View Poll Results: Please State Your Preference
London Heathrow
25
34.72%
London Gatwick
30
41.67%
London (other City, Stansted, Luton)
12
16.67%
Doesn't Matter
5
6.94%
Voters: 72. This poll is closed
Which is Better - Heathrow or Gatwick?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is Better - Heathrow or Gatwick?
My own airline, British Airways, is focussing all its prestigious routes and services at HQ - London Heathrow. Gatwick is suffering demotion to service local business "short haul" point to point traffic.
Our customers repeatedly tell us that they prefer Grubby Gatwick - shabby - in need of deep cleaning it may be, but there's a friendliness that the cold, clinical LHR doesn't seem to have.
When we had the disruption of cold weather a couple of weeks ago, our BA managers were lambasted by the staff for "putting all their eggs in one basket" - under the old regime, we would have handled some of the LHR flights at LGW, relieving the pressure up the road! Now we have insufficient staff or resources at LGW.
As a result, only one flight was cancelled at LGW compared with dozens up there!
As our customers, and the people who should be our most important consideration, what do you feel?
Our customers repeatedly tell us that they prefer Grubby Gatwick - shabby - in need of deep cleaning it may be, but there's a friendliness that the cold, clinical LHR doesn't seem to have.
When we had the disruption of cold weather a couple of weeks ago, our BA managers were lambasted by the staff for "putting all their eggs in one basket" - under the old regime, we would have handled some of the LHR flights at LGW, relieving the pressure up the road! Now we have insufficient staff or resources at LGW.
As a result, only one flight was cancelled at LGW compared with dozens up there!
As our customers, and the people who should be our most important consideration, what do you feel?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealine,
If we are going for facilities, then each airport is generally as disgusting as the other. BAA are a joke when it comes to delivering a world class product. (I am refering to LHR/LGW only, as never set foot in LTN/STN/LCY)
Terminal wise it's a close call between North and T4.... but for me T4 sneaks it... But only just. It has more room, and better access.
BA departing LGW???? Well there's nothing we can do about it.....
They have made the bed that we all lie in. Personally I believe that they did it for the right reasons, however staff and passengers alike, disagree. I'm not an accountant in BA, and therefore don't know how profitable it was. Rumours would have you believe that LGW was a hole being filled with cash from Waterworld, but only they actually know the truth.
FE
If we are going for facilities, then each airport is generally as disgusting as the other. BAA are a joke when it comes to delivering a world class product. (I am refering to LHR/LGW only, as never set foot in LTN/STN/LCY)
Terminal wise it's a close call between North and T4.... but for me T4 sneaks it... But only just. It has more room, and better access.
BA departing LGW???? Well there's nothing we can do about it.....
They have made the bed that we all lie in. Personally I believe that they did it for the right reasons, however staff and passengers alike, disagree. I'm not an accountant in BA, and therefore don't know how profitable it was. Rumours would have you believe that LGW was a hole being filled with cash from Waterworld, but only they actually know the truth.
FE
Paxing All Over The World
Hi bealine,
My view is deeply biased by a very simple measure - distance.
From where I live in West Hertfordshire:
LTN = 11 miles and max 20 mins
LHR = 36 and 40~90 mins depending on time of day and weather!
STN = 51 and 60~90 mins
LGW = (about the same as STN cannot remember off the top)
LCY = 45 (approx) 90 mins
So I only use STN, LCY or LGW if I am in the area or there is a thundering good reason.
As I have been living within 36 miles (and less) of LHR for 24 years, I have got used to it and it's ups and downs. I know my way around, I know the short cuts and so forth - consequently, it doesn't bother me much. When I go through, if I am late I don't care about the poor lounges, if I have time then I am in either a biz or Servisair (Priority Pass) lounge so don't care about them either!
Interestingly, at a braai (Bar-B-Q) last night in Cape Town [day time temp 36] {sorry, couldn't resist} the problems of connections and multi-leg journeys came up and I asked them what they thought of LHR?? Men and women said that they liked it - particularly all the shops!!!!!!! I suppose that, being in CPT, they find it more attractive than us locals.
Back to the question ... I have not ticked the Poll, because distance is the only factor. There is no point in driving past LHR for another 45 mins to get to LGW, even if the redoubtable bealine is at the check in.
I have tried to consider what I would do if I had a choice but, being so familiar with mine - I would have to learn from the start. That said, LCY is grand and I would not mind being on it's doorstep.
LTN has improved a LOT in the past couple of years, they have listended to criticisms and responded. The new check-in 'terminal' is a shed of the worst kind but the actual terminal is fine.
My view is deeply biased by a very simple measure - distance.
From where I live in West Hertfordshire:
LTN = 11 miles and max 20 mins
LHR = 36 and 40~90 mins depending on time of day and weather!
STN = 51 and 60~90 mins
LGW = (about the same as STN cannot remember off the top)
LCY = 45 (approx) 90 mins
So I only use STN, LCY or LGW if I am in the area or there is a thundering good reason.
As I have been living within 36 miles (and less) of LHR for 24 years, I have got used to it and it's ups and downs. I know my way around, I know the short cuts and so forth - consequently, it doesn't bother me much. When I go through, if I am late I don't care about the poor lounges, if I have time then I am in either a biz or Servisair (Priority Pass) lounge so don't care about them either!
Interestingly, at a braai (Bar-B-Q) last night in Cape Town [day time temp 36] {sorry, couldn't resist} the problems of connections and multi-leg journeys came up and I asked them what they thought of LHR?? Men and women said that they liked it - particularly all the shops!!!!!!! I suppose that, being in CPT, they find it more attractive than us locals.
Back to the question ... I have not ticked the Poll, because distance is the only factor. There is no point in driving past LHR for another 45 mins to get to LGW, even if the redoubtable bealine is at the check in.
I have tried to consider what I would do if I had a choice but, being so familiar with mine - I would have to learn from the start. That said, LCY is grand and I would not mind being on it's doorstep.
LTN has improved a LOT in the past couple of years, they have listended to criticisms and responded. The new check-in 'terminal' is a shed of the worst kind but the actual terminal is fine.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Bealine,
I am also not going to vote formally, because the main answer to the question as far as I am concerned is that the airport that is better is the one that is hosting the flight(s) I need to use.
As far as facilities are concerned, I also don't think there's much between the airports. LGW N often has horrendous queues for security which I've seldom seen at LHR T4. (And you can't buy Hermes scarves there any more.
) I don't agree that the facilities at either airport are shabby or disgusting. They are of a quality that puts most American airports to shame, even if there are some other airports around the world which are better.
BA's corporate strength is in high quality long haul ops. Short haul's future seems to me to be highly dependent on whether BA can identify, capture and retain a sufficiently large market which prizes value over mere price, and is therefore prepared to pay extra for a higher quality service to the same destination. For many short haul pax, this is a finely balanced issue, even for those who would unhesitatingly shell out extra for a quality long haul flight.
The London area's strength is in connections. I think that LHR's O&D only accounts for something like half of the traffic there. And there's nothing like frequency and variety for a good connecting hub.
Both of these factors put together point strongly towards BA's interests being in one fortress hub that is also well served by non-BA connections. LHR is over-extended, and creaks badly every time it's put under pressure. But this largely reflects overwhelming demand from pax from all over the world to fly through LHR.
Even though I live in central London and only ever fly for leisure, I have had to connect through London a number of times. All but one of these has been intra-LHR. It's as much of a pig of a connection to make as any other at a big airport. The one exception was an MCO-LON-HKG connection, both sectors on BA. If there had been a non-stop MCO-LHR on offer by some other airline, I would probably have booked away from BA. That is not good for the company.
As it was, there was no alternative, LGW was "better" for that end of the trip, and I had to make a cross-airport connection. MCO seems to be the type of route for which the above arguments are not as strong - at a guess (although no more than that, and I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong) it is mostly leisure, mostly LON-originating and mostly relatively low yield. I can understand why business pax on different types of flights, esp those who want to connect, might clamour to go to LHR instead.
I am also not going to vote formally, because the main answer to the question as far as I am concerned is that the airport that is better is the one that is hosting the flight(s) I need to use.
As far as facilities are concerned, I also don't think there's much between the airports. LGW N often has horrendous queues for security which I've seldom seen at LHR T4. (And you can't buy Hermes scarves there any more.
) I don't agree that the facilities at either airport are shabby or disgusting. They are of a quality that puts most American airports to shame, even if there are some other airports around the world which are better.BA's corporate strength is in high quality long haul ops. Short haul's future seems to me to be highly dependent on whether BA can identify, capture and retain a sufficiently large market which prizes value over mere price, and is therefore prepared to pay extra for a higher quality service to the same destination. For many short haul pax, this is a finely balanced issue, even for those who would unhesitatingly shell out extra for a quality long haul flight.
The London area's strength is in connections. I think that LHR's O&D only accounts for something like half of the traffic there. And there's nothing like frequency and variety for a good connecting hub.
Both of these factors put together point strongly towards BA's interests being in one fortress hub that is also well served by non-BA connections. LHR is over-extended, and creaks badly every time it's put under pressure. But this largely reflects overwhelming demand from pax from all over the world to fly through LHR.
Even though I live in central London and only ever fly for leisure, I have had to connect through London a number of times. All but one of these has been intra-LHR. It's as much of a pig of a connection to make as any other at a big airport. The one exception was an MCO-LON-HKG connection, both sectors on BA. If there had been a non-stop MCO-LHR on offer by some other airline, I would probably have booked away from BA. That is not good for the company.
As it was, there was no alternative, LGW was "better" for that end of the trip, and I had to make a cross-airport connection. MCO seems to be the type of route for which the above arguments are not as strong - at a guess (although no more than that, and I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong) it is mostly leisure, mostly LON-originating and mostly relatively low yield. I can understand why business pax on different types of flights, esp those who want to connect, might clamour to go to LHR instead.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first started with BA 2001, majority of long haul to Africa, USA and Middle East was from Gatwick North. But gradually moving to LHR T4 and T1.
For staff travel I prefer going through Gatwick, the staff are very nice and helpful, where as if you go from LHR T4, you have to que up standing in Staff Travel where the staff couldn't really careless about you. Its really crowded in LHR T4 now than before.
A lot of Staff and our Customers prefer Gatwick North, for example pax comming of flights from the USA to Gatwick then onto Lagos, now have to go all the way to Heathrow.
The worst is LHR T1, well domestic side anyway, it is very limited for customers needs, but soon Long Haul flights like Tokyo, South Africa will move from T4 to T1.
For staff travel I prefer going through Gatwick, the staff are very nice and helpful, where as if you go from LHR T4, you have to que up standing in Staff Travel where the staff couldn't really careless about you. Its really crowded in LHR T4 now than before.
A lot of Staff and our Customers prefer Gatwick North, for example pax comming of flights from the USA to Gatwick then onto Lagos, now have to go all the way to Heathrow.
The worst is LHR T1, well domestic side anyway, it is very limited for customers needs, but soon Long Haul flights like Tokyo, South Africa will move from T4 to T1.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff Travel
Well stated LHR09 who cares what it is like, if the main concern is staff travel; you probably reflect about BA staff views and issues, who cares about the customers, i.e. staff concerns overtime, overseas or off.
Both LHR/LGW are extremely grubby and my concern would be first to see the present facilities improved / maintained rather than so much concern for T5 (The Diana Terminal or The Tony Blair Terminal). Either way you have few choices dependant on your choice of airliner or your destination
Both LHR/LGW are extremely grubby and my concern would be first to see the present facilities improved / maintained rather than so much concern for T5 (The Diana Terminal or The Tony Blair Terminal). Either way you have few choices dependant on your choice of airliner or your destination
mostly harmless
Like most other posters, I'm not voting.
It depends on why you are there.
If you are interconnecting, then Heathrow is not too bad, once you've learned how the flight interconnection centre works. OK, not as good as CDG but at least I've got my suitcase when I've arrived, unlike AMS and I don't have to queue for an hour for a boarding card, unlike FRA. I haven't connected at LGW since the BA long-haul exodus.
Now, if I'm going to/from London, my interest is in getting to and from quickly and reliably. I'd put STN first on this, then LGW. It's a combination of check-in / baggage delivery and transport links. If LHR has to wait for Crossrail before HEx can get to St. Pancras, then T5 will have a problem.
Facilities are nice but, apart from clean (and hypodermic-free!!!) toilets, they are the iceing on the cake.
answer=42
It depends on why you are there.
If you are interconnecting, then Heathrow is not too bad, once you've learned how the flight interconnection centre works. OK, not as good as CDG but at least I've got my suitcase when I've arrived, unlike AMS and I don't have to queue for an hour for a boarding card, unlike FRA. I haven't connected at LGW since the BA long-haul exodus.
Now, if I'm going to/from London, my interest is in getting to and from quickly and reliably. I'd put STN first on this, then LGW. It's a combination of check-in / baggage delivery and transport links. If LHR has to wait for Crossrail before HEx can get to St. Pancras, then T5 will have a problem.
Facilities are nice but, apart from clean (and hypodermic-free!!!) toilets, they are the iceing on the cake.
answer=42
Last edited by answer=42; 18th Feb 2003 at 14:14.
I find there seems to be fewer connections in/out of LGW.
I'm usually sub-load so the number of flights is important to me ie get bumped; there's always the next one...
Especially since I have secondary connections AFTER my domestic flight out of LGW or LHR.
Flying to/from Florida from LGW is a pain in the backside for me.
When I lived in London I preferred LGW because there were several train links there from my corner of the city (Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Clapham Junction etc etc). LHR not so convenient.
The worst part of the LGW / LHR tie up is if a transfer between airports is required. That aspect is truly abysmal.
I'm usually sub-load so the number of flights is important to me ie get bumped; there's always the next one...
Especially since I have secondary connections AFTER my domestic flight out of LGW or LHR.
Flying to/from Florida from LGW is a pain in the backside for me.
When I lived in London I preferred LGW because there were several train links there from my corner of the city (Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Clapham Junction etc etc). LHR not so convenient.
The worst part of the LGW / LHR tie up is if a transfer between airports is required. That aspect is truly abysmal.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 26th Feb 2003 at 16:06.
mostly harmless
Have to agre with Tinstaafl. LHR/LGW transfer should be easier. I have sometimes avoided London to escape this transfer.
A train service could take 50-60 minutes. If reliable, reasonably frequent (2 x hour?) and sufficiently publicised, people would use it.
BAA reckoned the market isn't sufficient to support a start-up service. Perhaps the BA reorganisation is sufficient to get them to change their minds.
answer=42
A train service could take 50-60 minutes. If reliable, reasonably frequent (2 x hour?) and sufficiently publicised, people would use it.
BAA reckoned the market isn't sufficient to support a start-up service. Perhaps the BA reorganisation is sufficient to get them to change their minds.
answer=42
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike some of the others, most of my recent journeys were domestic (usually MAN) so I DO have a choice.
As far as the actual airports are concerned, I used to always opt for Gatwick, all things being equal. Huge queues for check in and security which you don't usually get at LHR, but an overall more pleasant (read: slightly less hellish) experience.
More room to sit and relax (a couple of quietish areas overlooking the ramp - with DAYLIGHT ) and a choice of refreshments for domestic journeys (unlike T1). The place seems cleaner and more 'well kept' than LHR which I consider to be a complete cesspit - finding a clean toilet or a seat without chewing-gum, coffe stains etc. seems to be a novelty at LHR. The BA lounge at Gatwick is excellent (I've only been in the domestic one in T1 so can't compare on international), although I must say the BA domestic departure area (gate 4) at LHR is also very pleasant - I always sit there - even when flying BD
The LGW staff seem more pleasant too - I'm sure this isn't because the LHR lot try less - just because they're under so much strain!
One 'down side' of domestic to LGW is the ridiculously over-configured, cramped RJ100's used by BA on many routes. These alone make a trip to Heathrow worthwhile
For connecting trips, as others have said, it comes down to which airport offers the services to where you are going so I usually go via LHR (or better still, somewhere in Europe) when going to the States. Bealine, I agree that it's a shame about the switch of services to LHR - I did DEN, MIA and PHX from LGW before they were 'lost' and it was a much better option.
Ultimatley, the problem BA have is that unless BAA buck up their ideas and offer a MUCH BETTER product to the customer, more poeple are going to do what I try to do whenever I can - go via AMS, CDG etc. (CPH is my favourite for connecting, but a bit out of the way for many destinations).
More regional services might relieve the congestion on the London airports, but the change of mindset required makes this a complete non-starter for the foreseeable future.
As far as the actual airports are concerned, I used to always opt for Gatwick, all things being equal. Huge queues for check in and security which you don't usually get at LHR, but an overall more pleasant (read: slightly less hellish) experience.
More room to sit and relax (a couple of quietish areas overlooking the ramp - with DAYLIGHT
) and a choice of refreshments for domestic journeys (unlike T1). The place seems cleaner and more 'well kept' than LHR which I consider to be a complete cesspit - finding a clean toilet or a seat without chewing-gum, coffe stains etc. seems to be a novelty at LHR. The BA lounge at Gatwick is excellent (I've only been in the domestic one in T1 so can't compare on international), although I must say the BA domestic departure area (gate 4) at LHR is also very pleasant - I always sit there - even when flying BD The LGW staff seem more pleasant too - I'm sure this isn't because the LHR lot try less - just because they're under so much strain!
One 'down side' of domestic to LGW is the ridiculously over-configured, cramped RJ100's used by BA on many routes. These alone make a trip to Heathrow worthwhile
For connecting trips, as others have said, it comes down to which airport offers the services to where you are going so I usually go via LHR (or better still, somewhere in Europe) when going to the States. Bealine, I agree that it's a shame about the switch of services to LHR - I did DEN, MIA and PHX from LGW before they were 'lost' and it was a much better option.
Ultimatley, the problem BA have is that unless BAA buck up their ideas and offer a MUCH BETTER product to the customer, more poeple are going to do what I try to do whenever I can - go via AMS, CDG etc. (CPH is my favourite for connecting, but a bit out of the way for many destinations).
More regional services might relieve the congestion on the London airports, but the change of mindset required makes this a complete non-starter for the foreseeable future.
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like both LGW and LHR but for pure convenience my choice has to be LGW - 40mins from door to long-stay carpark as opposed to 90mins plus (at best!!) .... and yes, that is because I am flying as a passenger and therefore choose flights that do not depart at crack of dawn when roads are clear!!!
I am off to Florida on Tuesday with BA from LGW ... the fare is terrific ... if this flight were to move to LHR I would probably fly Virgin .. the difference in cost of parking and aggravation at LHR is way in excess of the additional cost of the current Virgin vs BA airfare!!!
My suggestion to BA would be to make LHR their "business" hub .. and have Gatwick its "vacation station" ... then I can still have my flights to Tampa!!
I have never flown from STN/LTN. When I worked at Canary Wharf I loved LCY - I could fly out for a weekend on a Friday evening and back on a Monday morning and be only an hour later than usual for work and day business trips were definitely do-able!
I am off to Florida on Tuesday with BA from LGW ... the fare is terrific ... if this flight were to move to LHR I would probably fly Virgin .. the difference in cost of parking and aggravation at LHR is way in excess of the additional cost of the current Virgin vs BA airfare!!!
My suggestion to BA would be to make LHR their "business" hub .. and have Gatwick its "vacation station" ... then I can still have my flights to Tampa!!
I have never flown from STN/LTN. When I worked at Canary Wharf I loved LCY - I could fly out for a weekend on a Friday evening and back on a Monday morning and be only an hour later than usual for work and day business trips were definitely do-able!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the main question, (which is better Heathrow or Gatwick?) well the ANSWER IS LONDON GATWICK.
But BAA aiports are quite poor standards, the best airport in my opinion is:-
Singapore Changi Airport
Dubai International
Amsterdam Schipol
Hong Kong
Tokyo Narita.
The BAA Standards compared to the above Airport is really poor, the buildings in LHR are falling to pieces, lack of choice in shopping.
Also dissapointed in New York JFK BA Terminal, I had high expectations, just out of interest are all USA Airport the same?
But BAA aiports are quite poor standards, the best airport in my opinion is:-
Singapore Changi Airport
Dubai International
Amsterdam Schipol
Hong Kong
Tokyo Narita.
The BAA Standards compared to the above Airport is really poor, the buildings in LHR are falling to pieces, lack of choice in shopping.
Also dissapointed in New York JFK BA Terminal, I had high expectations, just out of interest are all USA Airport the same?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DVR4G.DEP
Have not flown through JFK, but have flown through Newark, which I thought was a good airport. However this was approx five years ago when I travelled internally from EWR to MCO.
Again, MCO was also a good airport. Infact on arrival LGW North on the return, I really thought..... Great! Back in grubby Britain!
It really is about time that either BAA, or the government took stock of the poor state of our main Gateway. As a first impression though, I suppose it is in keeping with the rest of the UK.
Dubai International is very nice, but let's bear in mind that the terminal has only been in use for approx two years, so lets see what will be said of it in ten years or so when it has been well used. I'd put money on it that the airport authority will not allow it to lower its high standards, which is something that BAA seem unable to do.
Here hoping that BAA can do something to turn around the state of these airports.
Have not flown through JFK, but have flown through Newark, which I thought was a good airport. However this was approx five years ago when I travelled internally from EWR to MCO.
Again, MCO was also a good airport. Infact on arrival LGW North on the return, I really thought..... Great! Back in grubby Britain!
It really is about time that either BAA, or the government took stock of the poor state of our main Gateway. As a first impression though, I suppose it is in keeping with the rest of the UK.
Dubai International is very nice, but let's bear in mind that the terminal has only been in use for approx two years, so lets see what will be said of it in ten years or so when it has been well used. I'd put money on it that the airport authority will not allow it to lower its high standards, which is something that BAA seem unable to do.
Here hoping that BAA can do something to turn around the state of these airports.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well with Rimmer Towers only about 15 mins (if I go the back roads from LGW) it certainly has an edge it's also a nicer place to be compared with LHR (natural light etc etc) on the downside esp in the summer chock full of folks going on their holidays with loads of bags and not a clue where to go and therefore impeding the Rimmerian progress. If its short haul and I can't go from LGW and there aren't other factors then it's LCY (about the same drive time as LHR and a far better and quicker experience and fewer ATC holds out and on the return I know lets play the 'how many times round the Biggin or Stableford or whatever hold' game) or even when FlyBE start the new routes Southampton (maybe a little longer on the drive) but much quicker car park to a/c and vice versa so it's still quicker than LHR. Which has been rightly noted earlier is a bit of a khazi
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR all the way baby!
But save me from Termninal 3 on a Friday night.......utter chaos.
And thank god they've replaced that awful Brioche Doree in Terminal 1 Gate 5 domestic with a shiny new Costa Coffee.....much better!
But save me from Termninal 3 on a Friday night.......utter chaos.
And thank god they've replaced that awful Brioche Doree in Terminal 1 Gate 5 domestic with a shiny new Costa Coffee.....much better!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealine, how can you say gatwick is shabby and in need of a deep clean? The North terminal has been spotless on the many occasions I have used it, and now that BA have chopped a load of routes it's even more deserted than it was before! The only thing I dislike about it is the long walk to the gates nearest the south terminal.
Terminal 4 is awful! Always chokka every time I use it and those awful depressing 80s check in desks don't help the ambiance of the place either.
BTW Bealine, whilst we are on the subject of Terminal 4, why is it that I can't check in for any flight at any desk like you often can at other BA terminals (eg T1, North terminal from what I remember)? Only reason I ask is that whilst travelling recently we went to nearest check in desk in T4, and were told to hike our bags down to the other end of the terminal past 30 or 40 practically passengerless check in desks -with staff sitting gossiping- all the way to 3 or 4 check in desks with 400 people waiting to check in queuing all across the concourse and blocking any thru route!
Terminal 4 is awful! Always chokka every time I use it and those awful depressing 80s check in desks don't help the ambiance of the place either.
BTW Bealine, whilst we are on the subject of Terminal 4, why is it that I can't check in for any flight at any desk like you often can at other BA terminals (eg T1, North terminal from what I remember)? Only reason I ask is that whilst travelling recently we went to nearest check in desk in T4, and were told to hike our bags down to the other end of the terminal past 30 or 40 practically passengerless check in desks -with staff sitting gossiping- all the way to 3 or 4 check in desks with 400 people waiting to check in queuing all across the concourse and blocking any thru route!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By rights, in the North Terminal or at T1, you do have specific desks at which to check in. However, we often ignore the "rules" in order to help our busier colleagues and they, in turn, help us when we become busy at their slack time........indeed, we have a team spirit or esprit de corps which is, sadly, lacking in some (but by no means all) of out T4 colleagues!
(T4, because it is the "flagship", is much more "regimental")
Now, as far as the hygiene of the North Terminal is concerned - just look at the ceiling above WH Smith on the Check In level - positively dripping with black, sooty filth laden with bacteria/viral microbes from the millions of of moist exhalations which have occurred since the last occasion it was cleaned (ie never!!!)
Unfortunately, this is the bit you can see - the areas in the air conditioning pipework remain a mystery!
(T4, because it is the "flagship", is much more "regimental")
Now, as far as the hygiene of the North Terminal is concerned - just look at the ceiling above WH Smith on the Check In level - positively dripping with black, sooty filth laden with bacteria/viral microbes from the millions of of moist exhalations which have occurred since the last occasion it was cleaned (ie never!!!)
Unfortunately, this is the bit you can see - the areas in the air conditioning pipework remain a mystery!
Too mean to buy a long personal title
atco-matic: BTW Bealine, whilst we are on the subject of Terminal 4, why is it that I can't check in for any flight at any desk like you often can at other BA terminals (eg T1, North terminal from what I remember)? Only reason I ask is that whilst travelling recently we went to nearest check in desk in T4, and were told to hike our bags down to the other end of the terminal past 30 or 40 practically passengerless check in desks -with staff sitting gossiping- all the way to 3 or 4 check in desks with 400 people waiting to check in queuing all across the concourse and blocking any thru route!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - It could well be that, Globaliser. The same thing happens at LGW if we send too many Economy bags down the Club and First Class belts! (My comments were a tad tongue in cheek!)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Which is better, Heathrow or Gatwick?" is like being asked "would you rather be shot or stabbed?"
No-one seems to have mentioned Stansted, which is far more modern, and more importantly only 50 minutes from where I live.
No-one seems to have mentioned Stansted, which is far more modern, and more importantly only 50 minutes from where I live.