Heathrow Terminal 4 -why not just for BA?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I think KLM and Air Malta moved across when it opened joining the BA long haul fleet, but why did those two airlines get the new T4 when everyone else was stuck in grotty old T2? And given T4 was too small for BA long haul, why was anyone else given access at all?
Anyone remember?

[WHBM]

T4 was quite adequate for BA long haul of the era, it was a commercial decision to have a couple still from T1 and just one (Miami I recall) from T3.

One of the issues with just a based carrier long hauls is peaks and troughs of demand at certain times of day, like few early morning departures, which causes issues with the retail concessions. Putting in a couple of short haulers helped to rebalance this. It also overcame the complaint (even a potential lawsuit) that BA had been "given" the latest and newest terminal, for BAA of the era was insistent that there was no favouritism between carriers, and their facilities were all common user.

[SpringHeeledJack]

To the outsider, it did seem as if it were all an old boys club back then and it did seem that as the predominant (national carrier) BA was given, had made for them, Terminal 4. I took (apparently) the last, or one of the last three flights by BA from T3, as the next morning they would be commencing long-haul operations at T4. The PR person from Compass House certainly gave the impression that it was the start of a new era for BA and was very excited at the relaunch, short/medium haul at T1 and the jewel in the crown of T4. I seem to remember at the time all the other large carriers of the world seemed to have their own dedicated terminals at major airports to make the passenger experience seamless, rather than a bun-fight of differing airlines cluttering the concourse.

As said above, perhaps caught up in the glory of the new exclusive terminal, BA and BAA forgot to take into account the lulls in the waves of comings and goings, which disturbed the business model of BAA, namely the shopping centre with a runway attached ;-)

I'm most likely wrong, but weren't KLM and AM somehow loosely attached to BA at the time in terms of codeshares, though not part of the One World alliance and therefore welcomed ?

[Asturias56]

IIRC AM and KLM were very close

but the whole Terminal occasionally was very quiet in between the long haul departure/arrival waves

[Midland 331]

When I joined BMA in 1982, BA's Chicago service was one of the exceptions to the "BA Long Haul - T3" guideline, operating from T1

Does anyone know why?

[Downwind_Left]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot

I think KLM and Air Malta moved across when it opened joining the BA long haul fleet, but why did those two airlines get the new T4 when everyone else was stuck in grotty old T2? And given T4 was too small for BA long haul, why was anyone else given access at all?
Anyone remember?

Don’t forget that BA also had a short haul operation in T4 from the start too. BA AMS and CDG flights also operated from T4, presumably providing a balanced flow of passengers through the day, and being able to be ring-fenced aircraft wise as a remote operation.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Downwind_Left

being able to be ring-fenced aircraft wise as a remote operation.

This also applied to the choice of long-hauls that remained at various times at T1 (Chicago) or T3 (Miami), where the round trip duration meant the same aircraft could, and would, operate in and out for several days on end. Ground crews etc could come over, but would be a nuisance to have to tow to and from T4 every day. The Miami flight at T3 used to use the common-user check in desks with BA branding hung up specially.

[Asturias56]

Originally Posted by Downwind_Left

Don’t forget that BA also had a short haul operation in T4 from the start too. BA AMS and CDG flights also operated from T4, presumably providing a balanced flow of passengers through the day, and being able to be ring-fenced aircraft wise as a remote operation.

and awful for connections to anything else................

[Bergerie1]

All I can say, as a passenger, it was ruddy confusiing when they changed services from one terminal to another at short notice. Despite having worked for the airlines, I failed to notice the change and missed my flight because I had gone to the wrong terminal - my fault, I know, but very frustrating!!

[Peter47]

KLM handled Air Malta so it helped being co-located.
I think that there was an element of BAA not wanting one airline to "own" a terminal JFK style which would have reduced their influence. It was certainly true that individual terminals had their own peaks back in the 80s.

[AMC737]

Air Lanka as it was known then also used Terminal 4 when it moved from Gatwick to Heathrow in 1991, I think until T5 opened and the huge switch around of airlines the only other carriers who also used T4 where BA partners Qantas and Canadian International until it merged with Air Canada

[Jhieminga]

Originally Posted by Downwind_Left

Don’t forget that BA also had a short haul operation in T4 from the start too. BA AMS and CDG flights also operated from T4, presumably providing a balanced flow of passengers through the day, and being able to be ring-fenced aircraft wise as a remote operation.

I flew AMS-LHR regularly during the late 90s and no matter whether I flew with BA or KLM, I always ended up at T4. I booked a similar flight on British Midland once and that one went to T1.