Talk:Heathrow Airport

Article name

Have we got the best location for the Heathrow article? Look at What Links Here we find articles link to "London Heathrow Airport", "Heathrow" , "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow airport" but NO articles link directly to this long-winded and seldom-used (though presumably the official(?)) name. How about we revert to London Heathrow Airport? Pcb21 10:01 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I would agree; "London Heathrow Airport" would make most sense to me, as that's what appears on the signs inside the airport, if nothing else. Also, of course, it's the most linked-to reference. James F. 14:38 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I realised after writing the above that the move FROM LHA to LHIA had only taken place on 16 May.. so thought I'd let things lie for a while. Now all the links are still pointing towards the more 'natural' names. Antonio.. were there any reasons for moving this page to here that James and I haven't thought of? Pcb21 08:31 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I say move it back. BAA's site variously calls it BAA Heathrow, BAA London Heathrow, London Heathrow Airport and just plain Heathrow. I don't see the long-winded version anywhere. --rbrwr

Done. Mintguy

Heathrow Express

Lee M, you added that some have claimed that Heathrow Express is disproportionally more expensive that the tube. Who claims this? 15 minutes on HE is £13 (£15 if bought on train). The tube is £3.70 to zone 1 for about 45 minutes (or more). This proportionality seems to hold up pretty well (i.e. three times as quick means three times the price). I wonder if your addition is attempt to be NPOV where there isn't an NPOV problem. Pete (who is thinking that the instant Heathrow to City tele-transporters are going to be damn expensive)!

Heath Row - named after...

An anon added "Original name was in fact Heath Row.". I removed this as I can't verify it. I added instead that it might have been named after the hamlet Heath Row, but this doesn't mean it was ever called Heath Row. Angela 04:02, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think the current wording which reads like "well it was called it because of this... or this... we don't know really" is too vague. I will see if I can pin it down further.Pete 11:11, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed the very odd suggestion that the airport might have been named after some guy called Heath (a not uncommon name). The link given at the end of this para itself states "The statement in Londoner's Diary claiming that Heathrow Airport is named after Judge John Heath is incorrect. Heathrow Airport derives its name from a hamlet called Heath Row, which was obliterated during the construction of the airport. The hamlet of Heath Row was on the western part of Hounslow Heath and lay along a road that ran in a southerly direction from near the Magpies Inn on the bath Road at Sipson in the Parish of Harmondsworth. The name "Heath Row" can be found on maps and documents going back several hundred years, long before Judge Heath was born." Shantavira 08:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The original airfield dating from the 1930s (used by Fairey) was named the 'Great West Road Aerodrome'. I seem to recall that for quite a while after becoming London's main airport it was referred to simply as 'London Airport'; the 'Heathrow' nomenclature not re-emerging into common usage until the 1970s with (I assume) the growth in prominence of Gatwick. I have been attempting on and off to find a more exact date (eg when road signs changed?) but this is proving surprisingly difficult.

Ranking?

Anyone aware of heathrow's ranking in the world? It is the worst airport i've ever experienced.

- My goodness, You can't have been anywhere in Eastern Europe could you? I've always had positive experience and think it has more facilities than most due to size.

- Try Copenhagen, I've transited through it twice, the first time they sent my suitcase to Munich instead of Heathrow, the second time their ground staff forgot to close the aircraft properly and we promptly returned twenty minutes later. JonEastham 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest removal of discussion on regulation of BAA landing charges. The relate to other UK airports besides Heathrow

Heathrow in the news

As Terminal 3 is closed because of recent events, could there be a "newsflash" note at the top of the page - or a link to the relevant website. (Ditto with other pages where relevant - on a here today gone tomorrow basis.)

Destinations

How about the places that you can fly to from Heathrow get ordered by name or maybe by region instead of by airline? Or maybe we could have both lists. Crobzub

Since when does Virgin Atlantic fly from Heathrow to Lyon? Should I just remove it? FlyerBoy It's a codeshare flight with Air France klnilsson2

Photograph

Does anyone have a better photo to use in the infobox? --Wangi 14:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know that photo really sucks. Yeah I agree - one of the new control tower or T5 would be awesome. Deano 12:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Deano, don't be so rude about my control tower pic. If you knew the thousands of hours I've spent adding pics on WP you wouldn't write childish words like "really sucks". Please engage brain before typing. - Adrian Pingstone 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I whole heartedly apologise. Please don't take those remarks personally. DJR (Talk) 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Deano, I am very happy to accept your apology. Best Wishes, Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice picture, but I agree that it doesn't really sum up Heathrow as a whole; most of the airport is ultramodern steel and glass, and one gets the impression that it is a 60s style brick building. If an alternative becomes available which shows the airport more as whole, I suggest it is used. --Taskforce 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Flymeoutofhere 11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorable quote

“In terms of the annual number of statistics, Heathrow Airport is the busiest airport in the known world compared to other airports ... The airport itself covers an overall area and you only need to be driven right round it four or five times, to realise that it is, in effect, a small, self-contained city, with all the facilities and infrastructure that a modern city needs, such as an airport” - Roy Mallard

Ian Dunster 11:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

improve destinations section

I'm not very happy with the way in which destinations from Heathrow are presented. It is taking up an awful lot of space and looks quite clumsy. Has anyone got any better ideas? I reckon a list on a separate page would be good. DJR (Talk) 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Grooved asphalt

What is it? I think the infobox should have links, at least to asphalt concrete, but if the term Grooved Asphalt is to be used it would be nice if it was explained what this is. As a fairly laterally-thinking layman, I can only guess that it is asphalt concrete with grooves in it, but am at a loss to why they have grooves in. Something for the asphalt article perhaps, if grooved asphalt doesn't get its own article. BigBlueFish 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically grooving improves the surface traction in wet/damp/contaminated conditions, in some cases quite dramatically. The grooving is usually done by running a diamond cut saw transversally along the runway.

The relevant recommendations from ICAO are that commercial runways should feature a minimum 1mm texture (macrotexture) on new surfaces in order to reduce the potential that aircraft wheels hydroplane. Grooving should be done to the recommended pattern of 3mm x 3mm minimum groves at 25mm centres. BAA went beyond the minimum and grooved both Heathrow runways to a pattern of 4mm x 4mm at 25mm centres along there full length.

Braking performance will be degraded but not beyond the point that you have no effective braking action as can happen on smooth runways with standing water or a heavy downpour furthermore lack of effective macrotexture is one of the most commonly cited factors in aircraft overrun on landing accidents after pilot error and in some instances contributory.

The four basic types of asphalt runway are smooth, grooved, porous friction course and sealed sometimes referred to as chip seal or antiskid.

• Smooth is as you'd expect smooth just like a standard asphalt roadway e.g. limited macrotexture some microtexture, usage wear will progressively reduce the macrotexture.
• Grooved being as explained above.
• Porous friction course is where the surface is layer is designed to allow the surface water to soak through rather than run off generally the usage of PFC is not recommended on high traffic airports due to poor wear life and performance degradation as rubber from the tires fill the porous surface gaps.
• Sealed is where a polymer sealant is applied to the surface to bind stone chipings typically 5mm or smaller to the asphalt beyond the chip seal a fog seal of thin asphalt emulsion mix is sprayed on top to reduce tire ware and aircraft/engine damage from chips becoming loose. Pebble dashing a multi-million dollar jet engine is not good.

Concrete runways fall into three core types which are smooth, grooved and treated concrete.

Typically concrete runways will actually be of a Portland Cement Concrete construction.

• Smooth is as you'd expect smooth just like commercial/residential flooring and has no macrotexture so regarded as very unsafe by ICAO and FAA.
• Grooved is just like its Asphalt sibling however it is possible and safe to groove a PCC surface whilst it is still in its plastic (wet) state.
• Treated is where the surface is textured to produce a textured finish the common methods are:
  • burlap drag, which results in a rough textured finish with striations running in the longitudinal direction the burlap used will typically be of at least 355 gsm/square m.
  • brush and broom produces a uniform corrugated finish approximately 2mm in depth running longitudinally.
  • wire combing a deep texture is formed by using rigid steel wires to produce grooves typically of 3mm x 3mm at 13mm centres whilst the concrete is still plastic.
  • wire tining a deep texture is formed by using flexible steel wires to produce grooves and will result in a surface not dissimilar to combing.

Now this of course all this only refers the wear or surface layer and not the sub layers. The real question is where should this sort of information be placed, seperate entry for runway types? --Swedishchef 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well! I couldn't have asked for a more expert response to that. This is Wikipedia at its best. Where the content goes depends on how much of it applies to runways only, and how much is common with other asphalt surface types. I certainly think all the terminology such as grooved asphalt should get redirect articles, either to Runway if the type is used only on runways, or Asphalt concrete or Concrete if it's a common type. Depending on what falls in to what category, information can then go into subsections of the articles, referring to each other as appropriate. BigBlueFish 15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Annoying new security rules

Have anyone heard about new security system used in Heathrow?

[1]

I hope this "long" link can work. I felt really annoyed about this as I am going to experience this myself in a few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W Tanoto (talk • contribs) .

I contracted the long link for you to stop page widening. I can't see anything new on that page; security is tighter now than it was 5 years ago in all airports, I can't see anything specific to Heathrow. BigBlueFish 10:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the link a lot shorter! Appreciated. I myself don't know how to do it.

About the new security, it is said in the website "Recent enhancements to security procedures"

The new security in Heathrow are:

-that we have to remove laptops from it's bag to be scanned separately

-removing belts

-re-scanning as you approached the gate to the plane.W Tanoto 12:17, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm assuming the first two are down to more sensitive scanning equipment. They have always done random checks on people leaving the after going through security, not everyone has to do it. Heathrow is certainly not alone, and the enhancements are not immediately recent. The main emphasis is clarifying things for people who haven't travelled for a while, and the main new security restrictions are on things like scissors. BigBlueFish 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty similar to what we've been used to in the US since 9/11. Although, I noticed one line that I found interesting: passengers are not allowed to bring spoons on planes. We definitely don't have that rule: how the hell will someone use a spoon as a weapon? Dbinder 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Runways

There was a Runway 23 listed in the infobox. Isn't there a Runway 5 connected to it (on the other end?). I have edited it, but correct it if I am wrong.--themit 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no runway 05 - see [2]. It could theoretically be used but an agreement with the residents of Cranford (known as the Cranford protocol) prevents flights from using runway 05, as takeoffs would fly over Cranford at very low altitudes. Furthermore, it is not marked on the airfield at all - looking at Google Maps [3] clearly shows 23 marked, but not 05. --David McCormick 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has marked the runway as closed in the infobox - if this is really the case then the info should be removed. Last I knew the runway was effectively closed due to continual NOTAMs being issued marking in out of use - but that's very different from a complete closure. /wangi 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the status? Just an X at either side?

I suppose it's also ok to call the proposed runway the "Third Runway" since the one in question here isn't anything like the two that are active use. CoolGuy 14:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A380

Singapore Airlines is to fly the A380 into Heathrow, however according to the article Singapore Airlines will be flying from T1, how does this work if only T3 can take A380?

I'm not sure how. I'm also thinking how they will move the lounge as it is beautifully built. I heard Heathrow just confirmed that Terminal 3 will be used by oneworld and its future members (Japan Airlines, etc) from Airlines magazine. (W.Tanoto)

According to the BAA Heathrow Website, terminal 5 will also be able to (eventually) handle A380sDbertman 17:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Airline re-shuffle

The LHR Interim Master plan said that Qantas would be using Terminal 5 as well as BA. It also suggested that un-alligned airlines would be using a range of terminals as opposed to T4 only. klnilsson2

External link to Heathrow airport centre

I have added back twice the link to the heathrow airport vistsor centre. It was removed once with no explanation and then again as link span. How is this link spam. Its one of the best kept secrets the visitor centre and the link shows a good selection of pictures. How is this spam? stupidcupid

Have a read through WP:EL. The main purpose of this link to simply get folk to the website, it's spam. Any encylopedic content can be incorporated in this article, Wikipedia is not a link directory, nor travel guide to visitor attractions. Thanks/wangi 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The main purpose of this link to simply get folk to the website,". Well thats not true at all. The vistor centre lays out the history of the airport. Having looked on the BAA site and then searched around this page seemed like the best selection of pictures and detail.

Does anyone else agree this is spam? stupidcupid

Lets be clear that this is not the official visitor centre website - it's a section of a website that is trying to flog hotel rooms and airport transfers. Any encylopedic content should be incorporated into this article. The page only has two paragraphs of pretty much nonsense - there's no reason to link to it... /wangi 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

now you just sound like your on a personal crusade. If someone else will give an opinion on this then i will be happy to accept that. Personally i found the link useful. stupidcupid

Excuse me, but lets see:

The Visitor centre is located outside of the main terminal areas. Its entrance is on the Northern Perimeter road which runs parallel with the airport runway area. Its just a few minutes drive from the terminals and adjacent to the Renaissance Heathrow Hotel. Although car parking is charged its quite reasonable and the actual visitor centre itself is totally free to enter. You can also use the free bus service around the airport to get to the centre and save on parking. The parking area itself is popular with airplane spotters who can usually be seen here with binoculars, cameras and radio scanner to hand. The centre has been open since May 1995 and provides something a bit different for all the family when you have a lot of time on your hands at the airport. The centre is basically one covered area with no separate rooms or areas, over two floors. An interactive exhibition of the history of Heathrow Airport in photographs and words, with displays, computer displays, artefacts and models. On the first floor is a cafe along with an area that has views of the airport grounds. Also on the first floor is a scale model of the airport alongside a model of the new terminal 5. The first part of the floor at the top of the stairs has exhibits detailing the steps taken by the airport towards combating noise. The ground floor even includes seats taken from actual aircraft and an interactive exhibit that include a flight deck simulation inside an actual aircraft nose cone. The individual display cabinets include exhibits detailing, 'The Dawn of Commercial Airlines', 'A History of BAA and Heathrow Airport Ltd' and 'Heathrow, How It All Began'. A further section is dedicated to 'HM Customs and Excise' and also includes items that been confiscated from passengers trying to take them on flights illegally. The ground floor is even has a stand giving information on runway lighting and has examples of lights used.

— http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/information/heathrow-airport/heathrow-airport-visitor-centre.htm

What's the interest in that? Crusade, erm... I just don't see the point in linking to useless shite.

And by the way - you're backwards in your "consensus" - as things stand it's just you that wants this link in the article, so until more people want it than not you shouldn't include it. Thanks/wangi 14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"useless shite"..well your use of the english language does you no credit at all. If someone else gives an unbiased view then i will take the link down. Personally i have not found those pictures elsewhere. stupidcupid

Oh, so it's for those photos now - the ones with a copright logo right across the middle of them. Perhaps you could spend a few minutes to write-up the benefits of including this link, because so far you've given no real reason for its inclusion. Wikipedia is not a link repository. /wangi 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion The link is not spam. Spam links are like when someone trying to sell his fandangled but worthless invention adds a link to the "invention" site. Or when WhizBangBeeBoop.com adds his own entry to Wikipedia. A link to an airport's visitor's center at the bottom of an article about the airport is not spam. The main purpose of a link IS to get folk to a website - that is what a link is for. The question is, is the link relevant to the airport, and I find that it is. Reswobslc 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You beat me, so I'll give a fourth opinion. The link isn't spam - spam implies bad intentions, and I see no way the user adding the link gets any personal gain from it. However, I'm not sure it's useful enough to be worth linking to - the details could easilly be added to the article. The pictures don't add much. It doesn't cost much to keep the link there, though, and it isn't doing any harm, so if anyone thinks it's useful, then it might as well stay. --Tango 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting that stupidcupid didn't add the link in the first place - it's not them i'm accusing of spam. It's a normal tactic of the airport parking, hotel and transfer sites to put on sub-pages with extra info - the role of these is to simply get extra hits from search engines. This site doesn't add anything to this article, and it open the flood gates to link to other sites - and there are hundreds... /wangi 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminal 6 and Third Runway

Does anyone have more information on the proposed locations of Terminal 6 and the Third Runway? It would be a good addition to the article. Thanks, CoolGuy 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Terminal 6 is proposed to the North of the airport. # Stupidcupid

Remember, any info must be referenced, not rumours. /wangi 21:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Though rumors that come from a substantial source and that can be referenced could be ok. Perhaps rumor is the wrong word. If there are any government proposals, hopefully someone will provide a source. CoolGuy 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

baa published their plans at the start of june 2005. Its here:

http://www.aerospacemedia.com/aero/pr/LHRInterimMasterPlan.pdf

anyway, since terminal 6 is all conjecture currently anyway then a round up of rumours may be appropriate in the context of it definitely being an aim with the outcome unknown by anyone including BAA. Stupidcupid