WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2333 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5038 times:
I flew into T2 last month from LIS on TP, enroute LIS-LHR-ORD-MSP (see my report in the trip reports section), and I couldn't agree more!
T2's low ceilings and dingy, yellow signs seem horribly dated. I also disliked having to go up / down flights of stairs to get to the Queens Building, to catch my transfer bus to T3. LHR will be so much nicer once T5 opens, and the alliances are grouped in their own terminals.
8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4989 times:
Slightly off topic perhaps, but do you think BAA will eventually rebuild Terminal 3?
Hopefully Heathrow East will go ahead, but it would be good if they could mirror that so that the Central Terminal Area (CTA) is completly re-created. Then, it would only be Terminal 4 which would need updating; and although it isn't the lightest of terminals, it is the newest out of the current terminals and probably the largest.
I have only travelled from T1 and T4, and I do wonder how the former can carry 25 million passengers per year! It is quite good for shopping etc, and I do quite like the long walks between security and the aircraft (although not when I am in a rush! Lol), but the check-in area is clearly too small and overcrowded. It seems BAA has tried to squeeze as much into the building as possible, to meet the demands of passengers.
TUSaadvantage From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4968 times:
I've only been through T1 and T3, and I can say I was not too impressed with either of them. My overall impression was that they were outdated, poorly airconditioned, and cramped. I felt like a mouse running through small tunnels that connected to other small tunnels. The whole layout feels like it was never "master planned". It seems like they kept adding buildings as they needed them, and as a result the whole place doesn't run very efficiently. I also noticed that unlike most American airports, you don't wait for your plane at the gate. You wait in some general hall until shorty before boarding. This is especially true in T3, where the gate area is essentially a shed.
BA1985 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4937 times:
Don't mean to carry on griping but last summer it took me as long to fly from Milan to T2 as get my bags and make it to the car park! I reckon that Heathrow East is a complete necesity and with BA pushing for a third runway who knows there may be T6 in 2150!
Superhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4934 times:
I absolutely hate T4. Looks so 1980s. At least BAA made an effort to modernise T1,2 and 3.
Quoting TUSaadvantage (Reply 4): I also noticed that unlike most American airports, you don't wait for your plane at the gate. You wait in some general hall until shorty before boarding. This is especially true in T3, where the gate area is essentially a shed.
That is because they want to minimise Departing passengers mixing with Arriving ones. You'd probably have noticed that as you walk to your gate, you will meet arriving passengers in the opposite direction (similar to US domestic terminals where departing passengers meet arriving ones after security). However, these arriving passengers are international arrivals and by minimising the departing passengers in that area, there are higher chances of stopping arriving passengers heading into the departure shopping/waiting lounge.
The situation should change in T3 soon though. You might notice that some piers in T3 now has built another floor on top of the original one. And when that is completed for the whole of T3, then the current situation will probably change.
FYI, you can wait at the gate at Terminal 4 since arriving flow and departing flows are separated.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2157 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4910 times:
T2 is horrible.. as is all of LHR. I'm sorry British people, but T1, T2.. they just are the most chaothic ill conceived terminals I've ever been to.
Claustrophobic and weird. T1 is a little bit better than T2, though. Still not good.
London needs a completely new terminal to replace the entire mess that is LHR today... IMHO, of course. The security there is also way over the top. However, people are very polite and generally nice that work there, so that is a major plus.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
All of them - they suck equally, from their dingy moth-eaten carpets, crammed in Sock Shops, inadequate seating, slow, tedious poorly-manned security, to their appallingly bad design and people flow characteristics. The whole place should be bulldozed and done again. Norman Foster need not apply.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4834 times:
T2 is anything but what an airport terminal should be like. To be honest, every terminal at LHR is crowded and very user-unfriendly. However as an enthusiast, T3 is a quite a spectacle as far as variety of airlines and aircraft are concerned. The layout of T4 is simple and efficient but it get's quite repetitive with all the BA tails.