ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
I've just seen in the press the BA is planning on moving their YVR flights to T1. Can anyone confirm this please? I'm booked on two flights (in August and December) from Geneva connecting at LHR to YVR and my 'comfortable' connections (T4-T4) have become tight.
Should I expect a notification from BA? And will I be able to change my connecting flights - they are still 'legal' but will be painful.
Also is there 'fast-track' security check at the Connections centre? What hours is it open?
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
According to BA's website:
Flight number: BA 86
Operated by: British Airways
Depart: Vancouver Mon 18 June 2007, 17:45
Terminal M
Arrive:Heathrow (London) Tue 19 June 2007, 10:50
Terminal 1
Flight number: BA 87
Operated by: British Airways
Depart: Heathrow (London) Sat 30 June 2007, 13:10
Terminal 1
Arrive: Vancouver Sat 30 June 2007, 14:35
Terminal M
So, it would appear that YVR flights are switching to Terminal 1. Rather odd as it'll be the only Canadian destination but I imagine there might be a few switches before T5 opens.
LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
TCXDegsy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 500 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2942 times:
Quoting ANother (Thread starter): Also is there 'fast-track' security check at the Connections centre? What hours is it open?
There IS a Fast Track lane for Security in the Flight Connections Centre, and BA do invite Club and First pax to use it, although it's not as fast as it used to be, it is still a lot faster than the standard lanes!
I'm not sure about opening times, and would assume it's open all hours the FCC is open
next flights: BA1441 0566 0581 1446 EDI-LHR-MXP-LHR-EDI
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
I have never understood BA's fascination with moving 747 flights to T1, T4 is BA 777 and 744 terminal. Years ago I almost had a heart attack when ny BA Miami to LHR flight arrived at T1, I was expecting a T3 arrival. T1 is a dump, SAA and El AL are the only other long haul airlines there. T1 should be closed. Even now BA's Miami to LHR flights are T3 instead of T4, why ? It seems ridiculous for Miami to suffer this third world fate of bad terminals. I hope with T5 BA Miami gets T5 like all over airlines. JFK flights would never be put throughsuch arrangments.
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2802 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3): T4 is BA 777 and 744 terminal
And is also not big enough to handle all the long haul flights. There are only 18 stands connected by jetway that are large enough for long haul aircraft, and two of those can only handle 767's. And remember that SriLankan, Kenya Airways, Qantas, TAM and KLM (1x daily) also use long haul aircraft into T4, which can only use those 16 stands. As it is now, many flights have to board via steps on remote stands, which certainly isn't convenient.
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3): SAA and El AL are the only other long haul airlines there. T1
Asiana and Cyprus Airways also fly long haul aircraft from T1.
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3): I hope with T5 BA Miami gets T5 like all over airlines. JFK flights would never be put throughsuch arrangments.
No, because JFK has around 8x daily flights, which wouldn't fit into T3 - and having some from T3 and some from T4 wouldn't make sense at all. BA has two daily flights in T3 so that it has a say in the way the terminal is run. It just happens to be that there are two daily Miami flights which can use the same aircraft on the same flights every day (until pulled out for maintenance), and are scheduled so that only one aircraft is in at a time. And when one of the two Miami flights was from Gatwick, the Cape Town flight went from T3, together with the then single Miami flight. It's not as if MIA is being singled out here, it's just the convenience of those flights.
Quoting LH423 (Reply 1): So, it would appear that YVR flights are switching to Terminal 1.
They are indeed switching to T1, on June 1st - when the route goes from 7x weekly to 13x weekly.
Star_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2802 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3): I have never understood BA's fascination with moving 747 flights to T1, T4 is BA 777 and 744 terminal. Years ago I almost had a heart attack when ny BA Miami to LHR flight arrived at T1, I was expecting a T3 arrival. T1 is a dump, SAA and El AL are the only other long haul airlines there. T1 should be closed. Even now BA's Miami to LHR flights are T3 instead of T4, why ? It seems ridiculous for Miami to suffer this third world fate of bad terminals. I hope with T5 BA Miami gets T5 like all over airlines. JFK flights would never be put throughsuch arrangments.
Slightly confused by your comments here. But to address each of them:
The area that BA longhaul flights operate from at T1 is almost brand new, and very open / modern looking. Yes, it's a long way from security but I can't see how it can be described as a "dump" - it's certainly much newer inside than T4. You also must not have visited the J / F lounges at T1, all of which are far more impressive than the T4 equivalents. The move of certain longhaul flights to T1 was related to connecting passengers, they moved several shorthaul flights to T4 and several longhaul ones to T1 to reduce the amount of terminal changing. This was done after analysing the connecting patterns.
MIA is operated out of T3 for a very specific reason - BA need to retain a flight from that terminal to continue to hold voting rights on development, etc. It's been this way for quite some time. The biggest downside of this is the lounge situation is very poor... if it's shopping you're interested in then T3 is arguably the best in LHR.
"Almost had a heart attack" ???
While we're talking about "third world fate of bad terminals" were you awake at the start of your MIA-LHR journey? Even the worst of LHR's terminals is light years ahead of MIA, or several of the other US gateways...
Speedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2628 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 6): What considerations would be looked at when deciding on which flight moves to another terminal?
In the past it was an attempt to make some connections easier and also to more evenly spread the passenger loads around.
On this occasion, moving the YVR flights is simply down to the fact that T4 is under too much pressure from passenger loads and with the increase in frequency for the summer, this would have been worse. Moving the flights is an attempt to ease that pressure. T4 used to have a couple hours in the afternoon when things would quiet down until the evening rush, but in recent months, there has been a continuous pressure which the facilities can't cope with.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 7): In the past it was an attempt to make some connections easier and also to more evenly spread the passenger loads around.
Would the airline look at the connecting habits of the passengers as well? Also, would BA consider (the YVR flight as an example) having one flight use T4 and the later flight use T1, or would this cause too much unneccesary confusion?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 500 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, 
Even the worst of LHR's terminals is light years ahead of MIA, or several of the other US gateways...
Printer friendly format 
