eagle21,

Errr, well, I don't know, that's why I was asking questions. :rolleyes:

Most sensible summation I've heard for a while - think on't!

shoey1976 ,
Could you have a word with the presenter colleague who referred to BA as (can't remember precisely but along the lines of 'acting like spoilt child') on Friday evening news?
The boy clearly doesn't understand the reality of business or accurate reporting.

Nw Sea- Lhr T4
 

What happens now to the new routes, such as NW from Seattle, who are due to use T4 and are who are selling passengers tickets?
Anybody heard anything?

While you're there, ask M B if that was Barbara Cassani you saw springing out of the interview room as you arrived.

At the end of the day it's an operational CEO issue to be solved here, not a Chairman's strategy problem. Willie can go back to Dublin and take over a key seat at Ryanair, where he will feel more at home in every sense.

Good idea
 

I think deferring the move is a good idea. I've been through T5 on 3 different trips and each time the experience has been positive. I've been on time through a nice modern building which beats T1 hands down. You can see there is less congestion on the airfield and the service roads - it has been well designed.

It is also totally clear that T5 building isn't finished, there are temporary doors, lifts not working, missing hand rails etc. That is down to the BAA - they've haven't finished the building but are greedy enough to want occupancy and rents.

BA delaying the longhaul move is sensible, it gives more time to train staff from T4 so lessons are learnt and applied before the move.

BMI are just looking for publicity. T1 is now nice and quiet so they can run their operation with less congestion. BA has vacated so Star alliance can move on scheduled. If anything BMI has gained a little from some PAX moving from BA due to disruption.

I know there are plenty of critcs for T5, but my experiences have been good.

CB

I just hope that BA have delayed ENOUGH ... if June 5 is the new date they start moving flights over then it has to be SPOT ON and perfect. Having now made the embarassing decision to delay everything, if they now muck it up again they'll just be digging an even deeper grave for themselves.

Gonzo, I understand your argument about the people who work at LHR, the businesses who have based themselves close to LHR etc. However, I am sure that employees would prefer to work at a facility that is easier to work with, is possibly easier to access (which in itself is clearly something that would have to be part of the plan for the new airport), and perhaps even mean an improvement in general living standards.

Fair enough, Thames Gateway is close to Essex and Kent, relatively expensive and very densely populated, but the whole Crossrail proposal included extensions to the east and west, connecting Slough, Reading and Maidenhead to the Crossrail system, and extending eastwards too. Thames Gateway now has connections to the continent via Eurostar, which could quite possibly be included in the proposal and the plans (similar to SNCF and AF working together with the Thalis/TGV station at CDG).

I don't think the corporates would consider this the end of the world either. If a switch is done seamlessly (in the order of Hong Kong etc) they would have plenty of time to either buy or lease new real estate if they really wanted to.

Sadly, NIMBY syndrome, whichever way you slice it, will be the end of LHR or indeed ANY transport extensions/improvements in the London area. You can be guaranteed that Sussex, Hampshire, Bedfordshire and Berkshire would NOT want a mega airport anywhere near them. Essex is already moaning at STN, and Kent... well, the complaints about moving Eurostar from Ashford to Ebbsfleet were enough to make my ears bleed.

In short - we're buggered.

S.