you consider there's an election coming up in May.

Plenty of Tory seats within "earshot" of LHR / LGW, so lots for the Conservatives to lose - and Labour are hardly likely to stick their head above the parapet and promise extra runways willy-nilly as they will need all the luck they can muster to win outright.

That's the problem with democracy - elections come around every 5 years and infrastructure takes more than 5 years from proposal, through planning to fruition - so in the end we wind up with the usual British mess where too little is built too late and costs too much, leading for even more planning and political buck passing - and yes, yet more cost to still not get it right.

Look at China, no democracy, government not answerable to the NIMBYs, and economy (allegedly) growing apace, along with infrastructure. Question is, would we rather live in China or the UK?

[Fairdealfrank]

Why does T3 need to be demolished ? Alternatively what will demolishing and building a new T3 achieve ? Am wondering if there is a clear need or HAH are just overly keen on capital expenditure.

Because it's a bad use of space with the present configuration of the airport. It was designed to fit in the space allowed by the old cross rwys, as is (the soon to be demolished) LHR-1 and the former LHR-2. The space will be needed for more satelites for both LHR-5 and LHR-1/2.

To see why T3 is so bad, you need an up to date aerial view. You can see how the piers snake away and have then blocked future expansion because they did not think they were going to need so much space. It is a 1950s design, that has been dragged along by 'stick-another-bit-on-there' for 50 years.

Yes, it was opened in 1961 for longhaul, to replace the northside terminal. Over the years bits were added piecemeal and now it's well beyond its sell-by date. It has to go.

However, it's demolition date may be dependent on another rwy and whether LHR-5 will be expanded (to take Oneworld carriers).

Airport expansion in the South East appears to be falling foul of the usual politics !

Political deal for Gatwick expansion 'fading', says Boris Johnson - www.travelweekly.co.uk

Good, it's red herring, a second LGW runway does not address the specific problem.

In a cheeky move, "Gatwick obviously" leaflets are now being distributed under the LHR flightpath.

Is "Taking Britain Further" literature also making an appearance under the LGW flightpath?

Hardly surprising when you consider there's an election coming up in May.

Plenty of Tory seats within "earshot" of LHR / LGW, so lots for the Conservatives to lose - and Labour are hardly likely to stick their head above the parapet and promise extra runways willy-nilly as they will need all the luck they can muster to win outright.

Disagree, airport expansion is not sufficiently high on the list of issues that might make marginal seats change hands.

That said, there aren't many marginal seats under the LHR flightpath: Mary McLeod at Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) is the only one that comes to mind.

If Vince Cable loses the not particularly marginal Twickenham, it will be more to do with the Libdems behavior at the national level as reflected in their current opinion polls showing than any local issue.

Both MPs have nailed their masts to the anti-expansion lobby.

That's the problem with democracy - elections come around every 5 years and infrastructure takes more than 5 years from proposal, through planning to fruition - so in the end we wind up with the usual British mess where too little is built too late and costs too much, leading for even more planning and political buck passing - and yes, yet more cost to still not get it right.

Look at China, no democracy, government not answerable to the NIMBYs, and economy (allegedly) growing apace, along with infrastructure. Question is, would we rather live in China or the UK?

It's not always that simple, many democracies have excellent infrastructure, most totalitarian states have rubbish infrastructure.

But you're right, the government should not be answerable to NIMBYs, it should have the interests of the nation as its priority.

It's not as if the NIMBY lobby are mainly Conservative or Labour voters.

[118.70]

That said, there aren't many marginal seats under the LHR flightpath: Mary McLeod at Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) is the only one that comes to mind.

Electoral Calculus

Majority Sorted Seats

also has Angie Bray in Ealing and Jane Ellison in Battersea as being vulnerable.

And the flight path trials that have brought new noise to rural areas and angered residents have caused alarm and bulging postbags to several "safe" seats. If they are necessary for a new runway, they may be concerning quite a few members of the Cabinet : Gove, Hammond, May, Maude ........

[Fairdealfrank]

Electoral Calculus

Majority Sorted Seats

also has Angie Bray in Ealing and Jane Ellison in Battersea as being vulnerable.

Interesting analysis, but a needs updating. It has Alan Keen listed as MP for Feltham and Heston. He died, there's been a by-election, which means more recent data is available and not being used (the seat won't change hands). It's also in a vacuum where there are no UKIP seats........

As for Angie Bray, yes, she's vulnerable, but her constituency is visible from a right hand window seat when doing a westerly landing at LHR, not underneath, the proposed third rwy is also south of her constituency.

Jane Ellison is also vulnerable, but her constituency is miles from LHR.

And the flight path trials that have brought new noise to rural areas and angered residents have caused alarm and bulging postbags to several "safe" seats. If they are necessary for a new runway, they may be concerning quite a few members of the Cabinet : Gove, Hammond, May, Maude ........

None of those are remotely vulnerable (even if UKIP do well), all have huge majorities, Libdems in second place, and a derisory Labour vote.


As stated before, another LHR rwy isn't a sufficient important issue to unseat MPs, plus no decision would have been made by the election.