HEATHROW

[Woofrey]

I've no idea if you're right about the BAA directors, they did, after all, put out a lot of press and shareholder documentation about saying 'No' to the Ferrovial bid. And although a handful of them did very well financially out of the deal, a lot of senior mangement have since left and staff morale generally now appears low.
The bit that interests me though, and doesn't get widely reported, is that it was the City institutions that held most of the shares, and sold out, it was the City analysts, lawyers, bankers, finance houses, auditors etc etc who must have raked it in during the defence / takeover bid, and it's the same City boys who are again raking it in during the current re-financing exercise.....
......so it's a bit rich when you hear that London Businessmen and City Institutions are saying that Heathrow is damaging the capitals ability to do business. After all, it was the City that sold it to the Spanish.

[old,not bold]

And although a handful of them did very well financially out of the deal, a lot of senior mangement

Cui bono......they drove the deal.

You're absolutely right about the City, of course. But it was the Government who should have intervened to protect the future of a national economic asset, didn't, and won't when Ferrovial have had enough.

[Andy_S]

"The bit that interests me though, and doesn't get widely reported, is that it was the City institutions that held most of the shares, and sold out"

Spot on. In the run up to the takeover, a lot of the business press had commented that BAA had a bright future, and that held long term the shares would have been a good investment.
However, a lot of them were also sharp enough to observe that the various fund managers, bankers etc who held shares would have one eye on targets and performance bonuses, and once they felt Ferrovial had bid a sufficient premium for BAA would sell out without hesitation.
BAA wasn't perfect, but british pension funds would have benefited from the dividends and appreciation in price of the shares. Because of a culture of short termism, a profitable and valuable piece of british infrastructure was surrendered.

[Mach086]

Heathrow Approach - 9L/R

Just wondering, when planes land take/off on the 27, there is an alternation at 3pm. but when they land take off on 9, landing is always done on 9L with no alternation at 3pm. why is this?

cheers

[spanishflea]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/...fordagreem2168

[WHBM]

It is not correct to say that when Heathrow is on easterlies landings are only on 9L; I see there were 330 landings on 9R during June (when there was a lot of Easterly operation). During the period from 0600 to 0700 when both runways are used for landings is the most common time to see this. BA flights are normally selected as it makes the ground taxi to T4 more straightforward.

Takeoffs from 9L are less common, and generally will occur when 9R is obstructed for some reason, either a disabled aircraft or works in hand.

[Mach086]

ok. fair enough - i do know that there are some landings on 9R. i guess what i'm wondering is why isn't there a defnite alternation of runways at a definite time - like on 27. that means the houses under neath the flight path of 27R( east of the airport) will always have aircraft at take-off thrust throughout the day! wheras when landings are made on runways 27, at least its only for half a day that they have "relativey" less noise as its a landing aircraft.

I just found it strange thats all.

thanks spanish flea for your post - didn't understand a word of it though and it didnt really answer the question.

[sickBocks]

The Cranford Agreement

SpanishFlea - in a nutshell. Cranford is a 'village' at the Eastern end of 09L/27R just to the North of the centreline. Many years ago in the times of wizards and dragons the natives decided they didn't want all of those noisy Comets/707s/Tridents/whatever flying low over their houses so The Cranford Agreement was born restricting/preventing departures off 09L. At the Eastern end of 09R/27L there's only a tube station, hangars, a pub and some cows and horses so this was a sensible idea.

What was nice though was during Concorde's last year of operation part of 09R/27L was being resurfaced and there was a bit of a 'join' between surfaces in the work in progress. Following the recent Paris crash it was deemed sensible to limit Easterly Concorde take-offs to 09L much to the delight of the good people of Cranford/Heston.

sB

[Bangkokeasy]

Ms Bangkokeasy and self flew in for annual hols at T3 on 26th July and were gobsmacked when we found ourselves standing at the curbside waiting for the car hire shuttlebus not 20 minutes after the wheels of TG916 touched down. The first time in 10 years I have not seen any delays coming in whatsoever. STRAIGHT onto the arrival stand, NO queue at immigration and all 4 bags were even dutifully circling the carousel BEFORE we got there. You see chaps, it is possible with a little application.

However, the experience was not so rosy on the way out. The M25 was closed, due to the wrong sort of accident and in the absence of any sort of common sense by the authorities, it took 5 hours to get to LHR from Kent, resulting in a missed flight and 9 hour sojourn in T3, before the next one. Why are we sooo sensitive when it comes to incidents of any kind that we have to close everything causing huge problems for hundreds of thousands of people just because a few cars and trucks have had a fender bender???

Anyway, in the hours spent waiting for the next flight, BE read up on plans for LHR. T3 may look ok when finished, but then there is the further development of Heathrow East. One bit in the blurb caught my eye - "it is stressed that the development of Heathrow East will not mean an increase in capacity over that of T1 and T2". What??? Hello??? Has someone taken leave of their senses??? You can put your head in the sand as much as you like in the name of being "green", but surely this doesn't just mean "naiive and inexperienced"? With global trends continuing the way projected, there will be a further 30% or so PAX wanting to use this facility by the time it is built. Somehow, "shortsighted" doesn't quite do this justice. Get real someone.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Bangkokeasy

"it is stressed that the development of Heathrow East will not mean an increase in capacity over that of T1 and T2". What??? Hello??? Has someone taken leave of their senses???

Just to explain this one (in round numbers).

T1 and T2 were built to handle 20m pax a year but are actually handling 40m.

Heathrow East replacement therefore built to handle 40m pax a year but will of course actually get used for 80m.

1. Can tell Greens "no increase in capacity over current levels".
2. Pax are as squashed as ever.

[Livinginthepast]

I couldn't agree more. BAA have singularily mismanaged Heathrow in the past five years. Failure to develop route cohesion and resource mismanagement. Well said.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Livinginthepast

BAA have singularily mismanaged Heathrow in the past five years. Failure to develop route cohesion and resource mismanagement

BAA board policy laid down to management:

1. Increase this year revenue by 10% over last year.
2. Reduce this year costs by 10% under last year.
3. Er ..... that's it.

No route strategy, no resource allocation policy, nothing.

[rubik101]

LHR New 4000m runway

Just where do they intend putting the proposed new runway at Heathrow?
This will be done in the same manner as the Lib-Dems proposed new railway lines I suppose. If the general thrust of political parties seems to be to tax and squeeze all forms of transport on the supposed Global Warming/Green Tax basis, then how do they justify these expensive, expansive expansion plans? Answers on a post card please, to your local Green MP, as they all seem to be now.

[Geffen]

Same place they want the 2000m runway. Might as well ask for 4000m and see what they get.

[Barcli]

BA and T4 - how bad does it have to get ?

Have operated out of T4 at LHR for over 10 yrs now and never know the abissmal ground infrastructure so bad.
Every arrival and departure ( arrivals worse) have the same outcome
1. No stand
2. No steps ( if not pier stand)
3. No loaders / unloaders
4. No steps
5. No tug ( departures)
6. No Hilift ( ordered over an hour before lndg and prenoated on departure message)
7. No wheel chairs ( same as above - requested at - 1 hr and pre-notified)
Any arrival now has over an hour ( if your lucky) before passengers dissembark and these passengers are all adamant they will never fly BA again .
No one cares though - from the baggage handlers through despatchers through to Duty Managers
BA needs a huge wake up call if it is actually to survive . There is some serious complacency amongst all of them . T5 will be just more of the same..........
Passengers are , quite correctly voting with their feet
I actually hope that they get the wake up call because oh boy do they deserve it !!!!
I am not sure if the press are aware of actually how bad the service is - they ought to because the bad publicity appears to be all that BA listen too.

[Rwy in Sight]

Everybody (who pays his own ticket) complains about an airline states it will fly again yet when the price is right they do fly again and again. All these measures lead to cheaper fare so people vote with their pocketbook.

And correct me if I am wrong BA has some pretty large accouts so employees fly them no matter what.

Rwy in Sight

[cavortingcheetah]

Just about to launch from IAD to European points via Amsterdam, specifically in order to arrive without going near LHR or, by extension, LGW.
The World Bank, as an organization, is just on the point of black balling Heathrow and British Airways. BA will loose the custom of many Gold Card members.
It matters not that BA's troubles are in some part due to BAA's sale to Ferrovial, a Spanish construction company. There is little sympathy here for governments that succumb to asset strippers.

[757_Driver]

yes, but if my reading of the current 'average' fares for various routes is correct, then the only way BA can fill its aircraft is to seriously discount the tickets. Were they to give a better service (to be fair its not all BA, its LHR aswell) then they could charge a premium on their tickets.
BA may be making a reasonable profit, but they still have a billion pound hole in their accounts to fill (pension) and there must be a reason why they are pretty much the only airline in the UK if not europe not to have expanded during one of the biggest boom times in the industries history.

Personally I always state 'anywhere but heathrow' when travelling myself, and whilst not particularly avoiding BA per-se, this does eliminate most of their flights from my shortlist.

[ratarsedagain]

Barcli said:

Any arrival now has over an hour ( if your lucky) before passengers dissembark

I know T4 is not great at the mo, with all the emphasis is on the move to T5, but I think the above statement is a bit sweeping!
Apart from days of major disruption, due to weather, security etc, I can't say I've ever had to wait over an hour to disembark my passengers (And that's over 16 years of T4 ops).

[egbt]

T1 is just as bad, in 10 trips back from DUS to LHR this year I have NEVER been on time off the a/c. on 3 or the last 4 the wait to get off AFTER LANDING! was an hour or more (might have been 4 out of 5 but I lost track). One was 1.5 hours.
I am now flying FlyBe from BHX and getting home on time. (That's probably done it I'm off again tomorrow so I'll probably be late