skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Mainly because Heathrow have said they are moving temporarily. At the end of the day, HAL says who goes where into which terminal not AA. I get AA are pushing hard for this and claiming it’s 100% permanent but Air India also said there was no way they’d leave T4.
Only time will tell.

There are 2 things happening right now. One is from LHR due to the terminal closures. The other is from AA and BA.

What air India thinks is irrelevant to the second initiative.

The point about Air India was they were adamant they were staying put in T4 as they had a bespoke lounge and HAL forced them to move. It’s not for airlines to decide which terminal they use, it’s up to HAL and with T3/T4 shut, HAL are moving Oneworld, all of it, to T5. This is of course not tenable in the medium term as LHR will bounce back faster than any other UK airport. Hence JAL, Finnair et al won’t be long term in T5. American WANT, nee EXPECT to stay in T5. All I am saying is that HAL are saying the move is temporary, BA have no solid view on how much slot sitting they will need to do and whether they need to go back to T3 at all. But with AA in T5, any right sizing of BA would then need the additional cost of splitting terminals again. Time will tell.

While the decision is up to HAL, BA and Air India do not have nearly the same influence. AI can protest, but they're a tiny speck in the scheme of Heathrow. BA, on the other hand has a lot more say. HAL wouldn't close T5 and move BA, for example.

I guess my point is BA is the whale of LHR, so what they do isn't necessarily exactly the same as everyone else. As AA is their JV partner, the same applies as BA has a vested interest in AA's Location as well.

Franco Tedeschi, American Airlines' Vice President, Chicago, Europe and Asia Pacific, told MailOnline Travel: “As air traffic movements increase, American Airlines, British Airways and Heathrow Airport will seek to agree a bilateral future operational strategy for Terminal 5.“

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trav ... uly-7.html

The deciding factor will be whether BA wants AA to stay in T5 or not. It looks like they do, based on the above statement.

Antarius wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

There is more to this, when AA is at a full schedule its 20 flights daily. How is that going to work at T5, is BA moving some of their lesser intercontinental flights to Terminal 3 making room for AA ? BA's 747 could sadly be history, BA still will have frequency in their main markets with 787, A350 and 777's. BA's planes could be shrinking in size but their number if flights is not. This is the first part of an important story.

I agree, this doesn't all make sense on a long-term basis (and we are saying that being the point that levels get back to a vague normality). As much as people can rave about the easier connections coming off AA metal, for BA their first priority is keeping as many of their own flights under the same T5 roof. Sure AA is their most important partner but they have to focus on number 1 first and bringing AA into T5 means they have to shift more of their own flights to T3. Does anyone know what the status of T5D as was is, and further to that the extension of the underground link train to link T5D pier and T3? Given the original plan many moons ago was to have US pre-clearance there, that would make a little more sense for a transfer across.

Given that AA and BA have a JV, the assertion that BA's first priority is their own flights in T5 is false.

They can punt the O&D leisure flights to T3 easily.

I do not see how the assertion that BA's first priority being themselves is false because they have a JV with another airline. AA adds CLT and RDU as destinations and more frequency on ORD and DFW. Sure it's a benefit, hence the JV, but connecting their own metal on own metal would of course be preferable for them. Shifting more flights to T3 doesn't help that.

eurotrader85 wrote:

I do not see how the assertion that BA's first priority being themselves is false because they have a JV with another airline. AA adds CLT and RDU as destinations and more frequency on ORD and DFW. Sure it's a benefit, hence the JV, but connecting their own metal on own metal would of course be preferable for them. Shifting more flights to T3 doesn't help that.

I would imagine BA knows which flights/markets have the least amount of connecting passengers. Moving those to T3 when needed is going to inconvenience the least amount of travelers.

eurotrader85 wrote:

I do not see how the assertion that BA's first priority being themselves is false because they have a JV with another airline. AA adds CLT and RDU as destinations and more frequency on ORD and DFW. Sure it's a benefit, hence the JV, but connecting their own metal on own metal would of course be preferable for them. Shifting more flights to T3 doesn't help that.

Any AA or BA metal flying from the US into LHR has the same priority for BA in the sense that costs, revenue, profit, losses are shared. AA and BA operate as one across the Atlantic, coordinating schedules, fleets, pricing, everything. On every single US-LHR flight, regardless of metal. In that sense, BA cares just as much about AA729 LHR-PHL as it does about BA67 LHR-PHL. And vice versa.

Consolidating operations so that as few connections as possible require the added passenger inconvenience, additional MCT, terminal-to-terminal transfers, scheduling implications and inefficiencies, and associated costs, is absolutely something both BA and AA want.

The connecting experience will improve dramatically with this move.

OzarkD9S wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I do not see how the assertion that BA's first priority being themselves is false because they have a JV with another airline. AA adds CLT and RDU as destinations and more frequency on ORD and DFW. Sure it's a benefit, hence the JV, but connecting their own metal on own metal would of course be preferable for them. Shifting more flights to T3 doesn't help that.

I would imagine BA knows which flights/markets have the least amount of connecting passengers. Moving those to T3 when needed is going to inconvenience the least amount of travelers.

That's exactly how they've done it in the past. The T3 flights of British Airways are those with the least connecting passengers.

Opus99 wrote:

I doubt T5 investing in a seperate lounge, they and BA will both invest in the galleries lounge franchise at heathrow and improve that together to the level of BA's and AA's newly refurbished lounges in the states

More Lounge space is badly needed at T5 complex, even more if Covid meassures go on... It seems T5C is a suitable solution.
It is still unclear what will happen with the AArivals Lounge at T3. Right now BA longhaul passengers at T3 (and I think also QF) could use it. I guess now they'll have to make their way to T5 to use the BA arrivals lounge.

eurotrader85 wrote:

I agree, this doesn't all make sense on a long-term basis (and we are saying that being the point that levels get back to a vague normality). As much as people can rave about the easier connections coming off AA metal, for BA their first priority is keeping as many of their own flights under the same T5 roof. Sure AA is their most important partner but they have to focus on number 1 first and bringing AA into T5 means they have to shift more of their own flights to T3. Does anyone know what the status of T5D as was is, and further to that the extension of the underground link train to link T5D pier and T3? Given the original plan many moons ago was to have US pre-clearance there, that would make a little more sense for a transfer across.

T5D is not in HAL mind even with Runway3 So i doubt it changes just because AA and BA want to share facilities. T5D will take A LOT of work, time and money that is a priority elsewhere and it really doesn´t add that much. T3 is "scheduled" to go away, but first Heathrow East Phase 2 is to happen before.
BA MUST... I will repeat again MUST operate out of another terminal because its entire (regular pre-COVID) operation does not fit at T3.
So they live with it. First, BA allocated several oneworld codeshared destinations (HEL, MAD/BCN... the QF Kangaroo JV...) and some others that could bear the 757 (LIS,NCE) to keep them away from T5... After the 757s were gone, they shuffled around vaious destinations from season to season to the point that this were the T3 flights pre-Covid out of T3:

Accra
Barcelona
Billund (from 27th October)
Budapest
Gibraltar
Hannover (from 27th October)
Helsinki
Lisbon
Luxembourg (until 27th October)
Lyon (until 27th October)
Marseille
Palermo
Pisa
Prague
Pula (Summer only)
Vienna
Zagreb (from 27th October)
Long-haul:

Cape Town
Denver
Las Vegas
Miami
Nairobi
Phoenix (until 27th October)
San Diego (from 27th October)
Vancouver

Give or take... again at a regular operation that we don't know when that would be... 20 more flights at T5 complex, means 20 more BA flights at T3. And it will not be the end of the world.
AA will benefit from shorter MCT to SOME BA flights. Some connecionts (+20 more flights) will still need to be bussed between T3-T5 for their onward connection.

The ones in bold could be trouble. You're having ALL AA FLIGHTS at T5, while some AA codeshares opereted by BA will be at T3. That will be fun for some passengers for sure at check-in...

Opus99 wrote:

the gates built for the 380 will be refurbished from Code F down to Code E which would mean more gates.

I don't know how much is to gain. the max number of parking spaces you see at a T5 satellite bulding is 9. (T5B west side). T5B east and T5C both sides are 8. WAY TOO MUCH hassle to gain one parking space that would be... remote. There is no jetway to attach. Notice T5 has only 12 jetway-capable parking spaces when there could be easily be 2 more... But it was a design/implementation choice.

There is no problem with gates at LHR, nor at any other european airport.

vhtje wrote:

I read somewhere that the AA flights will all operate out of T5C, and that a oneworld-branded lounge will be built there. I understand there has always been provision for a lounge in T5CL but it was never built.

I can’t find the link, but I will keep searching and when I find it, I will post it.

A oneworld branded lounge sounds fine... but only IB-BA-AA will be using that terminal. Assuming it's T5C, altough it makes all the sense to be at that building. But I guess it's OK as long as all tier users of the terminal can use it...

DMPHL wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I do not see how the assertion that BA's first priority being themselves is false because they have a JV with another airline. AA adds CLT and RDU as destinations and more frequency on ORD and DFW. Sure it's a benefit, hence the JV, but connecting their own metal on own metal would of course be preferable for them. Shifting more flights to T3 doesn't help that.

Any AA or BA metal flying from the US into LHR has the same priority for BA in the sense that costs, revenue, profit, losses are shared. AA and BA operate as one across the Atlantic, coordinating schedules, fleets, pricing, everything. On every single US-LHR flight, regardless of metal. In that sense, BA cares just as much about AA729 LHR-PHL as it does about BA67 LHR-PHL. And vice versa.

Consolidating operations so that as few connections as possible require the added passenger inconvenience, additional MCT, terminal-to-terminal transfers, scheduling implications and inefficiencies, and associated costs, is absolutely something both BA and AA want.

This.

BA is the undisputed king of LHR. If BA is wanting AA to move in to T5, there's clearly a reason to do so. And BA, given the JV, has a major financial incentive to do so.

Logical move. As AA drops flights to secondary European cities in the short term (I count at least 14 routes seeing complete cuts or reduced frequencies for S21 compared to the original plan for S20), this will help ease the connecting experience for customers who now have to take a one-stop.

The intention is to make the move permanent with some BA flights going to to T6 (yes... T6... when that goes off the ground... T3 in meantime when it opens).
The old idea was for T5 to operate BA, IB and AA on long haul and/or heavy connecting routes and see what would come out from the new Runway and new Terminal expected on LHR's expansion.
COVID19 threw things around a lot including LHR's expansion.
Expect AA to stay a T5 as much as it is possible (towards permanent) and, when traffic pick up, you might see some BA flights (even IB ones...) moving to T3 until expansion is agreed and goes ahead (a long story as it stands). Obviously, depending on traffic demand and other factors, AA might even return to T3 but it would be temporary.
Consider the fact that, if you manage to have some sort of access to old LHR's expansion/rebuild plans, you would see T3 actually closing and being revamped sometime soon (obviously it is all in the air now...) wit T4 following suit or even coming first (this one is to become the Sky Service terminal primarily).

Long overdue
The horrible bus ride between T3 and T5 was quite a reason avoid an AA flight out of LHR when coming in with BA.
Wondering if BA would also bring their remaining T3 flights to T5.
Part of the overcrowding is due to LHR's bullshit last minute gate announcements to keep virtually all passengers cramped around the shopping area and not spread out to the T5 satellites. Maybe it generates some extra sales but it also makes that area hell on earth

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

DMPHL wrote:

Any AA or BA metal flying from the US into LHR has the same priority for BA in the sense that costs, revenue, profit, losses are shared. AA and BA operate as one across the Atlantic, coordinating schedules, fleets, pricing, everything. On every single US-LHR flight, regardless of metal. In that sense, BA cares just as much about AA729 LHR-PHL as it does about BA67 LHR-PHL. And vice versa.

Consolidating operations so that as few connections as possible require the added passenger inconvenience, additional MCT, terminal-to-terminal transfers, scheduling implications and inefficiencies, and associated costs, is absolutely something both BA and AA want.

This.

BA is the undisputed king of LHR. If BA is wanting AA to move in to T5, there's clearly a reason to do so. And BA, given the JV, has a major financial incentive to do so.

Sorry but BA is NOT “the undisputed king of LHR”. They have way less in terms of % traffic than AF at CDG or LH at FRA.

They still have 55% and the next in line at 7%. So BA has ALL the influence at LHR as do the other carriers at their hubs. Listing that BA has less than the rest is HIGHLY irrelevant. I don’t know why you seem to be pushing AA going back to T3. Like everyone thinks this is a good idea but you LMAO

From Heathrow.com

"Please note: From 7th July 2020 American Airlines will temporarily be relocated from Terminal 2 to Terminal 5."

Note the "temporarily"

rising wrote:

From Heathrow.com

"Please note: From 7th July 2020 American Airlines will temporarily be relocated from Terminal 2 to Terminal 5."

Note the "temporarily"

Please that’s a bug standard basic statement. AA have said it’s for the long term. I guess 5 years can be considered temporary if they move eventually

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

DMPHL wrote:

Any AA or BA metal flying from the US into LHR has the same priority for BA in the sense that costs, revenue, profit, losses are shared. AA and BA operate as one across the Atlantic, coordinating schedules, fleets, pricing, everything. On every single US-LHR flight, regardless of metal. In that sense, BA cares just as much about AA729 LHR-PHL as it does about BA67 LHR-PHL. And vice versa.

Consolidating operations so that as few connections as possible require the added passenger inconvenience, additional MCT, terminal-to-terminal transfers, scheduling implications and inefficiencies, and associated costs, is absolutely something both BA and AA want.

This.

BA is the undisputed king of LHR. If BA is wanting AA to move in to T5, there's clearly a reason to do so. And BA, given the JV, has a major financial incentive to do so.

Sorry but BA is NOT “the undisputed king of LHR”. They have way less in terms of % traffic than AF at CDG or LH at FRA.

LHR is so much more important than FRA on a global scale, the fact that you're bringing it up shows you're either pushing an agenda or really don't know much about the aviation market.

AA has a ridiculously high percentage at CLT. Does that mean they trump everyone else?

BA has a dominant position in the most lucrative aviation market in the world. How that compares percentage wise to other hubs is irrelevant.

Aisak wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I doubt T5 investing in a seperate lounge, they and BA will both invest in the galleries lounge franchise at heathrow and improve that together to the level of BA's and AA's newly refurbished lounges in the states

More Lounge space is badly needed at T5 complex, even more if Covid meassures go on... It seems T5C is a suitable solution.
It is still unclear what will happen with the AArivals Lounge at T3. Right now BA longhaul passengers at T3 (and I think also QF) could use it. I guess now they'll have to make their way to T5 to use the BA arrivals lounge.

eurotrader85 wrote:

I agree, this doesn't all make sense on a long-term basis (and we are saying that being the point that levels get back to a vague normality). As much as people can rave about the easier connections coming off AA metal, for BA their first priority is keeping as many of their own flights under the same T5 roof. Sure AA is their most important partner but they have to focus on number 1 first and bringing AA into T5 means they have to shift more of their own flights to T3. Does anyone know what the status of T5D as was is, and further to that the extension of the underground link train to link T5D pier and T3? Given the original plan many moons ago was to have US pre-clearance there, that would make a little more sense for a transfer across.

T5D is not in HAL mind even with Runway3 So i doubt it changes just because AA and BA want to share facilities. T5D will take A LOT of work, time and money that is a priority elsewhere and it really doesn´t add that much. T3 is "scheduled" to go away, but first Heathrow East Phase 2 is to happen before.
BA MUST... I will repeat again MUST operate out of another terminal because its entire (regular pre-COVID) operation does not fit at T3.
So they live with it. First, BA allocated several oneworld codeshared destinations (HEL, MAD/BCN... the QF Kangaroo JV...) and some others that could bear the 757 (LIS,NCE) to keep them away from T5... After the 757s were gone, they shuffled around vaious destinations from season to season to the point that this were the T3 flights pre-Covid out of T3:

Accra
Barcelona
Billund (from 27th October)
Budapest
Gibraltar
Hannover (from 27th October)
Helsinki
Lisbon
Luxembourg (until 27th October)
Lyon (until 27th October)
Marseille
Palermo
Pisa
Prague
Pula (Summer only)
Vienna
Zagreb (from 27th October)
Long-haul:

Cape Town
Denver
Las Vegas
Miami
Nairobi
Phoenix (until 27th October)
San Diego (from 27th October)
Vancouver

Give or take... again at a regular operation that we don't know when that would be... 20 more flights at T5 complex, means 20 more BA flights at T3. And it will not be the end of the world.
AA will benefit from shorter MCT to SOME BA flights. Some connecionts (+20 more flights) will still need to be bussed between T3-T5 for their onward connection.

The ones in bold could be trouble. You're having ALL AA FLIGHTS at T5, while some AA codeshares opereted by BA will be at T3. That will be fun for some passengers for sure at check-in...

Opus99 wrote:

the gates built for the 380 will be refurbished from Code F down to Code E which would mean more gates.

I don't know how much is to gain. the max number of parking spaces you see at a T5 satellite bulding is 9. (T5B west side). T5B east and T5C both sides are 8. WAY TOO MUCH hassle to gain one parking space that would be... remote. There is no jetway to attach. Notice T5 has only 12 jetway-capable parking spaces when there could be easily be 2 more... But it was a design/implementation choice.

There is no problem with gates at LHR, nor at any other european airport.

vhtje wrote:

I read somewhere that the AA flights will all operate out of T5C, and that a oneworld-branded lounge will be built there. I understand there has always been provision for a lounge in T5CL but it was never built.

I can’t find the link, but I will keep searching and when I find it, I will post it.

A oneworld branded lounge sounds fine... but only IB-BA-AA will be using that terminal. Assuming it's T5C, altough it makes all the sense to be at that building. But I guess it's OK as long as all tier users of the terminal can use it...

The current AArivals lounge at Terminal 3 will probably exist in some form, it will likely be operated by another firm not affiliated with AA or Oneworld. Lots of money has gone into that infrastructure for it to go unused. They have about 30 showers there which are fabulous after a long flight. Its in an odd location up an elevator on the second floor. Sad to see it go.

chonetsao wrote:

I think AA will permanently move to T5 and use T5C.

BA to make rooms, could move some O&D heavy routes to T3 (think Dubai and routes like Athens, as example). BA may also move the oneworld destination routes to T3 that means Madrid, Hong Kong and Tokyo. Maybe some other routes like Southeast Asia and Australia too. Another option is to move frequencies less than daily or and summer only and charter routes entirely to T3 to make rooms.

Are you just pulling destinations out of your head at random? If you're going to contribute, do some research and try to base your posts on some facts rather than whatever springs to your mind. Things like Australia are full of connecting passengers, so there is zero chance of them moving out of T5.

Here is the list of destinations that British Airways had in Terminal 3 in September 2019. The list of flights to move back to T3 would be extremely similar when it comes time for that to happen.

Accra
Barcelona
Billund (from 27th October)
Budapest
Gibraltar
Hannover (from 27th October)
Helsinki
Lisbon
Luxembourg (until 27th October)
Lyon (until 27th October)
Marseille
Palermo
Pisa
Prague
Pula (Summer only)
Vienna
Zagreb (from 27th October)

Long-haul:

Cape Town
Denver
Las Vegas
Miami
Nairobi
Phoenix (until 27th October)
San Diego (from 27th October)
Vancouver

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t know why you seem to be pushing AA going back to T3. Like everyone thinks this is a good idea but you LMAO

Being either a good or bad idea is not the question though, nor does you saying "everyone thinks this a good idea" mean it's definitive, or even relevant......far from it in fact. I don't know either way if it's permanent or temporary (and I'll wager you don't either) but, at this point particularly, I'm certainly more inclined to believe Heathrow.com than a.net armchair experts.

Vicenza wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t know why you seem to be pushing AA going back to T3. Like everyone thinks this is a good idea but you LMAO

Being either a good or bad idea is not the question though, nor does you saying "everyone thinks this a good idea" mean it's definitive, or even relevant......far from it in fact. I don't know either way if it's permanent or temporary (and I'll wager you don't either) but, at this point particularly, I'm certainly more inclined to believe Heathrow.com than a.net armchair experts.

Did I say that was the question? if you look at our previous engagements you can see i've been on topic AND raised relevant points...

Secondly your wager is incorrect, i've reached out to multiple sources both at heathrow AND BA and the response has been the move is permanent.

Lastly, believe heathrow.com thats your personal business.

There was a plan for a T5D at some point. Is that off the table?

Also, is there a possibility they remove the restrictions on traveling between the terminal (T5A) and the satellites back and forth? That puts all the lounges in play and not cramming everyone in t5A

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There was a plan for a T5D at some point. Is that off the table?

Also, is there a possibility they remove the restrictions on traveling between the terminal (T5A) and the satellites back and forth? That puts all the lounges in play and not cramming everyone in t5A

What restrictions? You can walk back in about 7 mins from T5C. But then apparently I don’t know much about LHR....

The train. I know you can walk, its just not convenient.

skipness1E wrote:

It’s not that I don’t want AA in T5, it might be the best thing for the JV. But there’s a load of Americans piling in here so let me come back on some points.
BA is not dominant at LHR in the same way AF dominates CDG, LH dominates FRA or KLM dominates FRA. LHR is WAY more open and competive. BA has awful relations with the British Govt at the mo, they have almost no policital support in the same way European carriers do.
I live next to LHR, I flew monthly or more until COVID19 so am reasonably familiar with the operation.

It doesn't need to be anything to do with political support. BA is the largest (by far) carrier at LHR. Therefore, they have the biggest say in what happens. HAL will not tell BA to vacate T5 and move to T4, for example. That was my only point.

Since AA and BA have a metal neutral JV, BA for all intensive purposes can consider all AA flights to LHR as their own. So it isn't AA moving to T5 as much as BA shuffling their flights around and moving the more O&D or less lucrative ones to T3.

skipness1E wrote:

Any plans for expansion you might have seen are on hold. The charging criteria for the next few years into the 2020s is for a two runway opeation as CAPEX is scaled way back. There is no plan for a T5D in the short to medium term.

Thanks for the info. The T5D plan was from way back.

N717TW wrote:

Once traffic rebounds next year, however, will they be able to operate everything from Terminal 5?

I think you're being optimistic about the level of passenger travel in 2021. I hope that finding T5 space for AA in 2021 turns out to be a problem for BA, because that means traffic levels will be back near normal, pre-COVID times. However, I suspect that things won't bounce back that quick.

And about time. Transferring from AA to BA @ LHR with a terminal change was a royal pain in the butt!

After all AA, IB and BA share a co-branded lounge in Miami. Maybe this is the future at T5?

https://www.businesstraveller.com/airli ... mi-lounge/

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Mainly because Heathrow have said they are moving temporarily. At the end of the day, HAL says who goes where into which terminal not AA. I get AA are pushing hard for this and claiming it’s 100% permanent but Air India also said there was no way they’d leave T4.
Only time will tell.

There are 2 things happening right now. One is from LHR due to the terminal closures. The other is from AA and BA.

What air India thinks is irrelevant to the second initiative.

The point about Air India was they were adamant they were staying put in T4 as they had a bespoke lounge and HAL forced them to move. It’s not for airlines to decide which terminal they use, it’s up to HAL and with T3/T4 shut, HAL are moving Oneworld, all of it, to T5. This is of course not tenable in the medium term as LHR will bounce back faster than any other UK airport. Hence JAL, Finnair et al won’t be long term in T5. American WANT, nee EXPECT to stay in T5. All I am saying is that HAL are saying the move is temporary, BA have no solid view on how much slot sitting they will need to do and whether they need to go back to T3 at all. But with AA in T5, any right sizing of BA would then need the additional cost of splitting terminals again. Time will tell.

Finnair moved to T2 when T3 closed. Are they moving to T5 now?

Surprisingly the ACL Winter slot allocation report shows BA and AA at the same level as last year. In fact total slots allocated are at last years level and c20000 requested slots were refused, airlines currently operating such as Rwandair and China airlines requested slots but didn't get them. If the 80% rule isn't extended beyond 24th October there will be a lot of half empty flights operating.

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There was a plan for a T5D at some point. Is that off the table?

Any plans for expansion you might have seen are on hold.
The charging criteria for the next few years into the 2020s is for a two runway operation as CAPEX is scaled way back.
There is no plan for a T5D in the short to medium term.

Traffic is expected back to pre COVID levels by 2024ish. However given LHR is the prime airport for London and the use it or lose it slots won’t be suspended for that length of time, LHR will be full again in about a year to 18 months as slots open up.

Heathrow Airport Ltd have been clear about the effect of the pandemic on their expansion plans, but has HAL said anything about the effect on the redevelopment of the Central Area?

On 5th May the CEO of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye, told the House of Commons Transport Committee that the airport's £14billion expansion plan is no longer a priority. “Whether that [the third runway] will be needed we will have to see how things turn out over the next few years. If we are successful in rebuilding the UK economy, we will be needing that in 10 to 15 years' time; if not, then I think we're all in a different world.”

So, the third runway and Terminal 6 are on hold for, probably, 10 to 15 years. However, what has HAL said, if anything, about the existing terminals?

My understanding is that replacing Terminal 3 is urgent. T3 does not comply with current security and Border protocols with departing and arriving passengers using the same corridors. Am I right in thinking that at times doors are closed to prevent departing and arriving passengers mixing?

See here for a recent Heathrow expansion plan:

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/expan ... g-process/

Ignore the third runway and Terminal 6, and look at the Central Area.
In that plan:
Terminal 2 expands onto the footprint of Terminal 1 and gets a second satellite.
Terminal 3 is demolished.
A new satellite is built on the site of Terminal 3. This satellite is more ‘T5E’ than ‘T5D’; there is space for a ‘T5D’ to be added at a later date.
I believe that ‘T5E’ will be connected to both Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.
At one time the plan was to demolish T3 Pier 7 (built in the sixties to accommodate 747s) to enable a new satellite to be built while most of T3 remained in use.

Of course, I do fully appreciate that Heathrow Airport Ltd will not have a lot of money right now. However, this may not mean that the redevelopment of the Central Area is on hold.
Has anything been said by HAL about the Central Area, or are people guessing?

BealineV953 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There was a plan for a T5D at some point. Is that off the table?

Any plans for expansion you might have seen are on hold.
The charging criteria for the next few years into the 2020s is for a two runway operation as CAPEX is scaled way back.
There is no plan for a T5D in the short to medium term.

Traffic is expected back to pre COVID levels by 2024ish. However given LHR is the prime airport for London and the use it or lose it slots won’t be suspended for that length of time, LHR will be full again in about a year to 18 months as slots open up.

Heathrow Airport Ltd have been clear about the effect of the pandemic on their expansion plans, but has HAL said anything about the effect on the redevelopment of the Central Area?

On 5th May the CEO of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye, told the House of Commons Transport Committee that the airport's £14billion expansion plan is no longer a priority. “Whether that [the third runway] will be needed we will have to see how things turn out over the next few years. If we are successful in rebuilding the UK economy, we will be needing that in 10 to 15 years' time; if not, then I think we're all in a different world.”

So, the third runway and Terminal 6 are on hold for, probably, 10 to 15 years. However, what has HAL said, if anything, about the existing terminals?

My understanding is that replacing Terminal 3 is urgent. T3 does not comply with current security and Border protocols with departing and arriving passengers using the same corridors. Am I right in thinking that at times doors are closed to prevent departing and arriving passengers mixing?

See here for a recent Heathrow expansion plan:

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/expan ... g-process/

Ignore the third runway and Terminal 6, and look at the Central Area.
In that plan:
Terminal 2 expands onto the footprint of Terminal 1 and gets a second satellite.
Terminal 3 is demolished.
A new satellite is built on the site of Terminal 3. This satellite is more ‘T5E’ than ‘T5D’; there is space for a ‘T5D’ to be added at a later date.
I believe that ‘T5E’ will be connected to both Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.
At one time the plan was to demolish T3 Pier 7 (built in the sixties to accommodate 747s) to enable a new satellite to be built while most of T3 remained in use.

Of course, I do fully appreciate that Heathrow Airport Ltd will not have a lot of money right now. However, this may not mean that the redevelopment of the Central Area is on hold.
Has anything been said by HAL about the Central Area, or are people guessing?

You might do better copying and pasting this exact post and starting a new thread?

It's not really anything much to do with AA moving to LHR T5, but I'd say a lot of people would have a lot to say on what you've written, so maybe a new topic?

chonetsao wrote:

BealineV953 wrote:

Heathrow Airport Ltd have been clear about the effect of the pandemic on their expansion plans, but has HAL said anything about the effect on the redevelopment of the Central Area?

On 5th May the CEO of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye, told the House of Commons Transport Committee that the airport's £14billion expansion plan is no longer a priority. “Whether that [the third runway] will be needed we will have to see how things turn out over the next few years. If we are successful in rebuilding the UK economy, we will be needing that in 10 to 15 years' time; if not, then I think we're all in a different world.”

So, the third runway and Terminal 6 are on hold for, probably, 10 to 15 years. However, what has HAL said, if anything, about the existing terminals?

My understanding is that replacing Terminal 3 is urgent. T3 does not comply with current security and Border protocols with departing and arriving passengers using the same corridors. Am I right in thinking that at times doors are closed to prevent departing and arriving passengers mixing?

See here for a recent Heathrow expansion plan:

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/expan ... g-process/

Ignore the third runway and Terminal 6, and look at the Central Area.
In that plan:
Terminal 2 expands onto the footprint of Terminal 1 and gets a second satellite.
Terminal 3 is demolished.
A new satellite is built on the site of Terminal 3. This satellite is more ‘T5E’ than ‘T5D’; there is space for a ‘T5D’ to be added at a later date.
I believe that ‘T5E’ will be connected to both Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.
At one time the plan was to demolish T3 Pier 7 (built in the sixties to accommodate 747s) to enable a new satellite to be built while most of T3 remained in use.

Of course, I do fully appreciate that Heathrow Airport Ltd will not have a lot of money right now. However, this may not mean that the redevelopment of the Central Area is on hold.
Has anything been said by HAL about the Central Area, or are people guessing?

First, re Heathrow T3 arriving and departing passengers. Heathrow airport built a level above T3 departures for arrivals. So T3 has departure and arrivals all separated for several years (at least 5). In fact, comes to think of it, the separation of departure and arrival happened before T2 was open. So I don't understand what you mean here.

Second, as a residence living near Heathrow area. I can assure you Heathrow had two expansion plans distributed to locals during last decade. The current T6+3rd Runway + North midfield Satellite is the latest when 3rd runway was approved. Before this one, there was another version which incorporate a new terminal in the shape of T2 and T5 to replace the current T3, and build a satellite next to the control tower as T3B, so you get roast rack of T5A-T5B-T5C-fire station (T5D as you call it but it is empty in this plan)-T3B-T3A-T2A-T2B-T2C. My guess is that now T6 is not on the card, Heathrow may revisit the previous plan of rebuild T3 into T3A+T3B and to complete the rest of T2A and to add an additional satellite east of T2B. It would be much cheaper and avoid massive reshuffle of airlines.

I believe the 2nd level only exists for the concourses directly connected to the head house (gates 1-11, 25+). Gates 13-22 on the concourse further out is single level and they need to close certain doors in it to keep arrivals and departures separate.

chonetsao wrote:

United857 wrote:

I believe the 2nd level only exists for the concourses directly connected to the head house (gates 1-11, 25+). Gates 13-22 on the concourse further out is single level and they need to close certain doors in it to keep arrivals and departures separate.

You mean the Virgin Pier? (Gate 13-22 always seems to be Virgin territory). Could be. Never been there. I have to admit I don't know about this pier. My flights out and in to T3 has always been in the 25-42 gate range.

Yep Virgin does tend to use that pier more often than not, although I believe Delta also uses it as well.

United857 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

United857 wrote:

I believe the 2nd level only exists for the concourses directly connected to the head house (gates 1-11, 25+). Gates 13-22 on the concourse further out is single level and they need to close certain doors in it to keep arrivals and departures separate.

You mean the Virgin Pier? (Gate 13-22 always seems to be Virgin territory). Could be. Never been there. I have to admit I don't know about this pier. My flights out and in to T3 has always been in the 25-42 gate range.

Yep Virgin does tend to use that pier more often than not, although I believe Delta also uses it as well.

Well that makes sense, they are transatlantic partners.

The outer pier is divided in two, length wise, one side for arriving pax, the other for departing. Doors (or valves as they are called) have to be opened/closed to block whichever side and allow access to gates on the opposite side. It blocks movement and creates delays to departing pax (and staff) getting to gates further along while arriving pax are herded across. Not a great system

How about expand T5B & T5C and convert 4 bridged gate?

skipness1E wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

The outer pier is divided in two, length wise, one side for arriving pax, the other for departing. Doors (or valves as they are called) have to be opened/closed to block whichever side and allow access to gates on the opposite side. It blocks movement and creates delays to departing pax (and staff) getting to gates further along while arriving pax are herded across. Not a great system

This is Pier 7 and it doesn’t have a floor above it for arrivals which Pier 5 had added and of course the new Pier 6 was built with. It means 313 is a departures only gate and 318/320/322 can’t be accessed when an arriving flight is unloading. It only affects 7 gates in the whole airport though. BTW more of Oneworld are moving into T5, Qatar are joining JAL, Finnair and American.

Do you have a quote for JAL, AY and QR? Don't think their passengers, especially myself with JAL (who loves using the QF lounge and QR with their own lounge in T4 being thrilled with the galleries market offering in T5. Does makes sense those as they are all JV partners.

Opus99 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

From the rumour circling around since last year (2019), AA moves to T5 was long planned. I'd say this is permanent.

That was before BA had to consolidate most of LGW short haul to LHR. Things have changed.

There aren't actually that many flights moving to LGW, yes all of LGW short haul with a lot of destinations still cancelled.
Lest we forget the 20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors.

Think about frames. it's frames that directly use space not destinations. if you think how much they're chopping off, there's space. WW said BA is not getting back to its 2019 size till AT LEAST 2024

Hello.
Where you say he "20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors", are you referring to the Willie Walsh statement at the IAG Investors briefing in April?

At that briefing WW said:
"Our analysis of the likely evolution of demand through 2020 is that we would not require all of our aircraft, that we will temporarily ground, to come back into service, so we're now evaluating how many of those that will be grounded will be permanently grounded."
WW said that the thirty-one B747-400s operated by British Airways and the sixteen A340-600s flying for Iberia are all fully depreciated and will be the first to leave the fleet, and that "a couple" of A330s operated by Aer Lingus could also be permanently retired.
WW said the group could also retire around 20 narrowbody aircraft, but did not specify from which carrier they would come.
"I would also point out that we have a significant number of narrowbody aircraft coming off lease as we go through 2020, into 2021, over 40 narrowbodies come off lease in 2021. So there's a lot of flexibility in the fleet," Walsh added.
"At this stage, we are looking at delaying CAPEX... We are having a very good dialogue with the OEMs, Boeing and Airbus, as you would expect, and that has been very constructive, so I'm pleased in relation to that, so we do have flexibility in relation to our contracts but also in the discussions that we're having with them - we're expecting additional flexibility."
There is more on this on ch-aviation.

Since that statement, have IAG and / or BA said that it would be BA that will return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors?
If it is BA, isn't it likely to be the A320s acquired for operations from Gatwick?

BealineV953 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

That was before BA had to consolidate most of LGW short haul to LHR. Things have changed.

There aren't actually that many flights moving to LGW, yes all of LGW short haul with a lot of destinations still cancelled.
Lest we forget the 20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors.

Think about frames. it's frames that directly use space not destinations. if you think how much they're chopping off, there's space. WW said BA is not getting back to its 2019 size till AT LEAST 2024

Hello.
Where you say he "20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors", are you referring to the Willie Walsh statement at the IAG Investors briefing in April?

At that briefing WW said:
"Our analysis of the likely evolution of demand through 2020 is that we would not require all of our aircraft, that we will temporarily ground, to come back into service, so we're now evaluating how many of those that will be grounded will be permanently grounded."
WW said that the thirty-one B747-400s operated by British Airways and the sixteen A340-600s flying for Iberia are all fully depreciated and will be the first to leave the fleet, and that "a couple" of A330s operated by Aer Lingus could also be permanently retired.
The group could also retire around 20 narrowbody aircraft. Walsh did not specify from which carrier they would come.
"I would also point out that we have a significant number of narrowbody aircraft coming off lease as we go through 2020, into 2021, over 40 narrowbodies come off lease in 2021. So there's a lot of flexibility in the fleet," Walsh added.
"At this stage, we are looking at delaying CAPEX... We are having a very good dialogue with the OEMs, Boeing and Airbus, as you would expect, and that has been very constructive, so I'm pleased in relation to that, so we do have flexibility in relation to our contracts but also in the discussions that we're having with them - we're expecting additional flexibility."

Since that statement, have IAG and / or BA said that it would be BA that will return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors?
If so, isn't it likely to be those acquired for operations from Gatwick?

Hasn’t been officially announced. This is coming from insiders.

Opus99 wrote:

BealineV953 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

There aren't actually that many flights moving to LGW, yes all of LGW short haul with a lot of destinations still cancelled.
Lest we forget the 20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors.

Think about frames. it's frames that directly use space not destinations. if you think how much they're chopping off, there's space. WW said BA is not getting back to its 2019 size till AT LEAST 2024

Hello.
Where you say he "20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease that will be returned to lessors", are you referring to the Willie Walsh statement at the IAG Investors briefing in April?

At that briefing WW said:
"Our analysis of the likely evolution of demand through 2020 is that we would not require all of our aircraft, that we will temporarily ground, to come back into service, so we're now evaluating how many of those that will be grounded will be permanently grounded."
WW said that the thirty-one B747-400s operated by British Airways and the sixteen A340-600s flying for Iberia are all fully depreciated and will be the first to leave the fleet, and that "a couple" of A330s operated by Aer Lingus could also be permanently retired.
The group could also retire around 20 narrowbody aircraft. Walsh did not specify from which carrier they would come.
"I would also point out that we have a significant number of narrowbody aircraft coming off lease as we go through 2020, into 2021, over 40 narrowbodies come off lease in 2021. So there's a lot of flexibility in the fleet," Walsh added.
"At this stage, we are looking at delaying CAPEX... We are having a very good dialogue with the OEMs, Boeing and Airbus, as you would expect, and that has been very constructive, so I'm pleased in relation to that, so we do have flexibility in relation to our contracts but also in the discussions that we're having with them - we're expecting additional flexibility."

Since that statement, have IAG and / or BA said that it would be BA that will return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors?
If so, isn't it likely to be those acquired for operations from Gatwick?

Hasn’t been officially announced. This is coming from insiders.

If BA does return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors, isn't it likely to be those acquired for operations from Gatwick?

BealineV953 wrote:

If BA does return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors, isn't it likely to be those acquired for operations from Gatwick?

Possibly, but more likely the A319s, those were already scheduled to leave the fleet. Pre-COVID IAG were moving towards dense A320 and A321s in favour of the A319. WW refers to aircraft due to leave the fleet, so those would predominantly be A319s, although there were a few A320s too. I think they were mainly ex-BD.

BrianDromey wrote:

BealineV953 wrote:

If BA does return 20 A320 series aircraft to lessors, isn't it likely to be those acquired for operations from Gatwick?

Possibly, but more likely the A319s, those were already scheduled to leave the fleet. Pre-COVID IAG were moving towards dense A320 and A321s in favour of the A319. WW refers to aircraft due to leave the fleet, so those would predominantly be A319s, although there were a few A320s too. I think they were mainly ex-BD.

Hello.
If I understood the post correctly, the suggestion was that with BA A320 series aircraft leases being terminated ("20+ A320series frames that are coming off lease...") a significant amount of space would be available at LHR.
Being picky, the BA A319s are owned, not leased. As well as the A319s already being retired at a steady rate, the two one-time GB Airways A320s had planned retirement dates.
The 'G-GATx' A320s are leased, as are at least some of the ex-BD A320s and, I think, the ex-BMed A321s.
With BA flights moving from LGW to LHR (eg JER) I'm not convinced that if 20+ A320 series aircraft leave the fleet it will create much space at LHR, but I could be wrong.

skipness1E wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

The outer pier is divided in two, length wise, one side for arriving pax, the other for departing. Doors (or valves as they are called) have to be opened/closed to block whichever side and allow access to gates on the opposite side. It blocks movement and creates delays to departing pax (and staff) getting to gates further along while arriving pax are herded across. Not a great system

This is Pier 7 and it doesn’t have a floor above it for arrivals which Pier 5 had added and of course the new Pier 6 was built with. It means 313 is a departures only gate and 318/320/322 can’t be accessed when an arriving flight is unloading. It only affects 7 gates in the whole airport though. BTW more of Oneworld are moving into T5, Qatar are joining JAL, Finnair and American.

Not just 318/320/322 are effected. 316/317/319/321 require closing the hallway to departing passengers while arriving passengers walk across the departures half of the hallway to the arrivals side. For example, if the first gate (316), is unloading, departing passengers can't access 317/319/321 further down the hall in addition to 318/320/322 because you need to block the departures side of the hallway for arriving pax coming out of 316.