LHR/BAA/T5 Rant
May 5th, 2008 | 02:19 PM
#1
Original Poster
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
LHR/BAA/T5 Rant
Our flight from Chicago to LHR, T3 arrived about 25 minutes late at 11:05 p.m. on 26 April. But, BAA, which began unloading the plane promptly, made the AA ground staff, who were waiting at the end of the jet bridge, hold for 20 minutes until they cleared the plane. That made it impossible for anyone on the plane to use the hoppa bus which ends about 11:30 or the Heathrow Express which closes at 11:43.
Of course, the cost for a taxi to the Heathrow Marriott was 12 pounds, perhaps $23.50.
The following morning, we had to use T5 to leave for Istanbul. Because it is so remote, the cost of a taxi was 16 pounds. We waited for the bus.
There was no problem with the terminal (we did not check luggage) and waiting was comfortable. Unfortunately, when we got to the gate, it was manned by Curly, Moe & Larry. The gate staff spend the better part of 45 minutes trying to figure out how to use the elevator!
They finally got the elevator to operate once, taking several wheelchair bound passengers to the jet bridge. But, they could not get the lift to return and, after the long delay, they decided to let the passengers on board via the escalators which had been operating continuously while the comedy team was messing the with elevator. As a result of this idiocy, the plane departure was delayed for nearly an hour.
Largely because of the generosity of our hosts in Istanbul, we had to check luggage on the return to T5 a week later. After we got through Passport Control, a far nicer experience than it was in New York the following day, we went to the nearly empty baggage claim and then waited and waited and waited. Finally, after about a half an hour the first piece of luggage appeared. It seemed the automated system was working perfectly, there was a delay of precisely 22 seconds between the appearance of each piece of luggage on the conveyor. Because the plane was a 767, it took nearly 30 minutes for the luggage to be made available to all the passengers.
It is hoped the staff problems will be ironed out, and perhaps they may even speed up the baggage handling eventually, but I have no hope that BAA will ever learn about customer service so long as it has a monopoly on the airport in and around London. Next time, we will connect through Madrid.
Of course, the cost for a taxi to the Heathrow Marriott was 12 pounds, perhaps $23.50.
The following morning, we had to use T5 to leave for Istanbul. Because it is so remote, the cost of a taxi was 16 pounds. We waited for the bus.
There was no problem with the terminal (we did not check luggage) and waiting was comfortable. Unfortunately, when we got to the gate, it was manned by Curly, Moe & Larry. The gate staff spend the better part of 45 minutes trying to figure out how to use the elevator!
They finally got the elevator to operate once, taking several wheelchair bound passengers to the jet bridge. But, they could not get the lift to return and, after the long delay, they decided to let the passengers on board via the escalators which had been operating continuously while the comedy team was messing the with elevator. As a result of this idiocy, the plane departure was delayed for nearly an hour.
Largely because of the generosity of our hosts in Istanbul, we had to check luggage on the return to T5 a week later. After we got through Passport Control, a far nicer experience than it was in New York the following day, we went to the nearly empty baggage claim and then waited and waited and waited. Finally, after about a half an hour the first piece of luggage appeared. It seemed the automated system was working perfectly, there was a delay of precisely 22 seconds between the appearance of each piece of luggage on the conveyor. Because the plane was a 767, it took nearly 30 minutes for the luggage to be made available to all the passengers.
It is hoped the staff problems will be ironed out, and perhaps they may even speed up the baggage handling eventually, but I have no hope that BAA will ever learn about customer service so long as it has a monopoly on the airport in and around London. Next time, we will connect through Madrid.
May 6th, 2008 | 03:18 AM
#2
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
I'd be fascinated to hear how you think increasing competition in the London airport system would improve any of this.
BAA don't have a monopoly. Unlike in New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Singapore - oh yes, and unlike Madrid - passengers in London can choose from three different airport operating companies for international flights. London Luton, for example, handles as many international passengers as Newark. And unlike most of those cities, none of London's operators are government-owned.
BAA may well be beyond repair, and might well need to be forcibly evicted. But there's not a shred of evidence that making it or its successor compete in a market with no room for growth would do anything to improve its performance. All you'd be doing would be to hand over licences to make money to five entities rather than the current three.
No-one's going to build a new airport in what's the world's biggest single aviation market. The chances of any significant capacity expansion at any of London's three intercontinental airports get more remote every day: every single screwup by BAA is another propaganda victory for the residents underneath the world's most overcrowded airspace who want fewer, not more, flights.
The real answer is for us to impose legislation on BAA and the airlines to discourage transfer passengers as aggressively as the airlines have pursued them. Heathrow wasn't designed to be a hub airport for passengers travelling from America to Africa: it was designed as a gateway to the world's premier trading city. One reason it fails to be an adequate gateway is that its facilities are swamped by transit passengers it wasn't designed for.
Your passage through Heathrow cost local residents a great deal in noise, pollution and surface traffic congestion. Most of them receive no benefit from it, and will be delighted you're going to be one less burden for them.
BAA don't have a monopoly. Unlike in New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Singapore - oh yes, and unlike Madrid - passengers in London can choose from three different airport operating companies for international flights. London Luton, for example, handles as many international passengers as Newark. And unlike most of those cities, none of London's operators are government-owned.
BAA may well be beyond repair, and might well need to be forcibly evicted. But there's not a shred of evidence that making it or its successor compete in a market with no room for growth would do anything to improve its performance. All you'd be doing would be to hand over licences to make money to five entities rather than the current three.
No-one's going to build a new airport in what's the world's biggest single aviation market. The chances of any significant capacity expansion at any of London's three intercontinental airports get more remote every day: every single screwup by BAA is another propaganda victory for the residents underneath the world's most overcrowded airspace who want fewer, not more, flights.
The real answer is for us to impose legislation on BAA and the airlines to discourage transfer passengers as aggressively as the airlines have pursued them. Heathrow wasn't designed to be a hub airport for passengers travelling from America to Africa: it was designed as a gateway to the world's premier trading city. One reason it fails to be an adequate gateway is that its facilities are swamped by transit passengers it wasn't designed for.
Your passage through Heathrow cost local residents a great deal in noise, pollution and surface traffic congestion. Most of them receive no benefit from it, and will be delighted you're going to be one less burden for them.
May 6th, 2008 | 09:05 PM
#4
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
as posted by <b>flanneruk</b>,
<i>BAA don't have a monopoly. Unlike in New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Singapore - oh yes, and unlike Madrid - passengers in London can choose from three different airport operating companies for international flights. London Luton, for example, handles as many international passengers as Newark.</i>
First, I don't have the actual international passenger numbers to/from Newark, but the totals are:
Luton ~9.7 million with 85% int
Newark - ~35 million total
Second, One can argue what is really int?
Third, let's be honest. BAA owns the 3 MAJOR London airports. It is a monopoly as far as the "true" international flights are concerned. Asia, Africa, N and S America, Oceania.
So perhaps the OP has some valid points about breaking the monopoly and hoping for better service.
<i>Your passage through Heathrow cost local residents a great deal in noise, pollution and surface traffic congestion. Most of them receive no benefit from it,</i>
really? please tell me that all the taxes collected from the passengers don't help the locals. If that's the case, then perhaps it's time to vote in new blood to your city/county gov because I know I pay through my nose everytime I transit through the nightmare called LHR.
<i>BAA don't have a monopoly. Unlike in New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Singapore - oh yes, and unlike Madrid - passengers in London can choose from three different airport operating companies for international flights. London Luton, for example, handles as many international passengers as Newark.</i>
First, I don't have the actual international passenger numbers to/from Newark, but the totals are:
Luton ~9.7 million with 85% int
Newark - ~35 million total
Second, One can argue what is really int?
Third, let's be honest. BAA owns the 3 MAJOR London airports. It is a monopoly as far as the "true" international flights are concerned. Asia, Africa, N and S America, Oceania.
So perhaps the OP has some valid points about breaking the monopoly and hoping for better service.
<i>Your passage through Heathrow cost local residents a great deal in noise, pollution and surface traffic congestion. Most of them receive no benefit from it,</i>
really? please tell me that all the taxes collected from the passengers don't help the locals. If that's the case, then perhaps it's time to vote in new blood to your city/county gov because I know I pay through my nose everytime I transit through the nightmare called LHR.
May 7th, 2008 | 01:35 AM
#5
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
<b> So bloody well stop transitting then </b>
There's no shortage of other European airports: we don't want the business and we'd be delighted if you took it to some poorer, emptier, European country. No-one ever voted to turn our airports into mass transit camps for foreigners: every single extension to Heathrow's operating hours or size has come after downright lies and before flagrant breaches of the extension conditions by BAA and the airlines.
If the tax we expect you to pay for polluting our country isn't enough to deter you, it's about time we hiked it still further.
There's no shortage of other European airports: we don't want the business and we'd be delighted if you took it to some poorer, emptier, European country. No-one ever voted to turn our airports into mass transit camps for foreigners: every single extension to Heathrow's operating hours or size has come after downright lies and before flagrant breaches of the extension conditions by BAA and the airlines.
If the tax we expect you to pay for polluting our country isn't enough to deter you, it's about time we hiked it still further.
May 7th, 2008 | 03:59 AM
#6
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
<i>we don't want the business and we'd be delighted if you took it to some poorer, emptier, European country.</i>
Actually, <i>you</i> don't want it. BA and BAA aggressively court transit customers. I would assume that the British workers and shareholders of both companies are keen to see LHR retain its place as a premier connection point. The government seems equally keen to help it retain its place, as well. Feel free to lay this one at the feet of foreigners. Or, you could man up and accept that the London airport "problems" are merely the inevitable result of the UKs geographic and economic position.
Like a lot of these NIMBY issues, I would think that the majority of people are quite happy with the widespread benefits that LHR brings to the community (jobs, trade, flights, visitors, cargo, etc). Unfortunately, as is also often the case with such problems, the costs are more localized, which stymies growth and prevents fundamentally addressing many of the challenges brought by the success of LHR.
Actually, <i>you</i> don't want it. BA and BAA aggressively court transit customers. I would assume that the British workers and shareholders of both companies are keen to see LHR retain its place as a premier connection point. The government seems equally keen to help it retain its place, as well. Feel free to lay this one at the feet of foreigners. Or, you could man up and accept that the London airport "problems" are merely the inevitable result of the UKs geographic and economic position.
Like a lot of these NIMBY issues, I would think that the majority of people are quite happy with the widespread benefits that LHR brings to the community (jobs, trade, flights, visitors, cargo, etc). Unfortunately, as is also often the case with such problems, the costs are more localized, which stymies growth and prevents fundamentally addressing many of the challenges brought by the success of LHR.
May 7th, 2008 | 05:43 AM
#7
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Likes: 79
<i>Heathrow wasn't designed to be a hub airport for passengers travelling from America to Africa: it was designed as a gateway to the world's premier trading city. One reason it fails to be an adequate gateway is that its facilities are swamped by transit passengers it wasn't designed for.</i>
LHR wasn't "designed" for anything in particular. It was originally an O/D airport because in the 1940s and 1950s they all were. It grew organically, adding terminals and ground infrastructure as airlines merged (BA and BEA, for example) and as demand for both direct and transit traffic grew.
Perhaps you don't remember the debate in the early 1970s about a "third London airport" but I certainly do. The debate was similar to now - let's not let the economic benefits of O/D and transiting air traffic "leak" out of the SE of England due to overcrowding at LHR and LGW. Let's build some big new airport somewhere out there (Thames estuary?) and run the "Outer Ring" (i.e. M25) to it and all will be swell.
Enter the first petrol crisis, NIMBYs, Ted Heath et al, and what you got was expansions at Luton, Stansted (which was around where the big new one would have ended up anyway) and big expansions at Gatwick and T4 at Heathrow. Rather than focusing investment where external impacts could be mitigated, the authorities (central government, local government, the "original" BAA et al) decided to disperse it
LHR wasn't "designed" for anything in particular. It was originally an O/D airport because in the 1940s and 1950s they all were. It grew organically, adding terminals and ground infrastructure as airlines merged (BA and BEA, for example) and as demand for both direct and transit traffic grew.
Perhaps you don't remember the debate in the early 1970s about a "third London airport" but I certainly do. The debate was similar to now - let's not let the economic benefits of O/D and transiting air traffic "leak" out of the SE of England due to overcrowding at LHR and LGW. Let's build some big new airport somewhere out there (Thames estuary?) and run the "Outer Ring" (i.e. M25) to it and all will be swell.
Enter the first petrol crisis, NIMBYs, Ted Heath et al, and what you got was expansions at Luton, Stansted (which was around where the big new one would have ended up anyway) and big expansions at Gatwick and T4 at Heathrow. Rather than focusing investment where external impacts could be mitigated, the authorities (central government, local government, the "original" BAA et al) decided to disperse it
Trending Topics
May 7th, 2008 | 05:55 AM
#8
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Likes: 79
<i>Heathrow wasn't designed to be a hub airport for passengers travelling from America to Africa: it was designed as a gateway to the world's premier trading city. One reason it fails to be an adequate gateway is that its facilities are swamped by transit passengers it wasn't designed for.</i>
LHR wasn't "designed" for anything in particular. It was originally an O/D airport because in the 1940s and 1950s they all were. It grew organically, adding terminals and ground infrastructure as airlines merged (BOAC and BEA, for example) and as demand for both direct and transit traffic grew.
Perhaps you don't remember the debate in the early 1970s about a "third London airport" but I certainly do. The debate was all about economic growth then - let's not let the economic benefits of O/D and transiting air traffic "leak" out of the SE of England due to overcrowding at LHR and LGW. Let's build some big new airport somewhere out there (Thames estuary?) and run the "Outer Ring" (i.e. M25) to it and all will be swell.
Enter the first petrol crisis, NIMBYs, Ted Heath et al, and what you got was expansions at Luton, Stansted (which was around where the big new one would have ended up anyway) and big expansions at Gatwick and T4 at Heathrow. Rather than focusing investment where external impacts could be mitigated, the authorities (central government, local government, the "original" BAA et al) decided to disperse it, exporting congestion costs from the airport precincts to the broader communities, with things like forced LGW-LHR ground connections consuming millions and millions of gallons of petrol, etc.
The market doesn't like those sorts of inefficiencies, so investment at LHR started spiking, despite its location and layout inefficiencies. At some point it got noticed that retail tenants were cleaning up from both transit and originating pax, hence the airport's transformation into a grand mal - er, mall - for shopping. If transit pax went away, the biggest howls would be from the merchants and their thousands of taxpaying employees. The economic-stimulus function that would have been created at a third airport has been achieved at LHR. LHR is a success story, not some sort of misguided plan run amok.
I transited or went landside at LHR 5 times in the past 12 days, and actually had an easier time of it than in the past couple of years. The jetties at T5 didn't work on one occasion, but otherwise it was an okay experience. I really don't have any ire for BAA from these trips; perhaps they've learned from experience or perhaps I'm just lucky.
But suggesting that BAA or the government or somebody should restrict transit traffic at LHR is ludicrous. If people don't like living near huge transit airports/shopping centers/employment hubs/tax-generators... well, there are numerous other places to live, too.
LHR wasn't "designed" for anything in particular. It was originally an O/D airport because in the 1940s and 1950s they all were. It grew organically, adding terminals and ground infrastructure as airlines merged (BOAC and BEA, for example) and as demand for both direct and transit traffic grew.
Perhaps you don't remember the debate in the early 1970s about a "third London airport" but I certainly do. The debate was all about economic growth then - let's not let the economic benefits of O/D and transiting air traffic "leak" out of the SE of England due to overcrowding at LHR and LGW. Let's build some big new airport somewhere out there (Thames estuary?) and run the "Outer Ring" (i.e. M25) to it and all will be swell.
Enter the first petrol crisis, NIMBYs, Ted Heath et al, and what you got was expansions at Luton, Stansted (which was around where the big new one would have ended up anyway) and big expansions at Gatwick and T4 at Heathrow. Rather than focusing investment where external impacts could be mitigated, the authorities (central government, local government, the "original" BAA et al) decided to disperse it, exporting congestion costs from the airport precincts to the broader communities, with things like forced LGW-LHR ground connections consuming millions and millions of gallons of petrol, etc.
The market doesn't like those sorts of inefficiencies, so investment at LHR started spiking, despite its location and layout inefficiencies. At some point it got noticed that retail tenants were cleaning up from both transit and originating pax, hence the airport's transformation into a grand mal - er, mall - for shopping. If transit pax went away, the biggest howls would be from the merchants and their thousands of taxpaying employees. The economic-stimulus function that would have been created at a third airport has been achieved at LHR. LHR is a success story, not some sort of misguided plan run amok.
I transited or went landside at LHR 5 times in the past 12 days, and actually had an easier time of it than in the past couple of years. The jetties at T5 didn't work on one occasion, but otherwise it was an okay experience. I really don't have any ire for BAA from these trips; perhaps they've learned from experience or perhaps I'm just lucky.
But suggesting that BAA or the government or somebody should restrict transit traffic at LHR is ludicrous. If people don't like living near huge transit airports/shopping centers/employment hubs/tax-generators... well, there are numerous other places to live, too.
