BA Changes - Please Don't Get Caught Out!

[bealine]

If there’s any way the Moderators could keep this post fairly near the top of the page for a week or ten days, it would be helpful…………

PLEASE be very, very careful over the next few weeks and into the Summer schedule. British Airways has the potential to wreak serious havoc with your business meetings unless you pay very close attention to (a) the timetable and (b) from which Heathrow terminal your flight will depart!

Bealine would also be very grateful if you could pass this info on to other travellers within your organisations as he recognises that not everyone frequents this Forum!!!

1. HEATHROW TERMINAL CHANGES EFFECTIVE FROM 28TH MARCH 2004.

It has been crystal clear for some time that Heathrow T4 can’t cope with the demands placed on it since Long Haul flights were moved into it from Gatwick. At Gatwick, we watched with amusement and waited to see how the “whiz-kid” clipboard holders were going to wriggle their way out of the mess they had caused. This apparently haphazard movement of flights between terminals appears to be the answer!

The following flights will definitely move from TERMINAL 1 to TERMINAL 4

BRUSSELS (BRU)
COPENHAGEN (CPH)
GENEVA (GVA)
LYONS (LYS)
OSLO (OSL)
VIENNA (VIE)
ZURICH (ZRH)

The following flights will definitely move from TERMINAL 4 to TERMINAL 1

ATHENS (ATH)
HONG KONG (HKG)
LOS ANGELES (LAX)
MOSCOW (SVO)
SAN FRANCISCO (SFO)

LONG HAUL FLIGHTS ALREADY AT TERMINAL 1

JOHANNESBURG (JNB)
TOKYO (Narita) (NRT)

If I come across other flights that are making the switch, I’ll let you know!

2. TIMETABLE CHANGES FOR SUMMER 2004

Certainly at Gatwick, we are losing FIVE aircraft from our short-haul fleet, but covering the same number of flights. This means earlier departures in the moring and some very late departures in the evening. (With some returning flights arriving during the night!)

If you’re a regular traveller on our European or UK Domestic routes, please pay very close attention to the new timings in BA Timetable from www.britishairways.com
Thanks for reading, I don’t want to see anyone caught out!!!

(this post repeated on www.flyertalk.com)

[bealine]

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/lhrterminfo/public/en_gb?source=RHG_flightswitches_en

[PAXboy]

Many thanks Bealine. I did not know that th JNB had already moved. JNB is my regular l/h whether I am travelling of meeting people form it.

I delivered a friend to T4 for CPT in November and that appears to still be there.

[newswatcher]

bealine maybe a stupid question but, with all these changes, what is the reason to keep the Miami flight as the only BA one in/out of T3?


and paxboy I'm glad that T4 is still there! :p

[bealine]

bealine maybe a stupid question but, with all these changes, what is the reason to keep the Miami flight as the only BA one in/out of T3?

.....Ask a clipboard-carrier!!! They like to cause confusion!

Why has Johannesburg been moved but not Cape Town?

[Globaliser]

newswatcher: maybe a stupid question but, with all these changes, what is the reason to keep the Miami flight as the only BA one in/out of T3?I used to subscribe to the "T4 is full" theory. But I've heard that it's more Machiavellian than that.

T3 houses oneworld partners AA and CX. It also houses Star members SK and UA, as well as other doughty competitors such as VS. If BA operates some flights from T3, it gets a say at the terminal users committee (or whatever it's called) thereby enhancing OW's clout at T3 and dissuading the others from stitching up AA and CX.

It's so political that it definitely has the ring of truth about it. In my view, anyway.

[bealine]

Globaliser - your theory sounds plausible enough in the great Speedbird political traditions!!!

Miami is also an old Gatwick route, so it doesn't much matter where they stick it! (All our old Gatwick routes aren't doing nearly as well over at HQ, it has to be said!):{

[HZ123]

The load factors would not support your claim Bealine. Besides the move to LHR had much to do with passengers preference for flying from here.

Some of the route transfers to T/1 were once again to do with high numbers of transfer pax from that terminal, thus providing a better level of customers service.

T/3 was also used for some time for the Lagos flight and it may well be used next winter for additiional flights. One of the other reasons for its us is that it will be opposite T/5 and in the initial stages of its opening a number of the stands will be nearer T/3 than T/5 and the ground operation will be covered from T/3 ramp staff. FYI T/3 ramp staff cover the Finnair operation in T/1 thus giving them a dedicated team all the time (better customer service). So dispite what you may read BA is not totally devoid of having its focus on the customer service target. Rgds

[IB4138]

"thus providing a better level of customer service"
---------------------------------------------------
As someone who has used Term 1 frequently over many years , I fail to see how this better level of service can be claimed. It is now the worst I can remember. There are far too many flights using this terminal, the transfer of long hauls from T4 and the movement of a few shorthauls in the opposite direction has added to the problem. T1, especially airside, cannot cope with the numbers of pax. Neither can the security areas. The service in Flight Connections in my experience is abismal. There are always long queues these days when I travel and with the additional security screening area before you enter FC from T2 and T3(which no one can explain the need for, as pax are already airside) makes transiting a lengthy experience. I now avoid T1 whenever possible, making use of flights to T2 when I come to London and T2 isn't a palace either, but its a far more pleasant and easier experience! I also no longer interline via LHR. That is now this passenger's preference.

I don't care what the BAA have worked out as acceptable capacity levels , try using T1.

Who instigated the terminal transfers anyway, BA or BAA?

Travellers should additionally be aware of the length of time it can take to transit LHR T1 in any direction. Leave yourself plenty of time.

[Globaliser]

bealine: Miami is also an old Gatwick route, so it doesn't much matter where they stick it!Only half true? MIA has long been an LHR route. What happened was that it used to be one a day ex-LHR and one a day ex-LGW, but the LGW frequency was moved to LHR. The current timings mean that the two frequencies comfortably share one gate at both ends of the operation.IB4138: the additional security screening area before you enter FC from T2 and T3(which no one can explain the need for, as pax are already airside)But the vast majority of pax entering the FCC have not been screened at LHR, having just got off inbound flights. If you didn't screen them again at the FCC, they'd just carry on the live ammunition that IAD let them through with.

[bealine]

Some of the route transfers to T/1 were once again to do with high numbers of transfer pax from that terminal, thus providing a better level of customers service.

Okay HZ123 - sorry! I can't resist a dig at the LGW/LHR thing though, from time to time!:D (It's my mission in life to see the long-haul flights firmly restored at the Sussex County airport!!!)

However, I see you have swallowed the line from Marketing, hook, line and sinker! The flight moves have absolute zero to do with "transfer pax" (who BA actively want to discourage as poor yield traffic) or "customer service" - it is purely and simply a logical step to balance out the passenger throughput of the terminals. (Which is sort-of "customer service", but let's not kid ourselves, the main reason is for operational convenience!!!)

There is a Pprune thread running on what "Terminology" gets you back up - I started it - I think I'll add "in the interests of Customer Service" to the list!!!:D

[IB4138]

the vast majority of pax have not been screened at LHR
_________________________________
Why not come out and say BAA do not trust any other country to carry out security screening to their standard. The fact is by the time you get to FCC, you have been airside for a considerable amount of time from your inbound flight.
I know there is a thread critisising Malaga for lax security, but my wife has recently transited LHR T1 outbound to Malaga, with a pair of sissors in her hand baggage. I should add that was totally un-intentional. As I said before there is no good reason for the security screening area entering FCC from T2/T3, unless it is lack of trust in security screening at other airports.

bealine's point about discouraging transit passengers is also correct. The fares BA quote on-line if you want to change at LHR are prohibative. That is doubley so, if you are changing to a UK internal flight.

[Globaliser]

IB4138: Why not come out and say BAA do not trust any other country to carry out security screening to their standard. The fact is by the time you get to FCC, you have been airside for a considerable amount of time from your inbound flight. ... As I said before there is no good reason for the security screening area entering FCC from T2/T3, unless it is lack of trust in security screening at other airports.Trust or no trust, there is supposed to be 100% screening of all departing pax, whether they are originating, transiting or transferring. This is common throughout the world. But it is true that I would not trust the thoroughness of the screening in some countries from which pax originate to LHR.

Although connecting pax are "airside" for a considerable period of time before reaching security, the unscreened arriving stream is supposed to be segregated from the departing stream if practicable. You are supposed to be screened before mixing with screened originating pax. (The other approach is to screen at or near the gates, like BKK and SIN do.) Obviously, older terminals weren't designed like that, but T4 was built with 100% segegation and the new T1/2 pier (the Europier?) shows what is now being built. The "gold standard" of 100% segregation is coming all over Europe, although expect a lot of building work in the interim.bealine's point about discouraging transit passengers is also correct. The fares BA quote on-line if you want to change at LHR are prohibative. That is doubley so, if you are changing to a UK internal flight. BA is certainly iffy about the value of chasing deep discount traffic hubbing through London, although there are many ways of getting around the reluctance of BA's online booking engine to price cheap combinations.

But one of LHR's strengths is the amazing range of connections which it offers. That is one reason why something like 40% (IIRC) of LHR's pax are connecting rather than O&D traffic. A lot of that is premium traffic, and BA are certainly interested in that market.

On these lines, I keep hearing rumours that LOS is going to move back to LGW. The reasoning is this. The premium traffic to LOS is largely oil industry-based. IAH must be served from LGW because of Bermuda II. Apparently too much IAH-LOS oil traffic has become fed up with the LHR-LGW transfer, now that LOS has gone to LHR, and is defecting to CO on the trans-Atlantic leg so that it can simply interline at LGW.

[newswatcher]

Thanks guys for the answer on T3............I think.

[radeng]

Of course, there's another thing about LGW. Good as I've always found the staff at LHR, for some reason the BA people at LGW (ground staff and cabin crew) always seem to offer a little something extra to the customer over those at LHR. Maybe the clipboards don't like that!

[bealine]

Thanks for that radeng! If only our clipboard carriers would get the message

People do actually like flying from Gatwick!!!

:ok:

[chrisbl]

Frankly I find Gatwick a pain in the proverbial and much prefer LHR. I have also gone through Zurich to avoid flying out of Gatwick.

[skydriller]

Someone mentioned BA potentially losing regular Oil industry pax that have to transfere LGW-LHR.....

Well they lost me after the first time I had that hassle.....:mad: :mad: It takes all f:mad:king day that does!! NEVER AGAIN!!!

I spend far too much time in airports as it is......

Regards, SD..

[bealine]

Yes, indeed, skydriller! I take it you fly to/from IAH then!!!

IAH has to stay at Gatwick under the Bermuda II agreement between the Brits and Yanks! If British Airways move the IAH to LHR, then Continental will have to be allowed into Heathrow as well - and that would never do!

BA tried an unhappy compromise - London, Washington, Houston - but that takes all freakin' day too, so the oil industry is not that happy with us!!!

Gatwick for the "oilies" was ideal! IAH-LGW LGW to BAK, ABZ, LOS etc etc, and now could have been a good transfer via Virgin to Port Harcourt! What a shame it was screwed up!