Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Heathrow's bold departure

ELIZABETH RENZETTI

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:52 AM EDT 15/04/08

London's main airport has been voted the worst in the world. But this week, the blighted gateway launches a new terminal – complete with Italian stone floors and the promise to dramatically decrease waits at security. As Elizabeth Renzetti reports, though, whether this will restore the hub's reputation remains a £4.3-billion question. And then there's that controversial third runway ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. larry hallatt from Canada writes: We have far too many flights, especially short haul flights under 1,000 kilometers. With so many airlines promoting two and three day quickie holiday flights, our governments should consider a special excise tax on return flights that are less than 6 days.....National Rrevenue could collect the fee at the time of re entry. Money raised from this tax could subsidize more environmentally sound train, bus and ferry travel through lower energy taxes..
  2. Tanner Hadley from GTA, Canada writes: Why does the solution to our problems always seem to be taxes on other people's behaviour?
  3. Globe Insider subscriber content
    William MacKenzie from Barrie, Canada writes: A minor point, I suppose, but will Ms Renzetti please note that "Her Highness" cannot refer to the Queen (possibly looking up from her breakfast table to view the new terminal). The Queen is "Her Majesty." Highnesses are definitely of a lower order.
  4. sam pitroda from Canada writes: One reason Heathrow gets less funds is pure racism. Walk through Terminal 4 and you will see more than 75% of the passengers are non-Caucasian. And T4 is the worst terminal at Heathrow with rude , surly staff , equipment breakdowns and crowded checkin and waiting areas.

    Most of the crowd at Heathrow T4 are for connecting flights between North America/Africa/Asia. They are not local. That shows.
  5. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: How about if flying was reserved for our betters;peple we all admire;politicians, David Suzuki - oh and we could still have helicopter rides for people who want to watch raree shows at seal clubbing time.
    Too many common people flying when they could be watching television.

    "larry hallatt from Canada writes: We have far too many flights, especially short haul flights under 1,000 kilometers."
  6. Piet F from Canada writes: I'm not sure what sam pitroda is on about. Terminal 4 is actually the best of a bad lot at the moment. It's primarily used for British Airways intercontinental flights (plus a few Qantas, Air Malta and KLM flights). As BA is a premium airline, the typical passengers are predominently quite affluent! Terminals 1, 2 and 3 are certainly another story!

    "Pure racism" is merely a reflection of his own ignorance.
  7. james schauer from Toronto, Canada writes: Why doesn't the UK invest more heavily in the alternate London airport? Coordinate connections more intelligently, and use the other airport more extensively. But there is one uglier airport, in the 'other' richest city in the world: Laguardia. Amazing how the 'richest' cities have the worst public resources ....
  8. D S from Hong Kong writes: hey james schauer, I don't have too much experience with laguardia myself but what about lax. THat one's pretty horrible as well, especially for connections. Unfriendly staff, old creaky facility, LONG lines at immigration and security... IMHO Gatwick is worse than Heathrow, probably don't hear about it as much as H because its smaller and the bigger airlines don't fly there...I went there a couple times to/from the US on Delta & Continental, not the BAs, Uniteds or AAs of the world..

    Thing about investing in an alternate airport is how to shuttle passengers around? You'd probably have to build a direct rail link between them. Without that it would be a nightmare, esp London. H is west of the city out Surrey county I think, Gatwick is southeast-ish. Driving/bussing from one to the other is going to take you a good 1-2 hours minimum given the traffic. I've had that expereience once with my H flight, rerouted to Gatwick...understandably I wasn't a happy traveler. Luton and Stansted and even further away I think, and they only handle mostly the discount airlines... London City airport btw might be one of the best airports I've seen but is far too small... Its amazing London area has 5 busy commercial airports like this..
  9. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> which must also mean that her Highness ...

    which must mean that the Globe's fact checkers were all off on March break.....

    >> Will the £4.3-billion Terminal 5 restore the reputation of London's main airport?

    London's main airport? Probably Europe's actually.

    Even in their aging state, I still find the other terminals more interesting than Pearson. The shopping at Pearson is very, very sad (sorry) compared to the shopping at Heathrow.

    On another note, Pearson appears to have 5 or 6 runways, depending on which source you read, and according to Wikipedia, handles 30.9 million people a year. Heathrow, with only 2 runways, ,manages to handle more than double that number.
  10. Broad Vacant from St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada writes: Piet f is right on terminal 4 - it's actually not bad. Andf London IS moving to use other airports. Luton, and especially Stansted, are growing rapidly too, mostly catering to the discount lines such as Ryanair and Easyjet. I'm struck by a number of other things here as well, but I'll limit myself to defending the LHR staff. I go through there, from Toronto, 3-4 times per year, and I'm always struck by how much friendlier people are there than here. And yes the lines are long, but they move along quite quickly.
  11. barry martin from hillsboro, United States writes: england has a lot of friendly professional staff at all their airports---it's great to see them get a new work place to help weary passengers trying to connect to other flights or just get home. the high speed rail links will come soon. cheers, barry
  12. George Bishop from Fergus, Ontario, Canada writes: My experience with Heathrow is none too good and I dont think the new Terminal 5 will help as its restricted to only British Airways flights and I am not sure if it includes connection to the Capital of Scotland-Edinburgh, right now if you fly from Pearson on BA, you have to transfer at your own expense and time to Gatwick to make a flight to Edinburgh.
    My wife is in a wheelchair and getting through Heathrow was a nightmere last time around, compared to Frankfurt or Amsterdam this Airport is not good if you need a wheelchair etc. so where does it leave ones needs, if flying to Edinburgh I go via KLM and transfer in Amsterdam, its longer but far less hastle than is Heathrow, I found that Terminal 3 where Air Canada flies in and out of pretty bad, it also has the Gate for the Airbus 380! so you can see 500 or so more people trying to clear Customs in Heathrow, what a Joke!
  13. Able Bodied Man from Colony of Van Isle, Canada writes:
    Why doesn't the G & M run some good pics with stories like this?
  14. Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: Greenpeace wants to prevent a third runway being built at Heathrow...?

    Why, so the congestion can cause incoming aircraft to hold? Where's the sense in that?
  15. M Hawk from Canada writes: Heathrow is by far the worst place in the world. I once had a 10 hour layover there, from 10 pm to 8 AM....
    I spent those 10 hours shivering(its freezing in there), attempting to nap on a cold, dirty tile floor (all seats had armrests, no chance of laying down there, plus they were full) using my luggage as a pillow, listening to the same extra-loud "security" annoucement repeated over and over every 5 minutes, interrupting any chance of sleep.... and of course in the same boat as all the other people there.
    We literally wandered through all the terminals looking for a better place to sleep and found nothing.... we were booted out of any spot semi-decent by the security guards.
    Demolish the whole thing and start over, I say. Maybe take notes from the Singapore intn'l airport. Now that's a beaut. My 6 hour layover there was a dream!
  16. R L from Ontario, Canada writes: @Randal Oulton

    I don't think Pearson ever has more than 3 runways operational at any given time. They switch runways depending on winds, but I believe that's it.

    In addition, Heathrow operates 24hrs/day whereas Pearson closes between approx. 1am and 6pm

    That at least accounts for some of the difference. For sure, I'd never want to live anywhere near that airport!
  17. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: How is it possible to spend even $1B on a glorified arena? The answer lies in in the improper position and power to mercilessly tax airlines and passengers, usually without transparency or accountability, given to airport commissions in Britain, Canada and elsewhere.
  18. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: In an ideal world, the trip would be even more exciting than the destination and standard polluting aircraft would not be required. If only we could move stright up, then wait for the world to turn so we could land at our destination.
  19. Andrew Toth from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: Good article, thanks for the insight and the heads up.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top