LHR NEW TERMINAL 2

[Epsomdog]

Now that T2 is coming gradually up to speed. What do we all think about it?

Personally, having spent the last 30 odd years operating out of terminal 1, I think the whole facility is great! It feels calm, relaxed and clean, Just like Changi!

I hope it stays like that!

[Skipness One Echo]

Had a wander round tonight as my flight from Terrible 1 was late. The thing that struck me was it's size, T2A is quite pokey. It's like a mini T5, of course it's intended to be extended to it's full size once T1 goes but funding is on hold until the review into airports policy is delivered I believe. A huge improvement though.

[Fairdealfrank]

Had a wander round tonight as my flight from Terrible 1 was late. The thing that struck me was it's size, T2A is quite pokey. It's like a mini T5, of course it's intended to be extended to it's full size once T1 goes but funding is on hold until the review into airports policy is delivered I believe. A huge improvement though.


Have yet to see it, AFAIK, it is currently about half the size it will eventually be. Clearly nothing will happen from now until and unless permission is given for rwy expansion.

[Epsomdog]

Presumably, T2 will absorb more of the flights from T1, enabling T1 to be pulled down.
Does this mean that T2 will then become cramped and overcrowded?

[Fairdealfrank]

Presumably, T2 will absorb more of the flights from T1, enabling T1 to be pulled down.
Does this mean that T2 will then become cramped and overcrowded?

Not necessarily.

[Skipness One Echo]

I think T2A might get very busy, the check in area is not especially open. There's loads of room out on T2B though.

[wallp]

As I understand it, T2 will eventually house all Star Alliance carriers plus a few others with the old t1 being demolished. Will a new T1 once built be an extension of T2 for Star Alliance carriers etc or will this create new capacity?

[Fairdealfrank]

Will a new T1 once built be an extension of T2 for Star Alliance carriers etc or will this create new capacity?


Think that once the existing terminal is demolished, its replacement will be adjacant to the new terminal 2 and become the northern part of it.

[wallp]

So it will effectively be one terminal but enlarged from the current T2 site?

[DaveReidUK]

So it will effectively be one terminal but enlarged from the current T2 site? See http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-79.html#post8481672

[Buster the Bear]

I used Terminal 4 a couple of weeks ago and was shocked as to how quiet it was. Very nice indeed!

[Epsomdog]

Think that once the existing terminal is demolished, its replacement will be adjacant to the new terminal 2 and become the northern part of it.

My understanding is the side of T2 closest to T1, is a temporary facade. This will be taken down to enable connection to the new T1 development, when the time comes.

T2 will need to have its own baggage system installed before that can happen! At the moment it's piggy backing off T1.

[DaveReidUK]

My understanding is the side of T2 closest to T1, is a temporary facade. This will be taken down to enable connection to the new T1 development, when the time comes.The plan, as per the link in my previous post, is for T2A to expand northwards in two phases (2032 and 2036), together with 3 more satellites (T2C, T2D and T2E) in addition to the existing T2B.

That's all contingent on R3, of course.

The only further "T1 development" will be when they pull it down. :O

[wallp]

a daft question perhaps, but in the future by the sounds of it, LHR will not have a Terminal 1 or will the enlarged T2 be split some how into a Terminal 1 and Terminal 2?

[DaveReidUK]

in the future by the sounds of it, LHR will not have a Terminal 1

Correct, that's the plan.

In due course, it won't have a Terminal 3 either.

[edi_local]

a daft question perhaps, but in the future by the sounds of it, LHR will not have a Terminal 1 or will the enlarged T2 be split some how into a Terminal 1 and Terminal 2?


The name "Heathrow East" was being used a while back to describe a new T1/2/3 area while T4 and 5 didn't seem to be mentioned.

Presumably the toast rack layout will run between the two runways and have large terminals at either end. That could lead to a "Heathrow East/West" idea being adopted. Presumably once such a transformation is complete the new terminal space would be greatly increased when compared to what they have today and the main T3 would be replaced with satellite piers feeding both main terminals. T4 would either become redundant due to increased stand space in the central area or be part of another major overhaul on that side of the airfield. T4 cannot adopt the toast rack layout as there is no space to do so in its current position.

Anyway, T2 is, I believe, smaller than what will be needed. The Star Alliance Airlines in T1 will, after they move, be working with a space which has less check in desks than they have right now. I'm not sure how exactly that will work. There will be no where to put a lot of the passengers especially at peak times when every airline has full loads. I think T2 will struggle then. At the moment T2 may work just fine with the drip feed of long haul and Irish flights it has been given but very soon the entire LH and LX (literally 1000s of extra passengers and bags each day as well as 30+ more planes to deal with) operation will be going from there as well as SN, OU, 4U, LO, OS, VSLR, SK, SQ, OZ, TP, TK, NZ, MS, ET and TG flights too. It's going to get very cramped before the year is out. Are there any plans to move AI over to T2 since they are now in Star Alliance too?

I know that one side of it is temporary but to me it seems like the new extension won't be built for ages yet and it will be needed much sooner than that. I know anything which is not STAR will move to T4 or T3 (or in the case of CY move to STN) and then T1 will start to be demolished to make way for the rest of T2, but the time-scale involved does seem a bit slow. ,This kind of sums up LHR in general in that nothing seems to be built with the future in mind.

[Fairdealfrank]

The name "Heathrow East" was being used a while back to describe a new T1/2/3 area while T4 and 5 didn't seem to be mentioned.
"Heathrow East" is misleading, it's actually Heathrow Central.



I know that one side of it is temporary but to me it seems like the new extension won't be built for ages yet and it will be needed much sooner than that. I know anything which is not STAR will move to T4 or T3 (or in the case of CY move to STN) and then T1 will start to be demolished to make way for the rest of T2, but the time-scale involved does seem a bit slow. ,This kind of sums up LHR in general in that nothing seems to be built with the future in mind.
AFAIK, the redevelopment of the present LHR-1 is dependent on a decision on rwys. Nothing will happen before that, as the expansion of LHR would/will pay for the redevelopment. Eventually LHR-1/2 will effectively be one large terminal.

There is plenty of spare capacity at LHR-4 and some carriers could be decanted there in the interim, other Star Alliance carriers may remain at LHR-3 for a few more years.

[DaveReidUK]

The name "Heathrow East" was being used a while back to describe a new T1/2/3 area while T4 and 5 didn't seem to be mentioned.

Presumably the toast rack layout will run between the two runways and have large terminals at either end.The terminology currently being used by Heathrow in connection with its expansion proposals talks about two "front doors" (main terminal complexes): an Eastern (T2) and a Western (T5/T6).

The proposed final configuration for the "toast rack" (reading from west to east) would be:

T6A T5A T5B T5C T2D T2E T2A T2B T2C

As I said in my earlier post, it's all contingent on permission being granted for R3. Without that, so we're told, Heathrow will wither and die.

[Skipness One Echo]

other Star Alliance carriers may remain at LHR-3 for a few more years.
No, they're being evicted :)
Heathrow: Airline moves | Heathrow terminal changes (http://www.heathrowairport.com/flight-information/airline-moves)

[nighthawk117]

According to an article in The Independent a while ago, the terminals will be renumbered once complete:

When the final phase is completed, the terminals are likely to be renumbered. It is thought that Terminal 5 will change to 1, with 4 becoming 3. Terminal 2, which used to be Terminal 1, will remain as it is.

Source: No repeat of Terminal 5 horror show when new 'Queen's Terminal' opens this June, Heathrow authorities insist - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/no-repeat-of-terminal-5-horror-show-when-new-queens-terminal-opens-this-june-heathrow-authorities-insist-9187862.html)

[DaveReidUK]

I wouldn't put money on any of Simon Calder's predictions. :O

[Fairdealfrank]

When the final phase is completed, the terminals are likely to be renumbered. It is thought that Terminal 5 will change to 1, with 4 becoming 3. Terminal 2, which used to be Terminal 1, will remain as it is.


Makes sense, but there'll be much confusion during the changeover.




I wouldn't put money on any of Simon Calder's predictions.


Not sure about Heathrow being unique by having all its terminls rebuilt, LHR-4 isn't planned for a being rebuild, is it?

[DaveReidUK]

LHR-4 isn't planned for a being rebuild, is it?

Terminal 4 will close, under the long-term masterplan.

[Epsomdog]

I've worked at LHR since 1970, during that period I have seen millions of tons of concrete laid, dug up, ground down and re-laid. All at a huge expense that's mostly been passed on to our customers. There has never really been a master plan that anyone has stuck to. The plans usually last until the next lot of graduates come to influence. Then out come the diggers!
The temporary builders accommodation by D'Albiac House is now a long standing structure!

I can't help thinking its time we walked away from Heathrow. Why not design an airport, right from the outset with expansion in mind!

Heathrow could then be converted into "Bluewater West" with HAL to look after it!-)

[Skipness One Echo]

I think it's fairly clear the T5 toast rack design was exactly that, a proper strategic expansion. Feel free to "walk away", the hard bit is replacing all those jobs, including *your own*.

[Epsomdog]

I think it's fairly clear the T5 toast rack design was exactly that, a proper strategic expansion. Feel free to "walk away", the hard bit is replacing all those jobs, including *your own*.

But it's not a proper strategic expansion!

There's fundamentally not enough room, in terms of airspace, runways or real estate, for an airport large enough to support London's need. Any development will always be a stop gap measure to satisfy a short/medium term need. Why start knocking down people's homes, to build more runway space, that probably won't satisfy the need anyway!

Surely the best way would be to start afresh with a world leading concept airport?

I don't buy the loss of jobs reasoning. The Heathrow campus could be re-developed into shopping and business areas with first class connections. So the area will hardly be desolate! There may be a need for a small airfield or freight airport on the site!

I agree there may be a reduction in some of the specialist skilled jobs that an airport attracts but there would be plenty of other job options. Those specialist skilled workers would naturally want to work at the new airport anyway.

[Fairdealfrank]

But it's not a proper strategic expansion!

There's fundamentally not enough room, in terms of airspace, runways or real estate, for an airport large enough to support London's need. Any development will always be a stop gap measure to satisfy a short/medium term need. Why start knocking down people's homes, to build more runway space, that probably won't satisfy the need anyway!

Surely the best way would be to start afresh with a world leading concept airport?


Whether "a world leading concept airport" is developed or not, expansion at Heathrow is obviously still needed in the interim. The reason for this is simple: Heathrow is running at 99% capacity and cannot continue like this for another 30-50 years.

The time scale is no exageration: 10 years to decide on a new airport site (the estuary is a non-starter), 10 years of planning enquiries, 10 years of litigation through the courts, 10 years construction.

Heathrow needed an extra rwy in the 1970s, when the government declared it "full", realistically it needs 2 extra rwys now.

How many extra rwys have been built in 40 years? Exactly.




I don't buy the loss of jobs reasoning. The Heathrow campus could be re-developed into shopping and business areas with first class connections. So the area will hardly be desolate! There may be a need for a small airfield or freight airport on the site!

I agree there may be a reduction in some of the specialist skilled jobs that an airport attracts but there would be plenty of other job options. Those specialist skilled workers would naturally want to work at the new airport anyway.


You should! most of the jobs and prosperity of the area is because of Heathrow. It's not just jobs on the airport itself, there are thousands of airport-related jobs.

Many companies have their headquarters located near Heathrow. Without the airport, these go to Amsterdam (or Paris or Frankfurt) and the local area loses big time.

[Epsomdog]

Whether "a world leading concept airport" is developed or not, expansion at Heathrow is obviously still needed in the interim.

I agree, extra capacity is required but that capacity could be elsewhere in the SE, other than Heathrow.

As far as the local employment goes. You seem to be missing my point! That is, the Heathrow site will not sit derelict. Re-development into a Multi-purpose business, shopping and residential area, could create more jobs than Heathrow even.

I do realise, I'm never going to convert the Heathrow die hards!

I'm trying to make the point that we have an opportunity to break the 50 yr cycle, of constant Heathrow re-configuration. In order to do that we need to free ourselves of the shackles created by the Heathrow site. There have been many mistakes made in the past, let's leave them behind and start again!

[Fairdealfrank]

I agree, extra capacity is required but that capacity could be elsewhere in the SE, other than Heathrow.
There's plenty of capacity in the SE, it's specifically hub capacity that's required. For that reason expansion at Gatwick or Stansted or anywhere else doesn't cut it, expansion has to be at Heathrow.


As far as the local employment goes. You seem to be missing my point! That is, the Heathrow site will not sit derelict. Re-development into a Multi-purpose business, shopping and residential area, could create more jobs than Heathrow even.
You can't just "close down" Heathrow because Boris says so. It's not going to happen! Also bear in mind that Boris's "aviation advisor" has never worked in the aviation industry.

Heathrow Airport Limited is a private company (the clue is in the word "limited") and as such would be most unlikely to sell a highly profitable asset.

Therefore compulsory purchase would be the only option and that can only be done by public authorities (government, councils, etc.).

Is this, and the accompanying cost of litigation a good use of public money? Of course not.

There are enough UK areas in need of regeneration, why add another one?

The residents of Gateshead (Metro Centre) and Sheffield (Meadowhall) will tell you that a massive shopping centre on its own won't regenrate an area or lead to inward investment. Where would all the new residents work once the jobs have left the area?


I do realise, I'm never going to convert the Heathrow die hards!
Only because there is no credible alternative.



I'm trying to make the point that we have an opportunity to break the 50 yr cycle, of constant Heathrow re-configuration. In order to do that we need to free ourselves of the shackles created by the Heathrow site. There have been many mistakes made in the past, let's leave them behind and start again!
That cycle will only be broken when expansion is allowed as soon as it is needed. Moving to the estuary or elsewhere will only start another 50 year cycle of disappointment. The only difference is that it would be at another location.

[Skipness One Echo]

We're not die hards, the place can do your head in even on a good day.
If there was a practical way to build a world class new facility in the over crowded SE it would have been done already.

The notion that you close LHR on a Friday and everyone starts a new job at the new redeveloped LHR Westfield on the following Monday is funny and tragic all at once.
Close LHR, kiss a huge part of the local economy goodbye. New jobs would come in the medium term but there would be lot of losers! Redevelopment takes years, have you seen how long Kai Tak took in a region where land is scarcer?
There is the room to the North of LHR, it's the big grassy void you can see with one little village in the way, Sipson. HAL already own most of it. Economically, LHR is essential to the whole West London economy, turkeys do not vote for xmas. There would be massive economic upheaval all the way down the M4 to Bristol if LHR closes. People have been wittering about options for year and all have come to nought *for good reason*. Time to bite the bullet.

[Epsomdog]

You can't just "close down" Heathrow because Boris says so. It's not going to happen! Also bear in mind that Boris's "aviation advisor" has never worked in the aviation industry.

Heathrow Airport Limited is a private company (the clue is in the word "limited") and as such would be most unlikely to sell a highly profitable asset.

Therefore compulsory purchase would be the only option and that can only be done ny public authorities (government, councils, etc.).

At no time have I mentioned Boris or his plans! We don't even need to close Heathrow. If the government and industry decide to build a better airport elsewhere, then HAL will be begging someone to buy their "highly profitable" white elephant!

The government is looking for somewhere to build new "Garden" city's!

I'm advocating a new start, a new airport, created and designed by people with a new mindset!

The BAA & HAL have been operating LHR for 60+ years and they are still following the same old rules and making the same mistakes!

Please, don't throw the same old arguments back. Heathrow is not the only "hub" option, this could be shared out amongst other airports, until such time as the new one is up and running.

In the 70's we missed an opportunity when the Maplin airport was turned down. Had that gone ahead we'd have a world class London airport right now!

Surely we can't make the same mistake again?

[Fairdealfrank]

Redevelopment takes years, have you seen how long Kai Tak took in a region where land is scarcer?
It was still derelict in 2013, 15 years after the airport closed.


Economically, LHR is essential to the whole West London economy, turkeys do not vote for xmas. There would be massive economic upheaval all the way down the M4 to Bristol if LHR closes.
It's essential to the entire UK economy!



At no time have I mentioned Boris or his plans! We don't even need to close Heathrow. If the government and industry decide to build a better airport elsewhere, then HAL will be begging someone to buy their "highly profitable" white elephant!
It's actually quite relevant: Boris is driving the "closedown Heathrow" agenda, for now at least. May change if/when he is MP for Uxbridge.

Why do you think Boris wants Heathrow closed? Because no carrier will leave Heathrow for any "better airport elsewhere" unless it is closed.



The government is looking for somewhere to build new "Garden" city's!
Ebbsfleet is favourite, but because of HS1/"Javelin", not Boris Island.


I'm advocating a new start, a new airport, created and designed by people with a new mindset!

The BAA & HAL have been operating LHR for 60+ years and they are still following the same old rules and making the same mistakes!
Heathrow needs expansion. If a new airport is developed that expansion would be for the interim, otherwise it's for the long term. Either way, Heathrow has to expand.

The government has prevented Heathgrow expansion since the 1970s so it's not specifically Heathrow's mistake. It was the government's obsession with the stupid and damaging "second force" policy in the 1970s/1980s that prevented Heathrow expansion.


Please, don't throw the same old arguments back.
That comment sounds a little as if it comes from someone who has lost the argument.


Heathrow is not the only "hub" option, this could be shared out amongst other airports, until such time as the new one is up and running.
Heathrow IS the only UK hub option. The evidence is there: premium business pax and the carriers want Heathrow and vote with their feet and their wallets.


In the 70's we missed an opportunity when the Maplin airport was turned down. Had that gone ahead we'd have a world class London airport right now!
Check the facts: Maplin/Foulness and Cublington were never intended as replacements for Heathrow. One of them was to be the third London airport (sic). In the end, that title went to Stansted.


Surely we can't make the same mistake again?
Depending on the Airport Commission's recommendations and subsequent government action/inaction, it's entirely possible.

[PAXboy]

Epsomdog
The BAA & HAL have been operating LHR for 60+ years and they are still following the same old rules and making the same mistakes!

The funny thing is - they are following the same rules of AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC and all of those are continuning to expand and attract business. So, perhaps they are not making a mistake.

[Andy_S]

Heathrow is not the only "hub" option, this could be shared out amongst other airports, until such time as the new one is up and running.

How can you "share" a hub between several airports? If you break a hub up, then it's not a hub any more, is it??

[DaveReidUK]

How can you "share" a hub between several airports? If you break a hub up, then it's not a hub any more, is it?? Exactly. I've never understood why some people appear unable to grasp what is, after all, a fairly simple concept.

While some of Heathrow's current PR campaign is dire, bordering on disingenuous, they have actually made a rather good video explaining the dynamics of hubs, which should be required viewing for contributors to the debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YteQyL2BkRU

[Navy_Adversary]

I don't think that there is a pay at the door (Servisair type) lounge within T2, so it looks like I may be visiting the Fullers London Pride bar for my BR flight in November.:)

[nrm2]

Think there is a plaza premium lounge in the new T2. Not sure if it's open yet though!!

[PAXboy]

If you are a Priority Pass member, they are currently using the United Club, post security. Doubtless more lounges will open up.

[Fairdealfrank]

Exactly. I've never understood why some people appear unable to grasp what is, after all, a fairly simple concept.
Indeed, especially on a forum like this!


While some of Heathrow's current PR campaign is dire, bordering on disingenuous, they have actually made a rather good video explaining the dynamics of hubs, which should be required viewing for contributors to the debate:
Yes, the video is very good, it explains the "hub" concept in terms that non-aviation orientated people can understand.



I don't think that there is a pay at the door (Servisair type) lounge within T2, so it looks like I may be visiting the Fullers London Pride bar for my BR flight in November
There certainly isn't one in LHR-5 and it's desperately needed bearing in mind that most pax at that terminal don't qualify for entrance to the two British Airways lounges.

A pint of Fullers Pride sounds good! doesn't it always!