HM QEII to Open Heathrow GTerminal 5

I am very confused, which airport is the world's busiest? Many seem to claim that title, CDG, ATL, JFK and even EYW (are you paying attention)

World's Busiest Airport -

in terms of actual passenger numbers:

1.Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson
2.Chicago O'Hare
3.London Heathrow

but, London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports).

in terms of busiest airport city:

1.London - with the 5 airports handling ~120M passengers per year.

and finally, the actual world's biggest airport (when measured by land mass it occupies -

1.King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (~80 sq.mi)

2.Denver International (~50 sq.mi)

by comparison Heathrow occupies ~5 sq.mi (before the opening of the new terminal)

A warning for folk using T5 - if you aren't through security at least 35 minutes before your flight then you don't fly.

T5 will have no immediate impact on T3 or T2, since only BA will be in T5: it scarcely uses T3 and doesn't use T2 at all.

T5, after any teething problems, OUGHT to make life better for most BA passengers. For others, the next year will be confusing as airlines switch terminals in a complicated series of moves which will take a year to sort themselves out.

By year end, Virgin, Star and most other One World passengers will probably find life less chaotic. Sky Team, and other non-affiliated airlines, will probably find life deteriorates as they move to the increasingly marginalised T4, which will have mediocre bus and train connections and probably the messiest transfers to airlines outside their alliance.

It's not at all certain the improvement plans for T1 and 2 will happen. Ferrovial, the airport owners, are running into a cash crisis and may not be able to raise development money.

Frankly, I'd rather any airport I use be the LEAST BUSY in the world the day I go through it.

Atlanta..still thinking and hoping it is the "hub of the Universe"....

I thought it was rather touching when Her Maj performed the ceremony of "losing the bag".

an ole bag losing a bag how appropriate

now plans go forward for a fifth runway at Heathrow

"fifth runway at Heathrow"

Not the faintest chance. They'll invent teleporting sooner.

Personally I doubt there'll be a third much earlier than 2050.

and as i mentioned in an earlier thread the new Terminal 5 is connected with parking garages by a showcase of British technology - some first ever kind of automated people mover where individual self-driven pods depart apparently constantly to the terminal - with two different paths to chose from in case one breaks down i guess.

Will HM QEII still be around when the third runway opens?

The third runway - if it ever opens - will be opened by William V.
Or possibly his successor.

Whereby hangs an interesting question. The chances of his first born being female, after the two last firstborns were male, are of course 50:50. But we all know that's a statistician's pedantry, and his first child's going to be a girl.

Now it's long been agreed that sometime before Wills starts breeding, we have to change the rules so that firstborns - not first boy - get the job. So round about 2030, there'll be a Princess of Wales, probably called Mary, Elizabeth, Victoria (unlikely) or Anne.

I'd bet the runway gets opened by Anne II or Mary III.

So you really think Brits will continue this royal charade that many years? Hard to believe.

Perhaps Oliver Cromwell XIIV will crack the Champagne on the new runway?

PalenQ - your postings on these boards contain a stream of low-grade sniping at our royal family. Are you ignorant or just jealous?

Well not jealous

please tell what you mean by being ignorant - of what?

Ignorant of the benefits of having a national leader who is without political affiliations and can therefore represent my country to anybody without a side agenda, who has 50+ years knowledge of the workings of British Parliament, and who has dedicated her life unselfishly to the service of my country.

If you're going to have a monarch i agree that HM QEII is an exemplary example. And i respect her dogged attention to duty at the expense of a normal life.

Thank you, I'll stay with a monarch. Looking round at what (and who) else is available I'm very happy with our deal. She may be one of the wealthiest women in the world (on paper)with a privileged lifestyle, but I'd rather live the way I do thank you. It's easy to mock those who can't or won't reply.

Brits on this forum regularly castigate our President in much worse terms - our Head of State - does that upset you too? What's the difference.

Wasn't it 4 lads from London in the late 70s that made the following the #2 song on the hit list?

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb.....

.....God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems.....

.....Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid.....


It is rumo(u)red that it was the #1 hit on UK charts but the record company did not have the ba..s to make it official.

Apparently not everybody in the empire loves the little lady.

Right, this is the difference. The President of the USA, and in parallel the British Prime Minister, is an elected politician with all that involves. He stands or falls at the ballot box by appealing to you for votes based on what he has done or says he will do. Ultimately he is begging for your support.

What does deserve unstinting respect however is your Constitution. We do not have a Constitution, not a written one anyway. British Government thrives by the monarch allowing a democratically elected government to produce or change laws. It is all based on precedent developed quite bloodily centuries ago. In theory the Queen can sack the PM at her whim. In reality that would never happen because chaos would ensue. Effectively the monarch IS the constitution. That is why she is non-political and thus such a powerful representative of the UK abroad. It sounds complicated but isn't really. I once spent a whole evening trying to explain the role of the British monarchy to an American aunt of my wife's, and she still didn't believe we didn't have a constitution at the end.

Bottom line - I can hold ( and state) what opinions I like about my Prime Minister and indeed your President. I won't, however, mock either my monarch or your Constitution. Hope some of that is clear.

AAFlyer, you jumped in before me. Ah yes, the joys of punk rock in a democracy. Who's still around, the Sex Pistols or the Queen? BTW they were British. I don't expect foreigners to come here and comment thus on what I hold dear, any more than I would go to Washington and tell your President what I thought of his fiscal policies or whatever.

I think you can respect the monarch as ceremonial Head of State

and still ridicule in this day and age the very idea of a monarchy in any form

They sure are British (the 3 that are still around, although I believe one is living the high life in LA after he took US citizenship). At the same time that didn't stop the world's greatest rock'n roll band (btw, still one of my favo(u)rite) who are also British, criticizing our president on their last album.

I actually believe that criticizing leaders of our allies should not be seen as a sign of disrespect to the citizens of that nation. What I find disrespectful is when somebody starts criticizing the entire nation and it's citizens based on some unsubstantiated assumptions, for no other reason than just to make themselves feel better. I know of at least 2-3 such posters right here on Fodors. They seem to dwell on any opportunity to knock down anything American. And AFAIK, they are British subjects.

AA - did you read the British Humor Thread

sometimes that seemingly biting criticism is really that ballyhooed biting British humor

I actually often agree with those 2 or 3 BTW

I do not see any malicious attempts to do what you say, respectively