Philip Hardy wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
(well, it's only Off Topic for uk.railway, very much On Topic for
uk.transport.london, but as I'm x-posting this...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7342263.stm

A few choice quotes...

"British Airways has delayed moving most of its long-haul flights to
Heathrow's new Terminal 5 until June.
[...]
No date in June has yet been given for the move.

The delay in moving will have a knock-on effect on other airlines who
had been due to take over Terminal 4 once BA had left.
[...]
Sixty arrivals and 60 departures per day were due to be moved."

In an interview on the BBC Willie Walsh was also implying that the T4
move, when it happens, will be in more than one phase. Very sensible.

Sensible, yes, but not entirely fair on the airlines who were planning
to move into the terminals BA was supposed to vacate. BAA isn't supposed
to be running Heathrow for the sole benefit of BA.

--

Stephen

Willow: He said he wasn't coming back until he had driven to all fifty
states.
Buffy: Did you explain about Hawaii?
Willow: Well, he seemed so determined.

In message
Stephen Farrow wrote:

Philip Hardy wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
(well, it's only Off Topic for uk.railway, very much On Topic for
uk.transport.london, but as I'm x-posting this...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7342263.stm

A few choice quotes...

"British Airways has delayed moving most of its long-haul flights to
Heathrow's new Terminal 5 until June.
[...]
No date in June has yet been given for the move.

The delay in moving will have a knock-on effect on other airlines who
had been due to take over Terminal 4 once BA had left.
[...]
Sixty arrivals and 60 departures per day were due to be moved."

In an interview on the BBC Willie Walsh was also implying that the T4
move, when it happens, will be in more than one phase. Very sensible.

Sensible, yes, but not entirely fair on the airlines who were planning
to move into the terminals BA was supposed to vacate. BAA isn't supposed
to be running Heathrow for the sole benefit of BA.

In which case perhaps BAA should have made sure T5 was fit for purpose before
letting BA operate from there.

It is open for the airlines thus inconvenienced to seek compensation from
BAA.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Stephen Farrow wrote:
Philip Hardy wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
(well, it's only Off Topic for uk.railway, very much On Topic for
uk.transport.london, but as I'm x-posting this...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7342263.stm

A few choice quotes...

"British Airways has delayed moving most of its long-haul flights to
Heathrow's new Terminal 5 until June.
[...]
No date in June has yet been given for the move.

The delay in moving will have a knock-on effect on other airlines who
had been due to take over Terminal 4 once BA had left.
[...]
Sixty arrivals and 60 departures per day were due to be moved."

In an interview on the BBC Willie Walsh was also implying that the T4
move, when it happens, will be in more than one phase. Very sensible.

Sensible, yes, but not entirely fair on the airlines who were planning
to move into the terminals BA was supposed to vacate. BAA isn't supposed
to be running Heathrow for the sole benefit of BA.


You're correct WRT other airlines but this is the best move in the short
term for passengers. I don't think it's right to risk putting the public
through the same sort of cock ups again just for the sake of the
airlines. The rest of Heathrow can continue as it is for a couple more
months - airlines wont like it but it's best for passengers (and BA, of
course).

In message , at
16:54:29 on Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Philip Hardy
remarked:

They are very unlikely to call it "chaos at an outsource operation in
Milan".

That's not what I'm saying: Watching BBC News 24 you would have been
lead to believe that if you turned up at T5 there and then to catch a
flight you'd have faced queues, delays and cancellations and general
continuing chaos. This is a misrepresentation of the situation. Period.

Perhaps the news that there are no longer cancellations has failed to
get through to them. They probably see the decision to postpone the
transfer of the T4 flights as evidence of some kind of continuing
"problem", though.

Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at
16:54:29 on Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Philip Hardy
remarked:

They are very unlikely to call it "chaos at an outsource operation
in Milan".

That's not what I'm saying: Watching BBC News 24 you would have been
lead to believe that if you turned up at T5 there and then to catch a
flight you'd have faced queues, delays and cancellations and general
continuing chaos. This is a misrepresentation of the situation.
Period.

Perhaps the news that there are no longer cancellations has failed to
get through to them. They probably see the decision to postpone the
transfer of the T4 flights as evidence of some kind of continuing
"problem", though.

I think there are still problems with the baggage handling in T5, which
is why the main T4 long haul moves has been put back by at least five
weeks. T5 can now cope with the flights currently based there, but
apparently would not be able to handle the full set of flights there
were due to be moved across at the end of this month. I've no idea what
the problems are, but they can't be entirely trivial, and are presumably
more than just a staff training issue.

In message , at 21:41:50 on
Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Recliner remarked:
Perhaps the news that there are no longer cancellations has failed to
get through to them. They probably see the decision to postpone the
transfer of the T4 flights as evidence of some kind of continuing
"problem", though.

I think there are still problems with the baggage handling in T5, which
is why the main T4 long haul moves has been put back by at least five
weeks. T5 can now cope with the flights currently based there, but
apparently would not be able to handle the full set of flights there
were due to be moved across at the end of this month. I've no idea what
the problems are, but they can't be entirely trivial, and are presumably
more than just a staff training issue.

And presumably rather more than the staff not being able to find their
way to the car park.
--
Roland Perry