United1 wrote:

global2 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

They're only held in T5A cos HAL won't release the gate into until the last moment, they are trapped in the shopping paradise by design. If you release the gate info when you know it, usually -90 or -120 for long haul, that might help

Could anyone explain why this is? It's rather aggravating to have gate information be a big secret until the last moment. What other major airport does this?

Money - Heathrow wants you to keep shopping and eating until the last moment possible as they profit every time a passenger spends a pound/pence in the terminal. Not so much when they are sitting at the gates.

The other problem with T5B and T5C is that you cannot return from there to T5A other than as an arriving/connecting passenger. So if pax head over to say T5B early about 120 mins before departure, and there is a late change of gate back to T5A, then the only way to get to your new gate is via the arrivals/connections channel and you have to clear security again. A nightmare and will lead to more people missing or delaying flights.

Not sure why the train cannot run as a simple airside shuttle in both directions, but at the moment it doesn't.

This may be a stupid question but is it possible to build an automated train between T3 and T5 to solve the connection problem?

A350OZ wrote:

United1 wrote:

global2 wrote:

Could anyone explain why this is? It's rather aggravating to have gate information be a big secret until the last moment. What other major airport does this?

Money - Heathrow wants you to keep shopping and eating until the last moment possible as they profit every time a passenger spends a pound/pence in the terminal. Not so much when they are sitting at the gates.

The other problem with T5B and T5C is that you cannot return from there to T5A other than as an arriving/connecting passenger. So if pax head over to say T5B early about 120 mins before departure, and there is a late change of gate back to T5A, then the only way to get to your new gate is via the arrivals/connections channel and you have to clear security again. A nightmare and will lead to more people missing or delaying flights.

Not sure why the train cannot run as a simple airside shuttle in both directions, but at the moment it doesn't.

The issue is that the train carries non-sterile international arriving pax on the return journey. They would need to build new platforms/tracks in order to have a dedicated return service for the very few number of sterile passengers returning to T5A.

Nonetheless, there is a sterile walkway between T5A through to B & C that you can use to return to A, although it does take upwards of 20 minutes to get from C to A and vice versa.

A350OZ wrote:

United1 wrote:

global2 wrote:

Could anyone explain why this is? It's rather aggravating to have gate information be a big secret until the last moment. What other major airport does this?

Money - Heathrow wants you to keep shopping and eating until the last moment possible as they profit every time a passenger spends a pound/pence in the terminal. Not so much when they are sitting at the gates.

The other problem with T5B and T5C is that you cannot return from there to T5A other than as an arriving/connecting passenger. So if pax head over to say T5B early about 120 mins before departure, and there is a late change of gate back to T5A, then the only way to get to your new gate is via the arrivals/connections channel and you have to clear security again. A nightmare and will lead to more people missing or delaying flights.

Not sure why the train cannot run as a simple airside shuttle in both directions, but at the moment it doesn't.

You can walk back. There’s a foot tunnel on both the arrivals and departures side. It’s not well known, but in the lifts to the trains, the button for the floor below marked “Walkway” (from memory) is the one you want. I get the train out to T5C, shoot some BA, then walk back via a quick jolly round T5B. There are also travellators but running to the Sats on departures and vice versa on arrivals.

It was brought into passenger service some time after T5 was opened, previously it was staff only. The arrivals tunnel is popular with people wishing to check their legs still work after a long economy flight At walking pace, it’s 11 mins from T5C station to lifts at T5A.

United857 wrote:

Nonetheless, there is a sterile walkway between T5A through to B & C that you can use to return to A, although it does take upwards of 20 minutes to get from C to A and vice versa.

I did not know this, thanks.

Regarding the non-sterile arriving pax, does that mean if you arrive in T5C and you are connecting flight leaves from T5B, you need to take the train back to T5A, clear security and then get back on the train to T5B?

I have never transferred within T5, only arrived or departed, or transferred T3-T5 vv. by bus, which I found to be no issue at all btw.

Of course AA’s widebodies use containers and pallets for bags and cargo.

Boof02671 wrote:

Of course AA’s widebodies use containers and pallets for bags and cargo.

You don't say

They other challenge is does BA want to do the ground handling for AA? And if not would they want another ground handling agency - Menzies, Swissport etc operating form their terminal? Who handles AA at LHR atm? If I was BA I’d want to keep it all in house, but I doubt BA would be a cheap handling agency, doubt AA would pay for them.

Menzies were awarded the contract for ground handling on behalf of American Airlines at T3 in 2015 on a three year contract but I'm not sure if they currently do.

Maybe when the new terminal opens with the new runway in the year 2088 after the environmental assessments, lawsuits, arbitrations, consultations, white papers, responses to white papers, hearings, open sessions, settlements, protests, and forced removal of said protests, shovel ceremony, photo ops, construction, rework, compliance mandates reworks, testing, signoff, then all the IAG & OneWorld can locate together in T6.

Please keep upto scratch regarding R3 and it's associated and proposed expansion plans.

There is no longer a proposed T6 HAL officially confirmed that a few months ago.

Terminal 5 is proposed to be extended westwards and a satellite which which has always been part of the expansion plan situated between the proposed R3 and the Northern Runway serviced by the extension to T5.

If all this proposed expansion actually goes ahead and T5 is extended then and only then will British Airways and Oneworld be under the same roof at London Heathrow Airport.

I don't know how many times that I've written this on these forums but ALL the updated information including CGI images and videos showing the proposed expansion are on the official Heathrow Airport website for everyone to view!

I think he was joking...

skipness1E wrote:

It was brought into passenger service some time after T5 was opened, previously it was staff only. The arrivals tunnel is popular with people wishing to check their legs still work after a long economy flight At walking pace, it’s 11 mins from T5C station to lifts at T5A.

It was labelled "staff only" but never enforced. Those in the know could always use it. But yes, particularly if I have a longer layover I prefer the tunnels. It's like a different world and it's rare if I see more than 2 or 3 people down there. It's the path that the staff uses to take the assistance carts, too.

smi0006 wrote:

They other challenge is does BA want to do the ground handling for AA? And if not would they want another ground handling agency - Menzies, Swissport etc operating form their terminal? Who handles AA at LHR atm? If I was BA I’d want to keep it all in house, but I doubt BA would be a cheap handling agency, doubt AA would pay for them.

It’s Still Menzies for the loading and AA for baggage.
BA had the contract in the interim period when AA got
Rid of their own staff a few years back.

You are right, BA want everything in-house under T5.

A350OZ wrote:

United857 wrote:

Nonetheless, there is a sterile walkway between T5A through to B & C that you can use to return to A, although it does take upwards of 20 minutes to get from C to A and vice versa.

I did not know this, thanks.

Regarding the non-sterile arriving pax, does that mean if you arrive in T5C and you are connecting flight leaves from T5B, you need to take the train back to T5A, clear security and then get back on the train to T5B?

I have never transferred within T5, only arrived or departed, or transferred T3-T5 vv. by bus, which I found to be no issue at all btw.

You can get off at T5B and go through security there. The trickier way is if you arrive at T5B and your flight leaves from T5C (say a 380 flight) then you can take the arrivals walkway back to T5C and do security there. The tricky part is letting them let you use the connection there if the gate isn't displayed yet. I usually prefer the J lounge in T5B to the F lounge in T5A for that matter. Much quieter and the F lounge really only has a big advantage in food available if you want a full meal.

bzcat wrote:

This may be a stupid question but is it possible to build an automated train between T3 and T5 to solve the connection problem?

IIRC, it's part of the master plan and there is already a train within T5 so it would be to extend the existing train eastward (But if you're doing that you should just get it all the way to T1 to future-proof it)

I am far from an exoert about LHR. I hope my comments/questions are not too basic or offensive to the more knowledgeable here.

WRT future terminal and runway expansion: NIMBYs and bureaucracies are often scapegoats, but is it possible that BA doesn't want more yield destroying capacity? The same thought would apply to more terminals, gates, and pads. In my experience, when the home carrier won't support something, it generally doesn't happen. In this vein, further capacity enabling expansion will happen in the future at a rate not exceeding that which the market can absorb while preserving yields.

WRT to terminal expansion specifically: Weren't the hideously high passenger fees/taxes used to finance T5? Wouldn't further terminal expansion cause those already beyond exorbitant fees to increase further? When will they be retired/reduced (T5 paid for), or are they just part of the permanent landscape now like the toll roads in Chicago, destined only to increase as further projects are funded?

Slightly off topic, but American used to have their own below-the-wing loaders and rampers at LHR which were let go when they were in Chapter 11, BUT they kept their own Passenger Services staff I think? Even when BA handled AA, the above-the-wing was kept in house I think? Menzies only do loading and pushback, not the passenger facing staff which were kept in house. Is that correct?

Did AA take on the ex TWA staff or hire their own when they opened LHR?

SteelChair wrote:

I am far from an exoert about LHR. I hope my comments/questions are not too basic or offensive to the more knowledgeable here.

WRT future terminal and runway expansion: NIMBYs and bureaucracies are often scapegoats, but is it possible that BA doesn't want more yield destroying capacity? The same thought would apply to more terminals, gates, and pads. In my experience, when the home carrier won't support something, it generally doesn't happen. In this vein, further capacity enabling expansion will happen in the future at a rate not exceeding that which the market can absorb while preserving yields.

WRT to terminal expansion specifically: Weren't the hideously high passenger fees/taxes used to finance T5? Wouldn't further terminal expansion cause those already beyond exorbitant fees to increase further? When will they be retired/reduced (T5 paid for), or are they just part of the permanent landscape now like the toll roads in Chicago, destined only to increase as further projects are funded?

No, APD has nothing to do with T5. T5 is privately funded through the privatisation of BAA and the high LHR landing fees. APD is a sin tax or environmental tax that the revenue goes to NHS and other recipients, not aviation. Two are very separate matters.

And the government may provide support for 3rd runway and provide funding. But ultimately HAL is a private company and any debts of the 3rd runway would be paid by HAL and its users eventually through import fees, not passenger tax. The 3rd runway would not have passed the legislation if there is any talk of tax payers absorb the cost via additional tax.

It's a HUGE piece of national infrastructure for UK PLC and was built by HMG and the taxpayer. It's REALLY stretching it to suggest that LHR is now a wholly private enterprise, it can't be, it's plugged into National Rail, the tube and the motorway network. The taxpayer WILL have some input but will be expecting jobs and economic benefit as a return.

dfdubflyer wrote:

I think he was joking...

I fully appreciate what he was referring too and I'm aware that he was joking in the entirety of his post but it was the very last part where Terminal 6 was mentioned that I'm sure wasn't part of the actual joke because too many people assume that the originally proposed Terminal 6 is still part of the expansion plans for London Heathrow and have either overlooked the fact or aren't aware that HAL have abandoned it altogether in favour of a western extension to T5.

I disagree. T3 to T5 is terrible. Recently did it on a BA to BA connection. Long walks, long wait for bus and crazy bus ride.

Gemuser wrote:

janders wrote:

Seems sooner or later this will happen even if BA must move some of its own services away from T-5.

The carriers certainly must have a mountain of traffic data that shows which BA flights receive high percentage of connection traffic flow and their financial contribution and which do not. Those that don't can in worst case be relocated away to other facilities at LHR.

WHY? IF BA is already receiving all that connecting traffic from AA what benefit would either/both airlines gain from moving AA into T5 with the subsequent disruption to other BA operations? The transfer from T3 to T5 is not particularly difficult.

Gemuser

skipness1E wrote:

Slightly off topic, but American used to have their own below-the-wing loaders and rampers at LHR which were let go when they were in Chapter 11, BUT they kept their own Passenger Services staff I think? Even when BA handled AA, the above-the-wing was kept in house I think? Menzies only do loading and pushback, not the passenger facing staff which were kept in house. Is that correct?

Did AA take on the ex TWA staff or hire their own when they opened LHR?

Yeah that’s right, most were all ex TWA and it was a grandfathered right thing, similar to what PanAm, United is today.
They kept above the wing after chapter 11 with below going to BA.
Supposedly BA cost too much, and in the end they went with Menzies, below wing for loading and pushback.
Full circle, they brought in their ownbaggage hall staff 2 years ago.

hz747300 wrote:

Maybe when the new terminal opens with the new runway in the year 2088 after the environmental assessments, lawsuits, arbitrations, consultations, white papers, responses to white papers, hearings, open sessions, settlements, protests, and forced removal of said protests, shovel ceremony, photo ops, construction, rework, compliance mandates reworks, testing, signoff, then all the IAG & OneWorld can locate together in T6.

Nearly spat my tea out !

chonetsao wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I am far from an exoert about LHR. I hope my comments/questions are not too basic or offensive to the more knowledgeable here.

WRT future terminal and runway expansion: NIMBYs and bureaucracies are often scapegoats, but is it possible that BA doesn't want more yield destroying capacity? The same thought would apply to more terminals, gates, and pads. In my experience, when the home carrier won't support something, it generally doesn't happen. In this vein, further capacity enabling expansion will happen in the future at a rate not exceeding that which the market can absorb while preserving yields.

WRT to terminal expansion specifically: Weren't the hideously high passenger fees/taxes used to finance T5? Wouldn't further terminal expansion cause those already beyond exorbitant fees to increase further? When will they be retired/reduced (T5 paid for), or are they just part of the permanent landscape now like the toll roads in Chicago, destined only to increase as further projects are funded?

No, APD has nothing to do with T5. T5 is privately funded through the privatisation of BAA and the high LHR landing fees. APD is a sin tax or environmental tax that the revenue goes to NHS and other recipients, not aviation. Two are very separate matters.

And the government may provide support for 3rd runway and provide funding. But ultimately HAL is a private company and any debts of the 3rd runway would be paid by HAL and its users eventually through import fees, not passenger tax. The 3rd runway would not have passed the legislation if there is any talk of tax payers absorb the cost via additional tax.

Tony Blair's legacy of Socialism, tax the "rich" who travel. The APD brings in a lovely three billion pounds to the Exchecquor, it should be used for the needs of airports, not the NHS. The NHS is a great British institution whose revenues should be from non-aviation taxes. This reminds me a of a French Minister who wanted an aviation tax to pay third world debts, why should Travel pay for that?

Why is it T5 does not have a lot of gates with dual jet bridges? Most of the gates are a single jet bridge.

jfk777 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I am far from an exoert about LHR. I hope my comments/questions are not too basic or offensive to the more knowledgeable here.

WRT future terminal and runway expansion: NIMBYs and bureaucracies are often scapegoats, but is it possible that BA doesn't want more yield destroying capacity? The same thought would apply to more terminals, gates, and pads. In my experience, when the home carrier won't support something, it generally doesn't happen. In this vein, further capacity enabling expansion will happen in the future at a rate not exceeding that which the market can absorb while preserving yields.

WRT to terminal expansion specifically: Weren't the hideously high passenger fees/taxes used to finance T5? Wouldn't further terminal expansion cause those already beyond exorbitant fees to increase further? When will they be retired/reduced (T5 paid for), or are they just part of the permanent landscape now like the toll roads in Chicago, destined only to increase as further projects are funded?

No, APD has nothing to do with T5. T5 is privately funded through the privatisation of BAA and the high LHR landing fees. APD is a sin tax or environmental tax that the revenue goes to NHS and other recipients, not aviation. Two are very separate matters.

And the government may provide support for 3rd runway and provide funding. But ultimately HAL is a private company and any debts of the 3rd runway would be paid by HAL and its users eventually through import fees, not passenger tax. The 3rd runway would not have passed the legislation if there is any talk of tax payers absorb the cost via additional tax.

Tony Blair's legacy of Socialism, tax the "rich" who travel. The APD brings in a lovely three billion pounds to the Exchecquor, it should be used for the needs of airports, not the NHS. The NHS is a great British institution whose revenues should be from non-aviation taxes. This reminds me a of a French Minister who wanted an aviation tax to pay third world debts, why should Travel pay for that?

Your absolutely one hundred percent off topic leave it be please otherwise your post will go the same way as the previous poster who brought this unnecessary subject up!

B752OS wrote:

Why is it T5 does not have a lot of gates with dual jet bridges? Most of the gates are a single jet bridge.

I don't think that anyone can really answer that question except for the team that designed the terminal.

There are several gates at Terminal 5 with dual AirBridges, I take it that you've checked out Google Earth to see how many there are although in saying that I have to agree with you that it's rather surprising there aren't more than there actually are.

Cunard wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

No, APD has nothing to do with T5. T5 is privately funded through the privatisation of BAA and the high LHR landing fees. APD is a sin tax or environmental tax that the revenue goes to NHS and other recipients, not aviation. Two are very separate matters.

And the government may provide support for 3rd runway and provide funding. But ultimately HAL is a private company and any debts of the 3rd runway would be paid by HAL and its users eventually through import fees, not passenger tax. The 3rd runway would not have passed the legislation if there is any talk of tax payers absorb the cost via additional tax.

Tony Blair's legacy of Socialism, tax the "rich" who travel. The APD brings in a lovely three billion pounds to the Exchecquor, it should be used for the needs of airports, not the NHS. The NHS is a great British institution whose revenues should be from non-aviation taxes. This reminds me a of a French Minister who wanted an aviation tax to pay third world debts, why should Travel pay for that?

Your absolutely one hundred percent off topic leave it be please otherwise your post will go the same way as the previous poster who brought this unnecessary subject up!

The APD is a sour subject and I will state my distaste for it. IF it bothers I am sorry its not personal.

jfk777 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Tony Blair's legacy of Socialism, tax the "rich" who travel. The APD brings in a lovely three billion pounds to the Exchecquor, it should be used for the needs of airports, not the NHS. The NHS is a great British institution whose revenues should be from non-aviation taxes. This reminds me a of a French Minister who wanted an aviation tax to pay third world debts, why should Travel pay for that?

Your absolutely one hundred percent off topic leave it be please otherwise your post will go the same way as the previous poster who brought this unnecessary subject up!

The APD is a sour subject and I will state my distaste for it. IF it bothers I am sorry its not personal.

My point was that another poster not long before yours who was discussing APD in a detrimental way and was getting very political about it in a very ugly manner which annoyed several posters including myself and he therefore had his posts deleted by the Moderators, so hence my comments about your post being totally off topic and I was politely suggesting that you leave it be regarding the subject.

B752OS wrote:

Why is it T5 does not have a lot of gates with dual jet bridges? Most of the gates are a single jet bridge.

It seems the gates on the sides are narrowbody only, then on the back (let's call front the drop off zone, with no parking in the red zone) there are some widebody gates. In the B Gates and C Gates, there are solely widebody gates, along with some of the longest jetways I have ever been on. The narrowbody gates seemed way outnumbered by the widebody ones overall. But I'm not a mathematician. T5 is quite nice, so is T2, but they are just so compact to say HKG, SIN, ICN.

How many of AA's flights use hard stands versus jetway gates? Is it substantial every day?