Talk:Heathrow Airport

Archives

• /archive1

Trivia

All of the road names within Heathrow begin with the letter C, with the exception of the Inner Ring road.

I added this information under Trivia, along with a list of the roads but someone removed it, saying it "might be interesting information, but it's not important; see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Also worth having a read of WP:V"

I want to argue for it's reinstatement in the article because it's an unusal road naming scheme, possible unique to Heathrow. It must have been a decision made as part of the planning of the airport complex. Hopefully someone would be able to integrate it into the main body of the article if they knew a little more about the naming scheme. But until then I think it's a valid piece of 'trivia'. It's easily verifiable by looking on google maps.

What do other people think about the worthiness of its inclusion in Wikipedia?

Youzoid 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And having looked at a map I can say not only is it "trivia", it's actually complete nonsense. "Within Heathrow" would mean within the Perimeter Road - there are many roads starting with letters other than "C". Within the T1/T2/T3 central area the majority might start with "C", but a number do not (Inner Ring East, Inner Ring West, Heathrow Tunnel Approach). It's not encyclopedic information. Thanks/wangi 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it's obviously not 'nonsense'.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=51.47176,-0.453486&spn=0.006483,0.015235&om=1

Yes, some of the roads, such as the inner ring road, don't begin with 'c' but the majority do, far beyond the realm of coincidence. It must have been a conscious planning decision at some point, and while you might not be interested in it, others might be. Youzoid 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case consider WP:V and WP:NOR - if it was a conscious planning decision then find a reference to back that up - no original research. However it still might be interesting, but it's not important. And it is nonsense - the majority of roads within Heathrow Airport's perimeter road do not start with the letter "C". Thanks/wangi 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

its not even within the perimter road, its just the central area. So most roads in the small centrl area begin with c. We aint talking hundreds of roads. Aand terminal 5 is bounded by wessex road. Its nonsense. Thundernlightning 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and not important but just for the record all the roads to the south of the airport start with S, to the East start with E and to the north with N - MilborneOne 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox?

Should the name in the infobox be changed from Heathrow Airport, to London Heathrow Airport? And perhaps the BAA Heathrow symbol added underneth? Similar to what apears on the SFO page?

Map

There are a lot of nice photos in the article, but IMO it would be useful and interesting to have a) a simple schematic of the airport, and b) a map that shows where Heathrow is in Greater London (similar to the maps used to show the locations of London neighbourhoods such as Hounslow. I actually came here from the Hounslow article hoping to see where Heathrow is in relation to the map shown there, and was disappointed not to see any graphics showing its location. Anchoress 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the coordinates link in the infobox and you will get links to all kinds of maps. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but that's not what I meant. I think there should be a nice simple map of Greater London, as per other neighbourhood maps, showing Heathrow. Anchoress 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there is Image:LondonNumbered.png, it's in #33. Or if you look at Hayes, Hillingdon there is a map there that has a red dot that would be closer to the airport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a locational map, so I've added a standard London place map with a label and caption. DJR (T) 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tha looks a lot better. Airport Manager 02:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Forgot which browser I was in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OOh, that's awesome! Anchoress 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Airlines at Heathrow

I added a page of all the airlines that fly into heathrow. I feel that this is a great addition to the heathrow article, but should be kept, where first placed, on the Airlines at heathrow page, due to length. Do you agree that it is relavant and should stay an article? Greenboxed 01:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The page name should be moved to List of airlines using London Heathrow Airport to identify the fact that is a list, not an article. But I agree that listing the airlines on the main Heathrow page is not very encyclopaedic so a page along these lines would be a good solution. DJR (T) 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page as suggested above - see Talk:List of airlines using London Heathrow Airport for details. DJR (T) 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

World worst airport

I have removed the paragraph on Heathrow being voted the world's worst airport. I originally tried to balance the statement by adding that it only represents 2% of the travellers that use the airport in one day. As somebody has removed my balancing statement I have removed the whole paragraph on the grounds that a very small survey of visitors to a website (not visitors to Heathrow) have completed an on-line opinion poll. Not Notable or significant.MilborneOne 13:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try reading this article before you make any unjustified edits - Opinion poll. The first sentence says "Opinion polls are surveys of opinion using sampling." The second sentence is even clearer "They are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by asking a small number of people a series of questions and then extrapolating the answers to the larger group." So basically you have no arguments to add the thing about 2% to the paragraph let alone remove it completely. Please refrain from further reverts and I hope that I have explained to you with this why we don`t add the proportional number in poll results, simply because polls are conducted in this way and any sociologist would tell you the same. Thanks for your concern about the article anyway. It is well appreciated. Avala 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on opinion polls - I still think the unjustified is a bit harsh - I was comparing a sample of 4000 visitors to a website with the 183,000 visitors to the airport in only one day. Apart from the fact that the 4000 may not have even been to Heathrow it is a very small sample even taken into account your explanation above. Also taking into account the survey was probably just a publicity stunt for the travel website anyway ! - I have made my point I will not amend the statement again I will leave it to others to make their own minds up. MilborneOne 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that BBC would jeopardize their name with making reports on incredible sources? I do not think so and there is probably more to this. Heathrow is know for being overcrowded therefor lots of lost baggage and similar consequences occur. This is probably of the main reasons for construction of the new terminal and planning the future ones. This is of course only my guessing but what we do have is a report on poll results conducted by one of the major travel websites. I would trust them as in polls there is usually a <2% of false votes and they cannot change the final results in a drastic manner. Also they have revealed that the best airline is British Airways and the best airport is Singapore Changi. If you skim through similar poll results and various websites which deal with the same subject you will notice that the results are almost the same in most of the cases. Avala 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The survey should at least be moved from the opening paragraph where it enjoys undue prominence. There are surely poll results for a huge number of topics on Wikipedia, from airports to zoos, and these should not clutter introductory texts but be filed further down under a Trivia heading. Note that Heathrow has also won Best Airport awards, which just shows what a waste of space these things are. ThwartedEfforts 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay, and, if there are polls which say that Heathrow is the worlds best airport, add that to the paragraph, but this is an encyclopedia and not a piece of biased marketing for Heathrow. Being voted worlds worst airport is quite important, as is being voted worlds best. Flymeoutofhere 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not material for the lead, and the survey sample was all from one website - hardly a wide sample. /00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole point about removing this particular information from the lead is that it introduces or reinforces prejudices about the subject matter. Referring to subjective, unscientific, unverified surveys is not the mark of a good encyclopedia. We just need is a Trivia or Awards heading, because Heathrow must surely have dozens of these, both good and bad. ThwartedEfforts 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - So then theoretically airports which have been voted airport of the year etc shouldn't have this in their lead paragraph because it is "Referring to subjective, unscientific, unverified surveys" and introduces or reinforces prejudices. Perhaps we should produce a guidline in WP:Airports which says that each airport article should have an Awards heading which would clear this up in the future. Please let me know your opinion. Flymeoutofhere 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an Awards heading would be ideal for this and other trophies. ThwartedEfforts 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And to prove my point, Heathrow voted top family-friendly airport ThwartedEfforts 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll just add my two cents: I just got back from a tans-Atlantic cruise and had the unfortunate experience of coming back via Heathrow. The experience of getting through Security was not simply bad, it was simply no way to treat human beings. Had my wife not been with me, I was half tempted to jump out of the zigzagging cattle-herding queue accumulator, offer my wrists for handcuffing, and declare “I can't take it anymore; do with me what you will.” I vowed never to come back. What was interesting was the number of people I met at other airports, like Munich, where other people said they had been through Heathrow once and, like me, vowed never to go back again — and hadn't. When I added that Heathrow wasn't just a piss-poor way to run an airport but is no way to treat other human beings, they nodded in a half thoughtfully / half knowing manner and would say, “Yeahhhh.” There was this little bit of levity at Heathrow’s security: they have a sign over x-ray machines saying that their security employees had rights too and verbal abuse was illegal. At the time, another passenger and I both found that quit humorous. They also have a sign saying photographing anything at that zoo is illegal. I'm pretty well traveled and no other airport comes close to Heathrow for being dysfunctional. The trouble is, the problem stems entirely from having too few x-ray machines and magnetometers; a straightforward fix. Legitimate information like this should be made available somehow. Stop your arguing about "unscientific" data and other burden-of-proof issues. Common sense is common sense. Once you get onto a British Airways flight, the flight crews announce that they acknowledge how bad it is but it’s not their responsibility. When was the last time you heard that after boarding your non-British Airways flight? There's got to be some travel magazine that declares that Heathrow sucks so a statement as much can be added to this article and cited. And speaking of citations, what the hell is with all the “citation needed” tags on this article? Is that some sort of vandalism or is there some sort of article squatter who's gone crazy and everyone else is putting up with his or her crap? Greg L (my talk) 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's also this and that. Heathrow ain't that great, in fact, it's comparatively awful. Parthepan 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthepan (talk • contribs)

Re-organised terminal formats

Is it possible to expand - name the airlines in the terminals as well as the alliances, and where the carriers are unaligned, place them in the correct terminal.Flymeoutofhere 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that that is a really good idea... it would really add to the article, becuase not everybody knows what airlines are involved in alliances. Greenboxed 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Done...I've done it as the article explained before...but I can't see how all those airlines will fit into T4. Maybe there are some exceptions?Flymeoutofhere 12:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When was it decided that Virgin was moving into T4 and not staying at T3 following the re-shuffle? I'm really not convinced all those airlines are going to end up in T4! klnilsson2

I agree, I never knew that Virgin was staying in T3. There is no way, however, that all those airlines will fit even without Virgin. Anybody know anything I don't? Flymeoutofhere 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Terminal???? I have just booked a flight with Delta, via the BAA Heathrow website it it states that the Delta flight to New York will depart from and arrive at Terminal 3, not Terminal 4. So I have changed it. Please feel free to correct it if I'm completely wrong and mis-read it. Ba.v.vs 22:56, 3 Janurary 2008 (GMT)

Corrections

There are a couple of things which I think are wrong in this article, but I thought I'd run it past you first.

First, the article states that originally the airport had 6 runways in a star formation. I was under the impression that this was the original masterplan, but that it didn't have all 6 to start with.

Are the wikipedia editors (you) sure that there are only 2 runways? I thought there was a third runway, a shorter southwest-northeast runway that is situated next to Terminal 2. I was on an Air France/TAT Fokker 28 flight to Lille in 1987 which used that runway.

Secondly, Qantas will be using Terminal 5 as well as BA when it opens - but not the whole of oneworld. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.100.171 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Re the third runway, yes there was one (and until fairly recently, too), but it's no longer registered or certified as a runway (it now makes up a large part of taxiway A) and it has a Concorde parked on the end. Even when it was a runway, it could only be used for lighter aircraft; not the heavy airliners that are stock in trade for Heathrow. --Scott Wilson 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cite of the official CAA textual data for the two runways thing, although it requires free registration. --Scott Wilson 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Destinations Section

Did someone remove because it isn't showing up any more Flymeoutofhere 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible external link

I don't see this discussed anywhere else. I found that the Internet Archive is hosting a 1949 video about the building of Heathrow. It seemd to me to be fairly interesting and provides information not in the article. I think the link would be useful but wanted to get other opinions. The direct link is www.archive.org/details/london_airport_TNA CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Split T5

Given the fact that the article is over recommended size and that the T5 section is both large and significant, I think it should be split to its own article as per WP:summary style. Mark83 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

well, if we split ths, we might as well split them all to say Terminals of London Heathrow Airport. Simply south 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about trimming the section to remove the useless information? There are plenty of airports with ongoing expansion projects. I don't think a new terminal at an airport (even a major one such as LHR) needs its own article. DB (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about lengthening the section and adding useful information. Or even better, creating a new article. 167.219.88.140 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Busiest Airport claims

The text in the article currently says: "However, Heathrow has the highest number of international passengers, making it the world's busiest international airport"

This statement is self-contradictory and also not correct. Hatfield and O'Hare are both international airports, so Heathrow is not the "world's busiest international airport". "international" in this statement is clearly an adjective, as it relates to "airport". To make this statement true, the adjective would have to be turned into an adverb, qualifying "busiest" and not "airport", i.e. "the world's internationally busiest airport". However, that makes the statement ambiguous and somewhat contorted.

The text in the article should also make a mention that BAA claims Heathrow to be the "world's busiest international airport", but that that is strictly speaking not correct.

If there are no objections, I would go ahead and revise this section of the article to state that BAA claims Heathrow to be the "world's busiest international airport", but that it is in fact the third busiest airport, and then go on to state that it has the most international passengers. Rschu 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

London Heathrow

Why is the article called London Heathrow? I have never heard it referred to by that name, so can anyone give any reason why the London part of its name should not be removed? Liamoliver 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We should not change the name of the article, it is called London Heathrow Airport because that is the name of the airport. Heathrow is just a colloquialism. Lots of people, particularly outside of the United Kingdom use the term London Heathrow or LHR. There is more than one London Airport in the world hence the terms London Heathrow or London Gatwick. In Wikipedia Heathrow Airport redirects here so it is not a problem to users. MilborneOne 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

...in popular culture

Is this section entirely necessary? The article is generally factual, well sourced and encyclopedic in its tone... and then it suddenly throws up this collection of random trivia. What's the consensus about taking this out? EyeSerene^TALK 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I have to agree with you on this, I don't think this section is really relevant to the article. The airport is barely recognizable in the media described so I don't see why we should give it more attention than is needed. NcSchu 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this should be removed, it is not complete and most of the references are just minor appearances/references. Although you should be aware that once your remove popular culture items somebody will probably add something back in within a few hours. MilborneOne 20:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true... and sometimes a 'popular culture' section can add to an article, but as NcSchu says, it's not really relevant here. If no-one objects over the weekend I'll go ahead with the removal - unless someone else does it first ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, no further comments after 3 days, so I've taken that as consensus and gone ahead with the removal. Cheers, EyeSerene^TALK 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: There is a very-well-known document that has been circulating the internet for at least 5 years, which details the alleged activites at heathrow airport by a couple of guys playing a prank with airport tannoy announcements. The document contains 6 sound clips, 5 of which are allegedly recorded at heathrow and one at gatwick. This sort of thing would traditionally reside in a "in popular culture" section but I wonder if there is a better place for it. As far as comedic value is concered, the document is an absolute classic and in no way trivial. To see the document, do a google search on "my colleague just farted". Comments welcome Migglezimblatt 12:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you said in now way trivial is a clue that this is trivia and and has no part in an encyclopedia. MilborneOne 12:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Triviality is a subjective term. One man's trivia is another man's interest. (For example I consider Heathrow's Public Use Aerodrome Licence Number (P527) to be very trivial, but nevertheless it appears). If it is a *fact* (admittedly I'm not sure of it but let's say for now that it is) then surely an encyclopedia is the right place for it. If you were told that someone had an encyclopedic knowledge about something, you would expect that person to know *everything* about the subject, regardless of whether those facts are interesting. In this example I think that it would be interesting to know that Heathrow was the location chosen for a well-circulated prank that has stood the test of time. Go and have a look at the item in question and then tell me seriously it was of no interest to you. Migglezimblatt 14:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you disasagree then we will have to agree to disagree. A prank video has nothing to do with an encylopedic entry for the airport, it is not notable and is not relevant. Interestingly you quote that the aerodrome licence is trivial. The airport could not operate with this licence - far more important than a video. There have been popular culture items that have been deleted or not allowed in this article in the past on far less shaky grounds, I suspect that you would not gain a concensus for its addition.MilborneOne 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LHR-JFK on CX

People have been adding JFK as a destination on Cathay Pacific from Heathrow. I went to their website and found no flights nonstop or direct. I was wondering where are they getting this? Is this vandalism? Bucs2004 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, and LHR isn't a stop for HKG-JFK either, that stop is in Canada. There are simply no CX flights from LHR to JFK. The only thing I can think of is that the airline has announced it will begin flights once open skies go in effect, but I have no proof of this. NcSchu 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The confusion might come from the fact that CX has the rights to JFK-LHR, but as far as I know have no plans to use them.129.173.223.83 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Plane Accident.

Apparently two planes collided.[1]-Ew533 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Heathrow Airport Plane Collision -Ew533 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly notable and not that uncommon event - I would be surpised if it needs an article. MilborneOne 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Major incident BA038 Boeing 777 - Heathrow Airport

BBC One news pictures - it has landed short of the runway, ending up on the stripes at the start of the runway. Undercarriage has not surprisingly failed, port (left) wing detached, fuselage intact. 3 minor injuries only. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful, accurate and timely information from BAA - "Thu 17 January 2008 13:00 BA038 BEIJING LANDED 1242 Terminal four" <g> ! -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

19 Minor injuries reported 86.146.211.166 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)