BA anger after 40,000 disrupted by Bush visit

[teleport]

From today's Guardian
SOURCE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ysbusiness.baa
BA anger after 40,000 disrupted by Bush visit

· Heathrow criticised over allowing VIP party to fly in
· Passengers delayed and 69 flights cancelled

* Dan Milmo, transport correspondent
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday June 24, 2008
* Article history

British Airways has criticised Heathrow owner BAA for allowing George Bush to fly into the UK's biggest airport, forcing the cancellation of at least 69 flights and disrupting the travel plans of 40,000 passengers.

Willie Walsh, BA chief executive, said he was angry that the presidential entourage, which included two Boeing 747 jets and four helicopters, caused chaos 10 days ago as runways were closed and planes grounded. "The decision to allow President Bush and his fleet of aircraft to fly into Heathrow rather than a military base was one all of Heathrow's users could have done without," he said. "I am also angry that this was allowed."

Walsh said the disruption began two days before the president's visit on June 15 and lasted for the two days that his party stayed in the UK. Heathrow was reduced to one working runway for 30 minutes on June 15 and 16, after its other runway was closed temporarily for the arrival and departure of Air Force One.

According to BA, there was a ban on departing flights on two separate occasions as the president arrived, leading to knock-on delays that lasted six hours. A rehearsal on the preceding Friday, when two helicopters landed at Heathrow, caused similar delays, BA said. Walsh blamed the disruption on the size of the entourage and US security requirements.

BA, Heathrow's biggest customer, said it had cancelled 53 short-haul flights while more than 260 flights were delayed by more than 30 minutes, affecting 38,000 passengers.

BAA admitted a further 16 flights from other airlines were cancelled for the duration of the president's visit. But it defended its decision to allow Air Force One to land, saying Heathrow was the best port of entry for the party, given an itinerary that included a dinner at Windsor Castle, while the airport offers a high level of security, acquired through many years of handling VIPs.

Writing to BA staff in the airline's in-house newspaper, Walsh said the carrier was well used to disruption at the airport, but what was different on this occasion was that the delays were "completely unnecessary".

BA has endured one of its worst ever years at Heathrow, after the disastrous opening of Terminal 5 forced the cancellation of more than 500 flights and heaped bad publicity on the airline. However, the £4.3bn building has been working smoothly since then.

Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, is expected to reiterate calls for a third runway at Heathrow tomorrow when a report is published on the causes of delays and cancellations. BA and BAA claim disruption is common because its two runways operate at capacity, leaving no room for recovery if freak weather, security scares or a presidential visit upset flight schedules. Four out of 10 Heathrow flights are late, with an average delay of 25 minutes.

A BAA spokesman said: "BAA, the airlines and other business partners at Heathrow did everything in their power to minimise disruption at the airport during George Bush's presidential visit. Despite our best efforts, some disruption did occur, for which we apologise to passengers affected."

[spinnaker]

I never understand why these little pricks (aka heads of state) do not use military bases. They already know that times are getting hard, T5 had a lousy time. So why pile on the agony? imho Bush + Brown just come over as a pair of nasty little dictators whose own self importance is a higher priority than the counties that the lead.

[liquid sunshine]

BA "had" to cancel flights or chose to cancel them! I confess that I am not entirely up to speed on flow rates etc at LHR but it would appear that BA are always very quick to cancel flights and then blame someone else for their woes. Anyone able to provide more info?

[goldeneye]

RAF Northolt is used for a lot of Royal and Govt flights so why not use it when heads of states come to the UK. Can Northolt take a B747 ?

Its seems really odd to put paying passengers at a disadvantage ie canx or delating there flights.

[Bagso]

.....er of a 747 did get into Northolt, it would never get out !!!!!!

[Wycombe]

One would hope there is a very good reason why the RAF's largest transport base (not that far up the road for "Marine One" and Co. from Windsor & London) could not have been used for this visit, there's plenty of room there for the whole entourage one would have thought.

One would imagine it would also be an easier place at which to facilitate the required security, what with controlled point of entry etc, even when the President is not in town.

When Gordon goes to the US in his rented 757 or whatever, even that probably goes to a Military Base, and not into Dulles, JFK or wherever.

The whole thing smacks of needless US willy-waving to me.

Was in Sydney some years back when Bill C came to visit - again the whole airport/airspace was closed for 30 mins, as was the main road into town etc - and this was all so he could fly in for a round of golf with Greg Norman

[Gonzo]

liquid sunshine,

It's far more straightforward from a scheduling, and pax assistance, point of view to take the hit early and cancel some flights as soon as practicable, rather than hoping we in ATC manage to exceed capacity.

It's far better to cancel early and have the rest of the day to rebook passengers on subsequent flights (maybe put a 321 on a certain sector instead of a 319), rather than find it's approaching 2330 when the LHR night jet ban starts and find that several flights cannot depart and therefore hundreds of passengers need rebooking on to tomorrow's flights and putting up in a hotel, not to mention the fact that now lots of a/c are not spending the night where they should be, so the first rotation the next day is disrupted.

[ryan2000]

Previous US visits

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton frequently used LHR without ever causing this level of disruption.

[liquid sunshine]

Thanks for that Gonzo but I think there is a fine line between commercial/financial interests and schedule protection for the benefit of the pax. Some less scrupulous airlines seize upon any excuse to cancel a flight with low loads when it is really just a cost saving exercise!

[Gonzo]

liquid sunshine;

Oh, of course, I'm sure BA do cancel the flights which would have the least financial impact. I doubt the 'benefit of the pax' comes into it at all, sadly.

[BDLBOS]

Better for him to be screwing you guys over for a change, and leaving us alone. Want to keep him a little longer, say until Jan 2009 - Please!!!

[Porrohman]

Bagso said;

[if] a 747 did get into Northolt, it would never get out !!!!!!

Boeing's performance charts show that a 747-200 with GE CF6-50E2 engines can take off from about a 5,600ft or 5,700ft runway at a weight of about 635,000lbs (it's difficult to be precise reading the info from their charts). Northolt's runway is 5,545 ft so it's too short but not by much. I don't know the precise performance figures for Air Force One but taking off from a short runway like Northolt's is not quite as improbable as it might at first appear, especially as it was only flying to Belfast. Whether the runways and taxiways could cope with the weight and size of a 747 is another matter.

Maybe they could fit some sort of steam catapult system at Northolt to help shorten Air Force One's take-off roll . Or, beter still, let him use Fairford.

[Getoutofmygalley]

Or better still ban the f*cker from coming over here in the first place.

Why the hell does he feel he needs a fairwell tour? Is he the Beatles or Rolling Stones or something?

[MarkD]

could have sent him into STN and watched MOL spontaneously combust...

[Dream Land]

Cry me a river.

[Maxfli]

"I never understand why these little pricks"

That is George and not Willie you're talking about?