Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And T4 - Why?  
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Terminals 1,2,3 at LHR are relatively close together, so changing planes between 1 and 3 is a fairly short distance. Why then did BA move most of it's long haul operations to T4, a terminal on the other side of the airport, when it opened, making transferring between T4 and T1 a long haul journey in itself?

I know it was the newest shiniest terminal at the time, but surely common sense should have prevailed!


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5174 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Why give your comeptitiors better facilites?

At the time T3 was ghastly (well still is really)


User currently offlineBALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2455 times:



Quoting ANstar (Reply 1):
Why give your comeptitiors better facilites?

At the time T3 was ghastly (well still is really)

Exactly when T4 was opened it was a modern terminal capable of handling more pax than any of the other Terminals. (Sound Firmiliar, T5)

Also BA could operate all there LONGHAUL ops out of that terminal.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2345 times:



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 2):
Also BA could operate all there LONGHAUL ops out of that terminal.

But none of their shorthauls, meaning lousy onward connections, much more difficult then T3 to T1.

I've never felt T4 was particularly wonderful anyway.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineTonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2221 times:



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 3):
But none of their shorthauls, meaning lousy onward connections, much more difficult then T3 to T1.

I've never felt T4 was particularly wonderful anyway.

Back in those days it was very normal for airlines to have seperate facilities for longhaul and shorthaul flights. Sure look at the majority of airports in the states where because of Customs reasons facilities are usually segregated. Australia the same. As long as there is a good transit system available to transit passengers then its ok. Also you must remember that back in the 80's when T4 first opened there was not half the hassle associated with security that there is now so it worked very well. You will have noticed that in latter years BA attempted to transfer various flights between T1 and T4 in order to match up certain shorthaul connections with longhaul connections. That is why we wound up with the likes of YVR, HKG, NRT, LAX, SFO etc in T1 and other flights such as DME, CDG etc in T4!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 2):
Exactly when T4 was opened it was a modern terminal capable of handling more pax than any of the other Terminals. (Sound Firmiliar, T5)

Also BA could operate all there LONGHAUL ops out of that terminal.

In the Mid-1980's Terminal 4 was the new kid in town, BA always gets the best at LHR as now with T5. Why they ever moved certain 744 flights to Termianl 1, I will always question. Its was one thing Rod Eddington did in his tenure at BA.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Qantas was part of the happy Terminal 4 family in its joint flights(all its flights) to Australia with BA. Now its flights and BA's Aussie flights are going to Terminal 3 as well as BA's 757 flights, so go figure. Terminal does have a new pier with 4 gates especially built for the A380.

User currently offlineB747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2058 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 5):
Why they ever moved certain 744 flights to Termianl 1, I will always question. Its was one thing Rod Eddington did in his tenure at BA.

It was to improve the ease of connections on key routes such as NRT, HKG and JFK.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

In the beginning, T4 was actually designed as a short-haul only terminal, but then BA's worldwide expansion and Concorde operations seemed better suited to the gleaming new Terminal 4.

Evidence of the short-haul nature of the terminal design can still be seen today, most notably by the fact that the check-in concourse whilst very long is not particularly wide and doesn't lend itself to comfortably accommodating many widebody flights checking-in at the same time.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 8):
In the beginning, T4 was actually designed as a short-haul only terminal, but then BA's worldwide expansion and Concorde operations seemed better suited to the gleaming new Terminal 4.

Judging by how far apart the gates are for 747's I would say it was desgned for BA's long haul fleet. LHR has always been a long haul airport, the concept of putting short haul stuff at T4 and putting long haul at say T1 & 2, is just counter to making the premuim tarffic getting the best facilities. LHR invented teh arrivals lounge, for Business and First Class Pasengers.


User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1909 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 5):
In the Mid-1980's Terminal 4 was the new kid in town, BA always gets the best at LHR as now with T5. Why they ever moved certain 744 flights to Termianl 1, I will always question. Its was one thing Rod Eddington did in his tenure at BA

Those terminal changes came into effect after they studied where the majority of pax were transferring from and too.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1807 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
Judging by how far apart the gates are for 747's I would say it was desgned for BA's long haul fleet. LHR has always been a long haul airport, the concept of putting short haul stuff at T4 and putting long haul at say T1 & 2, is just counter to making the premuim tarffic getting the best facilities. LHR invented teh arrivals lounge, for Business and First Class Pasengers.

Obviously the gates are now further apart at T4, to accommodate widebodies. However, from the change to long haul ops, the concourse design was already 'set-in-stone' so to speak, and the only design changes were the gates and ramp areas. I have a first-hand source for this info - I know a guy that works for one of the original T4 design consultants and he personally worked on T4 back in the 80's.

The ramp areas at T4 used to be smaller, and it wasn't possible to fit a row of 747-400's on gates 4-12, due to the increased wingspan. If there was a 747-200 on gate 4, then gate 5 would be a 747-400, gate 6 would be a 747-200, gate 7 a 747-400 and gate 8 would be used for Concorde arrivals, with departures from gate 14 (now 21).

Remember, when T4 was designed, BA long-haul operated from T3, not T1 or T2. The "Oceanic Building" opened in 1961 for long-haul flights. This later became T3. The "Europa Building" was actually LHR's original terminal building, built specifically for short-haul, not long-haul operations, and it opened in 1955. The building is now T2.

LHR has always been a long-haul airport, but it's short-haul terminal was built first, with extensive european services operating from the Europa Building. Even today, there's a massive number of short-haul services operated from LHR.


User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 871 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1582 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
Judging by how far apart the gates are for 747's I would say it was desgned for BA's long haul fleet.

LHR777, is indeed correct about the original intended use for T4 being for shorthaul operations. T4 has been modified significately over the years to accomodate longhaul operations, such as extending the check-in area to include a Zone E which is used for BA/QF First; additional facilities for the BA lounges; additional space airside for what is now gates 7, 8 and 9; and addition of the victor pier.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Strike Again - Why I Fly AA And EasyJet posted Thu Jan 25 2007 14:53:07 by Rwylie77
Why Won't Virgin Follow BA And Install Beds In C? posted Fri Oct 11 2002 17:43:37 by Bobcat
London To Berlin - Why Only BA And Buzz? posted Fri Jan 19 2001 14:40:13 by Parra
BA And L'Avion Code Share! posted Tue May 6 2008 00:55:24 by AIR MALTA
CO Wants Alliance With BA And AA posted Sun Apr 27 2008 18:40:24 by Meta
Skyteam Upset With BA And T5 posted Fri Apr 18 2008 15:17:53 by FlyDeltaJets
BA And EU Compensation, Someone Pls Set Me Right posted Sun Apr 6 2008 10:07:52 by B707forever
BA And Virgin To Give Fuel Surcharge Refunds. posted Fri Feb 15 2008 03:23:30 by Cumulus
Do BA And QF Need A 77W-Sized Plane? posted Tue Jan 29 2008 16:46:57 by Stitch
KL, BA, And Others On Kenya Operations? posted Wed Jan 2 2008 01:49:52 by Flying Belgian