Planenutz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
According the recent issue of Airliners magazine, Star Alliance is negotiating with the British Airports Authority to convert Heathrow's Terminal 3 into an exlcusively Star Alliance terminal once Terminal 5 is built.
BA would move to Terminal 5, and the other carriers at T3 would move to T4. Then T3 would be occupied by Star Alliance.
I know that Miami is going to open a dedicated Star Alliance concourse, as well I believe there is a dedicated Star Alliance check-in area at Frankfurt. Additionally, many Star Alliance carriers do reciprocal handling at various airports (United for Air Canada at many airports in USA, SAS for Varig at LHR, etc.). I'm wondering if this is the wave of the future. No longer will each airline have its own separate facilities, rather they will be shared among alliance partners. It seems like a good way to reduce costs and streamline processes, but at the same time airlines would be losing their identity (in my opinion).
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8962 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
Many things will have changed by the time T5 has opened. For example, we will finally see Delta, Continental, Northwest, and any other airline flying to London all flying into Heathrow. Where will they all go?
Honestly, I can see the following scenario playing out:
Delta, Air France, Alitalia, CSA, and Korean Air all move into Terminal 4, as they would need 8 gates at the most concurrently. KLM stays in T4, and Northwest and Continental come in. This would be another 6 gates or so. The rest of the gates go to the Air Malta (1), Kenya Airlines (1, and they are partners with NW/KL, so it makes sense to stay there) and Sri Lankan. The airlines in Terminal 3 would most likely be placed into Terminal 4 (selected long hauls), as well as Terminal 1 (since BA and BMI will have packed shop for T5 and T3 respectively).
As for the reason Star picking T3 over T4, I can think of two reasons. The first reason is gates, as there are 43 parking positions at T3, and only 29 at T4. Secondly, T4 is mostly intercontinental flights, while Star's operation at LHR is a lot of 737/A320 family (LH, BMI, Austrian). This could help account for it.
Contact Air From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 1154 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
If Star Alliance moves completely into T 3 - does that also include BMI ? At the moment, BMI uses T 1 for its short-haul and inner-European flights together with BA's short-haul flights. As far as I know, T 3 is mainly used for intercontinental flights today (except SAS, for example). Will that change ?
Japanguy From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 81 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
A couple things:
1. BA "owns" T4 right now. You can bet that they will have a say about who is going to use it once they leave. It is doubtful that they would let UA and the Star Alliance instantly upgrade their LHR service without major expense. I don't see the Star Alliance moving to T4.
2. T1 is supposed to be (and basically is now) a "domestic" terminal for BA and BMI. That means all short hauls with minimal customs facilities (all EU airports). Possibly a few international carriers, to supplement T2, but I see T1 as an opportunity to expand short haul service for the British carriers.
3. What about the slots? How are CO, DL, and NW going to get the slots for all the new service to NA? Also, how do you convince the British government to allow more NA carriers to access LHR?
4. Living in the IAD area, I would MUCH prefer BA (and T4) to the UA (and gross T3) service. VS is great in the air, but you still hit T3 (and hope you have fastpass to get through customs!).
Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
I think the original posters ideas of having affiliated airlines do each others ground handling, etc.. is a terrific idea, I'm surprised it hasn't been put more into use, although I suspect thats because union difficulties.
Ideally, Singapore Airlines shouldn't have any presence in say the UK (where their ground service is so horrid). That should all be serviced by BMI. SQ tickets should be booked by BMI people, BMI and SQ should share terminal space, marketting in newspaper, radio, and tv, etc... and for all the other airlines.
At JFK, the Star carriers are all over. Terminal 1:
Singapore Airlines Terminal 3
ANA Terminal 4
Varig Terminal 7
For the very least, ANA and Varig should move their few flights a day to T1 where LH or SQ can service them or T7 where UA could do it.
Aio86 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 929 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2628 times:
I think that the idea of combining them is great. I know the situation is a little more hectic, however I think it will be to their benefit and to the benefit of the airport if there will be less traffic of passengers between terminals.
When another airline does the ground work for another I think it is nice as long as they are getting something out of it. BMI shouldn't have to be checking everyone on Varig, Singapore, Thai, ANA and Asiana (do they even go to LHR?) If there are some reciprocal benefits then it is a good idea. Ie: United checks in ANA flights in SFO if ANA checks in United flights at KIX. Do you follow what I am saying. I don't think they should practice this just because they can.
In Rio de Janeiro, if I'm not mistaken, Varig, Lufthansa and United all operate out of the same terminal, which they use for both international and domestic flights. They share 3 lounges (2 varig, 1 united). I've never been there but I imagine they work well together.
Also, remember London already has a Star-Alliance ticket agency, they already have a big union in London.
Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
yeah of course the airlines would only cooperate if they "get something out of it" but thats why they joined the alliance. So if its not recipercal cooperation in another city then its financial compensation.
Cyprus-turkish From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
Why can't we see Virgin Atlantic in T5 like BA? Virgin and BMI has as much right over T5 as BA. Plus whoever says BA is the national airline does not know what he is talking about since Ba is a private corporation as any other airline.
Final Note: BA is not a national airline or a flag carrier
B-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2406 times:
Having CX move to T5 would be nice. T3 is possibly one of the worst terminals I've ever been through (except maybe Bangkok, which has 2 terminals in 1 building with no differentiation between terminals!!!)
Perhaps all American-bound flights could depart from one terminal so that any security issues the US government wants addressed could be.
: Yyz- I couldn't agree more about T3. I was shocked when I exited the jetway and got my first glance at that terminal for the first time. As for T5, I
: Aio86 - Asiana OZ operates to LHR T4 at the present time. T5 is definitely going to be for BA. As it is to be built in stages then it will firstly be
: Final Note: BA is not a national airline or a flag carrier So who is then? Arsenal@LHR