Ansett777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 617 times:
A few days ago my friend from London flew in from London Heathrow on a BA744 to JFK in New York, and when she was at Heathrow she said it was very messy and very big, but she said Gatwick was pretty nice. Seeing that i havent been to one of them, which one is nicer
Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1334 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 603 times:
Terminal 4 at Heathrow (for BA intercontinental service) is badly designed and overall a mess. Terminal 1 (for BA Europe flights) is much better organized. BA's terminal at LGW is not very large, and the waiting area is a bit cramped at times. Overall, you are more likely to get lost at LHR than LGW. This is based on personal experience. (I have been at LHR dozens of times, and at LGW a few times).
I believe BA is still going ahead with plans to build a Terminal 5 at Heathrow, which should help out.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 588 times:
LHR is indeed a very "messy" airport. This is due to its basic layuout which dates back to around 1943. The original plan showed a central terminal area surrounded by multiple runways arranged in a "Star of David" pattern. This layout has hampered expansion and has resulted in most of the smaller crosswind runways being closed and built upon. In fact, construction work at the airport has never ceased since the airport opened in 1946. Terminal 1,2 and 3 are essentially "trapped" in thew centre area with Terminal 4 and the future Terminal 5 out on the perimeter, where ALL the terminals should have been from the beginning. One early plan also showed a secondary smaller airport on the north side of the main airport just across the raod.
Environmentalists had yet to appear in 1943!
Scotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 588 times:
Like LHR, most other UK airports have happended rather than being planned. Unlike in AMS which always seems to me to be organised and looking ahead, we build facilities to catch up wiht demand rathar than build facilities to meet expected demand.
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 581 times:
BAA spends £1 million a DAY! on new construction at Heathrow.
T4 to me has always seemed the best of the LHR terminals - it's easy to get to, easy for check in (that huge hall has loads of space) and then when you get through the passport control the shopping, gates are all well arranged. The only prob is the mammoth walk you have to get to those 'cul-de-sac' gates.
T1 is much better now that it was redesigned airside, but landside the checkin areas are still a mess. Domestic lounge is much better now it has been tidied up.
T2 - haven't been there for a while but apparently it's very nice since the 1996 refurb.
T3 - a bit of a mess really. I think this has to be the worst LHR terminal. It's crowded, the check in area is crap and the duty free/lounges are all a mess.
Terminal 5, when it gets built, will be incredible. There is also a plan to build another Terminal (6?) in the opposite side to T5 (i.e. the maint base) and then extend the satellites all over the central area (which would involve demolishing T1, T2 + T3.)
As soon as T5 is complete BA will transfer all their ops there (Int, Euro and Domestic) which will make transferring at LHR as seamless as at AMS or CDG.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5455 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 566 times:
I have only been to LGW but I will say that transferring airlines/terminals at LGW is a pain, Other than that, LGW is a nice airport, a little confusing though but thats it, no real complaints from me.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...