Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5859889/

Topic: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: DAL763ER
Posted 2013-09-02 01:53:15 and read 8406 times.

I've been wondering for a while why BA still has operations at terminals other than 5. I can somewhat understand the use of terminal 1 for ex-BMI flights, but what about the likes of OTP, BKK and other destinations that leave/arrive from/at terminal 3?

Is it not annoying for passengers to have to connect from T5 to T3/T1 and vice versa? I thought the point of T5 was to consolidate all operations under a single (well, sort of) roof.

Is there any plan to move flights from T3 back to T5 or is it a means to annoy SRB by being in his terminal?

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: APYu
Posted 2013-09-02 01:55:16 and read 8411 times.

T5 isnt big enough - still.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-09-02 02:25:24 and read 8278 times.

Isn't there also a limit of the number of PAX T5 can handle from the Common Travel Area (Domestic, Eire, IOM etc)?

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-09-02 02:43:29 and read 8206 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 2):
Isn't there also a limit of the number of PAX T5 can handle from the Common Travel Area (Domestic, Eire, IOM etc)?

Aside from mainland domestic t's currently zero, LHR has no IOM connections and BHD and DUB are still in T1. There are currently only 6-7 stands that have access to UK Arrivals though, much bussing is involved.

LHR is massively space constrained and T5 was designed when BA were hubbing at LGW with a large heavy fleet there. That's mainly all back at LHR so BA are split between home in T5, oneworld in T3 and legacy BMI in T1. T1 is closing soon so that remainder will be absorbed into T1 and T3. The last T3 long haul moves to T5 in Oct when BKK changes from a B744 to a B772.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: jamesontheroad
Posted 2013-09-02 02:55:23 and read 8149 times.

Quoting APYu (Reply 1):
T5 isnt big enough - still.

Remember that T5 wasn't designed for BA, it was only after the process began that it became logical for it to become BA's home terminal.

I recall that some of the drawings of the "toast rack" plan for LHR suggested an additional satellite could be built where the fuel farm currently sits, but that might be disproportionately expensive.

Although it doesn't really affect T5's capacity, the OCD designer in me hates the way that the two satellites of T5 haven't been built to the full "width" of the toast rack pattern. Presumably a few quid were shaved off the budget by running long fingers out to the northern most stands.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: andy33
Posted 2013-09-02 03:11:25 and read 8074 times.

There's a side issue in that many of the ex-BMI aircraft (though not all) are not equipped to handle containerised baggage.
T5 is 100% containerised (though apparently can handle loose loaded bags in emergencies). There seems to be a master plan to transfer the non-containerised planes to LGW as new aircraft arrive and this would increase the flexibility of the LHR fleet and make it easier to optimise the allocation of routes to terminals.
Allegedly the routes remaining at T3 will be those with the highest proportion of O&D traffic or connecting traffic from other OW carriers rather than the BA/IB network itself,
I think there is a typo in SkipnessiE's otherwise excellent post - of course when T1 closes next year BA flights from there are all planned to move to the newly constructed T2. While BA might wish that they could get back to using only two terminals, it is difficult to see how this could be done without construction work to make gates available for DUB/BHD or other UK domestics at T3 or T5. As even BA probably don't know whether any or how many of the slots used for these flights get redeployed to long haul in future, it isn't surprising that there's no sign of any work starting.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-09-02 04:36:58 and read 7793 times.

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 4):
Remember that T5 wasn't designed for BA, it was only after the process began that it became logical for it to become BA's home terminal.

T5 was very much designed for BA, that was the intent almost from day one to allieviate the T1/T4 connecting issues. It was never going to be anyone else.

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 4):
Presumably a few quid were shaved off the budget by running long fingers out to the northern most stands.

And leaving the Southernmost as remote!

Quoting andy33 (Reply 5):
though apparently can handle loose loaded bags in emergencies

It's an ideal to use containers, T5 has also taken B757s when BA had them and rather frequent Titan B737 / B757 subcharters, currently G-POWC is based.

Quoting andy33 (Reply 5):
I think there is a typo in SkipnessiE's otherwise excellent post

Thanks, but i's not that difficult to tweak arrivals to deal with DUB and BHD at T5, it's only DUB that requires some thought. BA are going back to two terminals, they're not going into T2 and T1 will be demolished to make way for the Northern part of the main terminal in the new T2. There's a reason that the North wall has no glass, it's a temporary one  

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: trintocan
Posted 2013-09-02 04:45:14 and read 7764 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 2):
Isn't there also a limit of the number of PAX T5 can handle from the Common Travel Area (Domestic, Eire, IOM etc)?

All LHR flights to Ireland (both Republic and Northern) operate from Terminal 1 and have done so for many years for various operational reasons.

As far as the other terminals are concerned, BA have chopped and changed their operations over the years but have steadily had a presence at T3, even if that consisted solely of flights to MIA and LOS (as was the case in the early to mid Noughties, later reduced to MIA alone). At that time Terminal 4 had most long-haul flights and selected short-hauls such as AMS and CDG while Terminal 1 had other short-hauls. After T5 opened they focused on building T5 as their hub and so moved flights with greatest connectivity there while vacating T4 and subsequently T1 entirely. T3 was kept for OneWorld joint flights such as HEL, the JSA services to Australia and other routes which were served by 757s, which like most ex BD Airbuses are loose-loaded. As the 757s left the fleet in 2010 some of the routes on which they were used moved to T5, notably the Spanish routes (which also coincided with BA and IB merging under the IAG wing) to bolster connectivity while other short-haul routes which were more stand-alone (e.g. LCA) were shifted to T3. As mentioned, some short-haul services from LGW were shifted to LHR adding to the mix.

The takeover of BD returned BA to T1. Additionally, flights to SYD have moved to T5 after the JSA ended this year.

Trintocan.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: raffik
Posted 2013-09-02 06:45:34 and read 7425 times.

Will the BEY flights ever move over to T5?

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-09-02 07:40:19 and read 7251 times.

Can anyone actually explain to me why flights within the Common Travel Area must have the segregated gates such as those that exist in T1? It's just that in Ireland the flights are treated as domestic (albeit since the recent up date of Dublin airport everything goes through passport control) flights and there is never any checks disembarking in the UK be it customs or immigration!

I'm beginning to think its a security throw back to The Troubles that is no longer relevant and therefore cannot understand why the DUB can't just use normal domestic gates!

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: evomutant
Posted 2013-09-02 08:06:57 and read 7153 times.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 9):
I'm beginning to think its a security throw back to The Troubles that is no longer relevant and therefore cannot understand why the DUB can't just use normal domestic gates!

In theory, Thrid country nationals still need a valid visa to enter the UK even from the Republic. In practice the UKBA never check, but presumably the infrastructure is there in case they one day decide to. And remember a few years ago they proposed to start systematic immigration controls (though not requiring a passport) but were shouted down by Northern Irish politicians who objected to immigration control for a domestic flight.

Similarly, although it is presently moot at LHR, any flight from Jersey or Guernsey would be subject to customs clearance as they are outside the Customs union of the EU.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-09-02 09:34:08 and read 6901 times.

Quoting evomutant (Reply 10):

Thanks for that Evomutant. When you put it like that I can understand why it's there. But also at the back of my mind I'm very aware that in DUB at least they make everyone pass through passport control regardless of point of origin! Lol

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: G-CIVP
Posted 2013-09-02 13:31:32 and read 5388 times.

Quoting andy33 (Reply 5):
There's a side issue in that many of the ex-BMI aircraft (though not all) are not equipped to handle containerised baggage.

Digressing, surely placing baggage in containers for short hops, e.g. Paris, Dusseldorf, is a time consuming and counter productive process. Isn't it easier to place bags onto the back of truck/lorry and up a belt to the aircraft and vice versa?

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-09-02 13:38:03 and read 5324 times.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 12):

Depends now many bags exactly! With containers bags are loaded directly from the conveyor after checkin into a trolley of containers and then just bulk loaded. Without containers they are loaded by hand into the back of a trolley and the need to be unloaded individually by hand into the plane with one person on the ground putting them onto the conveyor thing and another at the top to place it off this and so on! So it takes much longer if you have a high load!

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-09-02 14:10:09 and read 5043 times.

T3 is going to be a bit deserted once all the Star airlines leave for T2B so I wonder if more of the BAW flights will be filling the spaces rather than coaching to the 'remote' stands as they do now.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: G-CIVP
Posted 2013-09-02 14:34:14 and read 4854 times.

tonystan - thanks for the reply.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-09-02 15:06:12 and read 4630 times.

There's a rumour on flyertalk that some long haul is going back into T3 next summer. Oh dear, someone won't be happy! If the Flounge is only mothballed in Oct, that'd be a clue.

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: Tugmaster
Posted 2013-09-02 16:53:09 and read 4103 times.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 14):
T3 is going to be a bit deserted once all the Star airlines leave for T2B so I wonder if more of the BAW flights will be filling the spaces rather than coaching to the 'remote' stands as they do now.

This is what I believe is going to happen... although ,
Gate 24 will also stay for the remotes at 351-355, and 186/188/192L/R

Will be loadsa room when AC, SK, et al shift over to T2

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-09-02 19:33:38 and read 3641 times.

Quoting DAL763ER (Thread starter):
I thought the point of T5 was to consolidate all operations under a single (well, sort of) roof.
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 6):
T5 was very much designed for BA,

My recollection is different. I seem to recall the outrage of SRB when it was announced that T5 was to be exclusively for BA. I think that was some years after the final design was set. If it happened it could have been after the public inquiry ended in 1999.

Let us assume that my recollection is faulty. The concept of T5 was proposed in 1982, 26 years before it was opened. That was four years before T4 was opened. Ten years later in summer 1992 the basic design was set. This was in front of the Public Inquiry that opened in February 1993. If we assume that it was then that it was decided that it would house all BA's operations, who could have accurately forecast what sized terminal would be required in 2008 and beyond?

Here we are not simply looking at accurate forecasts in the growth in air travel and in BA's share, but in discontinuities that result in sudden changes in BA's LHR operations.

Look at those that have occurred in the five years since T5 was opened in mid March 2008:

1. EU/USA Open Skies resulting in transfer of flights from LGW to LHR.

2. AA/BA/IB North Atlantic ATI potentially requiring all AA and BA flights to be consolidated in the "BA terminal" (as at T8 JFK) particularly as no airline grouping had achieved such ATI at the time of the freezing of the T5 design

3. Formation of IAG requiring all BA and IB flights to MAD and BCN to be consolidated in the "BA terminal" when the basic design of T5 was frozen long before consolidation of American as well as European legacy carriers had started

4. Ending of the BA / QF JSA (which had not even started at the time of the freezing of the basic T5 design) so that consolidation of BA flights to Australia in the same terminal as QF's flights was no longer required

5. The purchase of BD resulting in an increase of more than 100 daily BA's flights to and from LHR

If we look further back at other discontinuities few would have predicted in 1993 that FR would be one of the world's top ten airlines in 2012 as determined by passengers carried with its biggest base at a LON airport. Few would have predicted that while BA would "only" carry 35.6 million passengers in 2012, an airline no more than a twinkle in Stelios' eye in 1993, U2, would be the UK's largest airline carrying 50.5 million passengers . And if they had predicted the growth in the then unknown European LCCs, would they have accurately forecast their impact on BA's operations?

So my contention is that if my recollection is wrong and the objective of T5 always was to house all BA's operations:

1. The objective was on a hiding to nothing. Nobody could have accurately forecast its required size 15 years before it opened. So it would likely be a failure from day one, either too big or too small. (Note here that if actual annual growth was just 2 per cent per annum above forecast then, after 15 years, a terminal capacity 34.6 per cent larger than forecast would be required.)

2. The objective was likely to fail because IF T5 was big enough to house all BA operations on its opening day, it would be unlikely to be big enough fifteen years later. (With only 2 per cent per annum growth it would need to be able to handle 34.6 per cent more passengers than in the year it opened,) So accurate forecasts would result in a transitory situation unless the terminal was to be built so big that it could cope with reasonable growth over, say, a 25 year period. Here recognise that LHR's Europa Terminal, later renamed Terminal 2, was opened in 1955 and operated for 54 years. How big will BA's LHR operations be in 2062?

Topic: RE: BA And LHR Terminals
Username: DNDTUF
Posted 2013-09-03 16:54:10 and read 2097 times.

I fly quite regularly between EDI and LYS and when U2, who offer a direct flight, don't offer any competitive fares, especially in Summer, I fly BA via LHR. When I first flew the route, it was operated from T5 and the connectivity was excellent. Disembarking and being in the departure lounge for the next flight within ten minutes was a great advantage.

This summer the LYS flights operated from T1, presumably using the ex bmi route. Whilst the transfer was relatively painless compared to other airports (CDG I'm looking at you!) T1 was dire - like a prison with luxury shops! Definitely not something I'm sure BA want to reflect in their image. We were delayed 40 minutes waiting on pax disembarking from an Icelandair flight who were using the same corridor. The plus side was that I found the LHR-LYS sector on an ex-bmi bird to be far superior to the EDI-LHR sector on classic BA. I don't know if they use ex-bmi crew on that route, but the service was excellent. The crew were friendlier and less "stuck-up" as I have experienced on numerous BA flights and the aircraft was cleaner and I found the bmi brown "leather" seats to be very comfortable. I'm sure there are some things left to sort out with the takeover but it's not great in terms of consistency.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/