Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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?

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)

What happened to the maps/diagrams showing the arrangement of the terminal buildings both currently and in the future. They were very helpful but have been removed. (Antriver (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)0

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)

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)

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)

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)

Heathrow opened with a triangle of three runways-- dunno when they completed the six-runway layout (which included four new runways and two of the originals) but probably after 1950? Tim Zukas (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (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)

On the 'six runways' thing, yes, they were all built (arguably, there were 12 runways as they were all bi-directional!) but some were rarely used so two were closed when T3 was built and another when T2 was extended (iirc). --AlisonW (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is usually taken for granted that runways are bi-directional in nature and that the word runway signifies a single, rectagular strip of tarmac (or whatever material). There are, however, numerous airports where the lack of a parallel taxiway (due to the expense of 2+ miles of additional surfacing) would force landed planes to do a u-turn and 'back-taxi' to reach the exit. In some cases, runway U-turns are even prohibited by the airport authorities because the tyres tear up the surface during the turn but, more importantly, the runway stays occupied for several minutes at a time which conflicts with the need to achieve 'n' landings per hour so, provided alternative runways exist, they simply stop using it when the wind direction does not favour its use. To all intents and purposes, it becomes a 'one-way' runway. EatYerGreens (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

In light of the security issues, "teething problems", and extensive recent coverage regarding terminal 5, I support splitting it to its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf87 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I didnt realise this had been a previous discussion topic. There is more than enough information on this vast building to support its own article. There is information in the main Heathrow article which would have to otherwise be removed at some stage. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me just clarify my position here. If its going to remain as part of the main article, it needs to be cut down in size dramatically and soon. If it is shorter, then it doesnt need splitting but the fact is that the information in it needs to go somewhere/nowhere and it cant all stay where it is. I dont think it should have its own article unless people see it as an important enough structure to merit it. Just because other airport terminals dont doesnt mean it shouldn't - it would probably be an architecture article rather than an airport one. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no necessity whatsoever to split in order to expand our coverage of T5, we could add lots more material without a split. An architectural article on the building itself is a different issue and could be done while retaining the non-architectural, ie airport, material here, such as that it is exclusively for BA, that the opening days were a disaster etc but if someone wants tow rite an architectural article on the building they can just do it and it should not affect this article which says almost nothing about the architectural achievements of the building design and construction. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK but this is a B class article. If its going to have sections unbalanced in this way perhaps it should be graded as start. If there is more info in the T5 section than the other 4 combined (considering they are of similar importance at least at their times) there is a real problem. A seperate article could be made, or there needs to be balancing out of what is there and removal of some unneccessary info. Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure this is a sensible way to go in that we could eventually end up with separate articles on each terminal (Heathrow West (T5), Heathrow East, Heathrow North (if it gets built along with the third runway), etc) Do we currently have individual articles on each terminal for any other airport? --AlisonW (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only substantial separate articles that exist for airport terminals are famous ones for other reasons (ie. architectural), like TWA Flight Center. We might just want to go for Simply south's idea. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that, though this isn't a deletion discussion, WP:OTHERSTUFF would be relevant here, i.e. the fact that there aren't other similar articles is not a good reason to say that this one shouldn't be created. _TalkIslander 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - If you go to Frankfurt Airport's page, there is no separate page for Terminal 1, or Los Angeles International, the Tom Bradley International Terminal is on the main page. I agree that architectural reasons would make sense for an individual article, but this terminal is not another airport, it is a part of a whole. Otherwise you may as well create a new article for Shanghai's new terminal, etc. Neo16287 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - T5 is just another (big) terminal - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree as I am no fan of splitting articles unless absolutely necessary, its disastrous start is temporarily notable but T5 as a whole isn't, we'd end up with another 4 for T1, T2 T3 and T4. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't really care either way. But I think a lot of the information that's there is due to "current-event-wiki-blitz". As time goes on a lot of it will fall out of play and lack relevance. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I disagree with the above two comments. T5 is not just another (big) terminal. It's the most significant structure in modern UK history, claiming the title of the largest free standing structure in the UK. Wikipedia needs to remain flexible as well as being encyclopedic, so must adapt as history changes. If Frankfurt was to build one twice the size with some new amazing technology, then I'm sure there would be equal interest. The split will serve to allow users to find information on T5 quickly, rather than trawling through the large article. There are much shorter articles on here! (eg Check-in). I don't know about splitting the article for the other terminals so much, but it sounds quite a good idea. δ² 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's the most significant structure in modern UK history" is your opinion. More than the channel tunnel? Well I don't think so. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's what has been reported in the media by professionals other than myself. I find out most of my information from the media to verify, and I think I better cite Channel 5's "Big, Bigger, Biggest" as my source (Ep. 1,new season, Mon 24th March 2008). Anyway, I agree the channel tunnel is significant, but that wasn't my point. thanks δ²_(Talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a source we can verify that says that, but even so it is a part of Heathrow and if true that is certainly not a reason to separate T5 from the main article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, and point taken, but still I think given the current climate it is worth watching. Should more information become relevant, would it be acceptable to split the article then? δ²_(Talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with NcSchu and SqueakBox now, and therefore withdraw my support for splitting the article. Thanks δ²_(Talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly keep watching this issue and come back to it on a later date, and when it isn't dominating the news in the unfortunately negative way we have seen in the last few days. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Split This article is too big at 80K and one could write a book about Terminal 5 now. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is, to continue your analogy, would anyone buy the book later in time? I personally don't think so. As I said I think a lot of the information is fluff related to the current event status of the terminal. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• We can be fairly sure that, yes, people will be buying such books. For example, here's one that's released this week. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have split the Terminal 5 section into a new article called "Terminal 5, Heathrow", with seperate sections for the events and destinations for the aircraft. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03md (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So did you just ignore this entire discussion? I don't see any decision to split the section, or as you have done, completely remove the information from the page. The article isn't even named correctly. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the split as there is clearly a consensus at the moment for it to remain part of this single article. And, as noted above, the title was completely invalid anyway. --AlisonW (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a rationale for your statement that "there is clearly a consensus at the moment for it to remain"? I'm a little unclear on the definition of "consensus" that leads to reverting a change only hours after it is made, when - up to that point - there were at least 4 entries in support of the split. I'm a little late to this discussion, and I'm not saying I think the split should have occurred when it did (seeing this discussion, it probably shouldn't have), but I'm not sure the revert is appropriate either. Isaacsf (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The split has already happened and will recur. The only question is the title. It ought to be Heathrow Terminal 5, to be consistent with Heathrow Terminal 5 station. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's jumping a bit forward, I think. Plenty of people seem to dislike the idea of splitting it, we can't just stop the discussion because one lone user decided to ignore this discussion and split it. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. At 80KiB for the article, I am in favor of splitting it out, and not because I have spent some effort on the new article. It's big enough to be its own article. Having said that, I didn't realize it was a split in the first place when I saw it and started working on it; I'd certainly have wanted to come back here and see what was up had I known. I'm not a fan of "it's already done, so leave it" ... but I do think it deserves a separate article. I also don't think that because it would be the first terminal split into a separate article does not mean it shouldn't be done...nor does it mean each of the others would need a separate article.

On another note, more than one reference to "incorrect name" has been made. Can you provide a cite for this? I'm clueless but interested. Isaacsf (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the name, so far as I know. Commas are accepted as qualifiers in article names such as Springfield, Ohio. See WP:TITLE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have moved the "split" article to London Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 which is a much more standardised name for it. However I still think it's far too early to make such a split and the case is far from fully discussed here. I'd say leave that article as a redirect until the matter is resolved here. Thanks/wangi (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That name certainly fails our standards since it is not popular. Google Hits:

• 376000 for Heathrow Terminal 5
• 20400 for Terminal 5, Heathrow
• 962 for London Heathrow Airport Terminal 5

Any other candidates? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about popularity, but London Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 just seems like the official name, and I think, that if we must split it (which I'm still against doing), that should be the name. "Terminal 5, Heathrow" is just awkward. Terminal 5 isn't a town or a city so I don't see why the title should be formatted as such. I should point out, that upon examining the search results, I would not at all call those accurate representations of the their popularity. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't use official names for articles - we use popular names which will be best for our readership. That's why the article for this country is United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name London Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 is too cumbersome and won't do. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true. I personally prefer Heathrow Terminal 5. And judging by the results, it has both the largest amount of hits and the highest percentage of search-result accuracy within those hits. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea, but rather than debating what a split article should be called, howabout discuss why it should be split? /wangi (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been done and WP:SIZE is one good reason why. Another is that Terminal 5 has huge notability in its own right due to the protracted planning process, the troublesome launch and its impact on aviation and UK economics. When I skimmed the sources earlier, I saw it said that, considered as a distinct airport, Terminal 5 would be the third largest in Europe. We already have separate articles for the different Underground stations at Heathrow and there's no reason we can't have more sub-articles as the material accumulates. Paper-based sources have hundreds of pages about Terminal 5 alone and Wikipedia is not paper. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, at this point, it seems more logical to discuss reasons why not to split T5 to a separate article. The "split" crowd has provided several good, logical reasons. The "keep" crowd largely seems to just not feel like splitting. Isaacsf (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually both sides have put forward good reasons. As to reasons not to split it, they seem to be primarily a lack of notability, especially in the long term after the initial troubles die down and it just becomes another airport terminal at another airport. That is my main concern. I'll admit now it might warrant an article, but I feel like after several months T5 will become just as notable as T1-T4. There's a lot of fluff in the section as it stands now. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The wrong time to split is when the subject is in the news for what are likely to be temporary reasons. If it still seems sensible to split in a few months time, we should do it then.--JCG33 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the original request came a year ago, this doesn't seem to really apply, even if it's true that the recent news apparently revived interest. I think the best reason is to get the size of this article down. It seems to me the revived interest is the perfect reason why it should have been split previously...so when people DO come looking for exactly that topic...the article exists and doesn't require looking through a much longer article to find it. If readers care about the terminal, they can check the sub-article. If not, they can skip to the next section. I personally don't like long articles that go into excruciating detail. I still support the split (in case anyone can't tell). Isaacsf (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be overly analytical on this, but if you don't like long articles that go into excruciating detail, then wouldn't you not want a separate article that's purpose would be to in fact go into that excruciating detail? NcSchu_(Talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an airport article. Therefore, the main content of the T5 section needs to be about it as an airport terminal rather than a history of its construction (of course a sentence is fine), which is what it is made up of at the moment. This stuff needs to be removed, therefore because it is not relevent to Heathrow Airport - it is more of an architecture section as it stands and a history of the planning process etc. It needs to describe what is there. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the point is to shorten up this article by moving the excruciating details elsewhere. That's what a wiki is all about - linking information together in a flat hierarchy so that you can click on what you want to see more detail about, and ignore links to things you do not want to see more info about. So moving the history, financing, public debate, and yes - news - about T5 to a separate article allows it to get one paragraph in the Heathrow article, which is about what it deserves in an article about the whole airport. Isaacsf (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see it said that Terminal 5's notability is just temporary. This point fails because it is generally recognised here that notability does not expire. Moreover, Terminal 5 has been notable for a long period and for multiple reasons, so the not the news objection also fails. When people are writing huge books of hundreds of pages upon a topic and it is regularly appearing in many major news media, we are long past the point of arguing about notability. My gut feel is that this is just Wikilawyering in support of a deeper reason - a desire for uniformity. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the saying has it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not matter that much, but I've personally not seen very much coverage of the T5 debacle in the American press. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a more suitable split would be on the topic of the past and continuing development of Heathrow — Development of London Heathrow Airport. Naturally this would include all the Terminal 5 issues along with future "Heathrow East" proposals and runway developments. I think it is very important that all the operational aspects of the airport are maintained in a single article (this one) - for example destination lists etc. Thanks/wangi (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea for an article although it shouldnt include T5 because now that it is almost completed, it is like T1-4. An article with this name would include Heathrow East and Runway expansions but not T5 therefore. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There is still plenty of encyclopaedic content about T5. Just because it is now largely operational it doesn't mean that information is now redundant - it's still historically worthwhile. It'd probably make sense for a split article to include all Heathrow development - historic & future. Thanks/wangi (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like to mention that for example both Terminal 4 and the Queens Building were notable in the past and had press and media attention when they were built. We just have more on Terminal 5 because it is current and sources are available. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - basically what you are suggesting therefore is an in depth history and future article? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially yes; I think this would be a much more advantageous split compared to one purely devoted to Terminal 5. The current relevance of T5 is down to its protracted planning, building and implementation. It would not make sense to split the "working" airport aspects related to T5 (airlines & destination as the first things that jumps to mind - as split in [1]) away from the rest of the airport — they operate as one. However the continued and historical development of Heathrow is clearly an encyclopaedic topic, and one that a lot of T5 content makes a lot of sense in. Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. What I envisage from that is to have an article basicaly chronologically running through the development of the airport with sections such as perhaps Early Establishment then Queens Building, etc. Let's get on and build it! Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm pretty sure you meant to say (Atlanta) Hartsfield there, not Hatfield. So, why do we even need to qualify the phrase here or mention Hartsfield and O'Hare at all, in an article about Heathrow? If brevity is what is required, it should suffice to put the word claims in italic text (to denote that this is all it is) and leave it up to the reader to research the meaning of the phrase 'busiest International Airport' (as opposed to the more absolute term 'busiest airport'). Otherwise we invite interminable disputes between 'supporters' of each airport about which is biggest and best (is there a WP tag for p**sing contest, btw?). If O'Hare (for instance) has the numerically highest passenger through-put then I would not dispute that fact. If it has scheduled flights to international destinations, then it is indisputably an International Airport as well (no quibbles from me about 'international' being an adjective, it is a two-word phrase with its own specific meaning and even a puny airstrip can style itself as such because it runs a handful of charters per week to another country and has its own customs facilities). However, more perspective is required on those figures: if its passenger throughput was 80% domestic and 20% international (j.f.t.s.o.a.) and Heathrow was 50% domestic, 50% international, then Heathrow has the stronger claim to the international bit. If you redefine 'busiest' in terms of takeoffs and landings per day (or week;month;year) that invites dispute over the sizes of each plane. Another item to look at is numbers of passengers who do not leave the airport to visit the associated city and merely get on a connecting flight. Because of things like that, Heathrow as 'busiest international airport' does not necessarily make London the city with the most tourist visitors in the world. The more you look into it, the less meaningful the term becomes, IMHO.

I apolologise if all this verbiage obscures what I am trying to achieve here. EatYerGreens (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It really does (obscure what you're trying to achieve). First off, the job of Wikipedia is not to half-inform its readers with obscure terms whose meanings they will have to "research." They are on Wikipedia because they are researching in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why we should leave the obscure and ambiguous claim, "Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport," and there are many reasons why we should replace it (I see we already did, fortunately). The foremost of them is that such claim is false. There is no such thing as the right to be called international, or the degree of "internationality" of an airport. If an airport serves flights that go to another country, then it is international. Both ATL and ORD are, by definition, international, and also busier than Heathrow. Ergo, the latter is NOT the world's busiest international airport. Percentages don't matter so long as those two facts hold true. That's like saying Barack Obama is not the first African American president just because he is not fully African American.

One more thing, the claim that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the European Union is dubious. It isn't in terms of traffic movements. I'll clarify the statement, because, as I said, Wikipedia's purpose is not inform, not to half-inform.Andres07 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the current paragraph as it stands seems just fine. Rschu (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Things seem to have moved on since May 2009 - the lead paragraph now seems to suggest that Heathrow is the fourth busiest in the world - AND the busist! Perhaps somebody in the know could revisit this to reclarify? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

The article should be called Heathrow Airport because that is the most popular name. That's why its website is called heathrowairport.com. We don't have the city name of New York attached to John F. Kennedy International Airport or LaGuardia Airport. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The three-letter IATA code for Heathrow is LHR (London HeathRow), John F. Kennedy's is JFK, LaGuardia is LGA etc, so there is no standardisation in the standards, let along in the wikipedia article names, but at least in these three examples, there is some logic! Redirects can deal admirably with any anomalies. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Sorry to be trivial here, but Migglezimblatt was expressing a personal opinion of subjective content on here. he was not entering into a debate about the importance of the aerodrome licence, merely it was used to express his point of view. I agree with you MilborneOne about the prank not being as important as the aerodrome licence in the grand scheme of things, but there is no need to take such a high stance or firm tone with Migglezimblatt. By the way, Migglezimblatt was referring to a sound clip, not a video.[2] Just a side note, thats all. Deltasquared (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm..."13 August 2007". NcSchu_(Talk) 00:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Apparently two planes collided.[3]-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)

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)

A PDF of AAIB Special Bulletin S1/2008 (6 pages) can be downloaded from a link on this page. Whilst much of the content might fascinate aviation buffs, the AAIB state they have not reached the stage of reaching conclusions about what was causative to the accident. I was tempted to make a minor edit but decided this would be best left until the final report is published, so that editing only has to be done once. EatYerGreens (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the final cause may be a usefull addition the detail belongs in the related article and the entry on this page could be simplified. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw an informative (for me) programme tonight -

Plane Crazy: The Transatlantic Price War?

Max Flint investigates the likely winners and losers from the end of next month when the lucrative transatlantic air market is deregulated. Competition for landing slots at Heathrow and other crowded airports could lead to low-budget firms being priced out. Part of the Money Programme strand

It would be good to have some details of the economics in the article.

Simon Calder said that the marginal cost of a transatlantic flight was in the low £200s, that since Open Skies, landing slots had increased in price from £10-15m to £20-25m and that Bermuda 2 was extremely anti competitive and anti consumer. He's written a book about it. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that a lot of people have been editing the sections on how the airlines are going to be moved around the terminals post T5. I know it says on the BAA website that the terminals are all going to be arranged according to alliance, but how accurate is this? For example, I have heard Air Canada will be staying at T3 indefinitely, and then to Heathrow East. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this situation. ⒼⓇⒺⒺⓃⒷⓄⓍⒺⒹ (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a source from BAA/Heathrow, so I'm not sure we can just throw out the information as being inaccurate, but hell, we can always just wait a month and see what happens! NcSchu_(Talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How is Aer Lingus flights going to be out of T3? T3 has no infrastructure to handle domestic flights. According to the EI website, they will stay at T1. I think this may need to be changed in the article. ⒼⓇⒺⒺⓃⒷⓄⓍⒺⒹ (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Aer Lingus' routes to and from LHR aren't domestic. RaseaC (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444 has added a navbox Busiest Airports in Europe to the article which I reverted on the grounds it added no value. An IP user (who may or may not be Stevvvv4444) has now added it back in whith the comment what is the harm in keeping it. I have reverted it again as one day later it still does not add any value. The navbox is a list of the 50 Busiest Airport in Europe two years ago. If you really wanted to go to a different airport you can use the category system. Perhaps we should have the 50 busiest airports in the World two years ago - we can not just keep adding nav boxes. Just looking for other opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As it has been added to the other 49 airport articles I have brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am rather concerned that there is a whole section titled "Opposition" but nothing about the wide support that a northern runway and terminal has. Whilst it would be possible to remove the current section temporarily as being POV without the balancing 'support' section it would obviously be preferable for this not to happen ... --AlisonW (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We just need reliable sources for the support for such an expansion. Thanks, SqueakBox

The arguments for expansion have mainly been put forward by the CBI:

http://cbi.org.uk/ndbs/positiondoc.nsf/1f08ec61711f29768025672a0055f7a8/520C60CD6D8408DE80257409005BD135/$file/heathrowresp220208.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1416266/CBI-calls-for-expansion-at-Heathrow-and-Stansted.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by HoratioHufnagel (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now a lot more information on the expansion of Heathrow Airport, and it is growing. That really does warrant a separate article.

• The main Heathrow article is already at 94kb, and is growing rapidly as information is added about the planned expansion. Attention is already drawn on the edit page to the possible (likely) need for splitting the article.
• The expansion of Heathrow (3rd runway, 6th terminal) describes something that has not yet happened and may never happen, whereas the rest of the Heathrow article describes what is and what has been.
• Most of the material on Heathrow is relatively uncontroversial; the planned expansion of Heathrow is highly controversial.

So I have been bold and started it, splitting off from the current article, at Expansion of London Heathrow Airport.Mitchelltd (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As may of you already know, I uploaded two maps with the terminals of London Heathrow. They were removed by Dream out loud (talk), for the reason that I did not adequately state my sources. I don't know what to do as per the coding amounts.

When I upload the diagrams, would someone be kind enough to help me with the actual final sources table? And one more thing - What stuff should I include in the diagram?

Thanks in advance! Amistry.mistry (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use this map to show the airport layout? Ojw (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this section is here. What does it help explain, and how can it be continuously updated if no dates are supplied and no specific information as to the relevance of such flights is included? NcSchu_(Talk) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why only five years and not the full sixty! - I think it can be deleted as non-encyclopedic and not particularly acurate. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, delete section as non-notable/encyclopedic. SempreVolando (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It talk about twice, but there is no map nor text tell me waht is it or where it is? Matthew_hk tc 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I added these details to the article

On 5 November 1997 a Virgin Atlantic Airways Airbus A340-300 G-VSKY made an emergency landing with an undercarriage malfunction. Part of the undercarriage collapsed on landing and both aircraft and runway were damaged

but they were removed as not notable enough. Both aircraft and runway were damaged. As far as I recall there were procedural changes made as a result of the accident (AAIB report available from here) - I can't access the report as it's a PDF doc. Is the accident sufficiently notable for inclusion or not? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction to link [4](PDF) - recommendations where:

• Airbus to think about changing the A340 Landing with Abnormal Landing Gear procedure to consider crosswind and choice on landing runway.
• Authorities consider the requirements used for aircraft cabin door simulators in that they accurately simulate any non-linear characteristics and to require full instruction on door operating characteristics to be expected when operating the doors in an emergency.
• Authorities should amend the aircraft wheel brake certification structural torque test requirments.
• Authorities should amend the requirement of the failure mode analysis of new design wheel brake assemblies.
• Authorities to study the feasability to use a limited duration independent power supplies in cockpit voice recorders.
• Change the requirement for older aircraft (pre April 1998) to have two-hour duration cockpit voice recorders.

Apologies for my paraphrasing of the original, not sure any of them are notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see those recommendations when I initially removed the entry and was discussing it with Mjroots. Some of them are rather significant, so I'm more inclined to agree with inclusion now that I've seen them. Though we might want to mention the most significant ones if we are to include it. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MilborneOne - the link I gave was correct. It linked to where the report could be accessed. I've marked the new link as a PDF as there may be others who can't access PDF docs because they freeze their computers too. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem your original list still comes back as The page cannot be found but it looks like the .cfmAAIB should have a gap in it as .cfm AAIB so with apologies to WP:TALK I have taken the liberty to correct it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! didn't realise I'd done that! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I'd like to re-add the info to the article as follows:- ":On 5 November 1997 a Virgin Atlantic Airways Airbus A340-300 G-VSKY made an emergency landing with an undercarriage malfunction. Part of the undercarriage collapsed on landing and both aircraft and runway were damaged. Recommendations made as a result of the accident included one that aircraft cabin door simulators should more accurately reproduce operating characteristics in an emergency and for cockpit voice recorders to have a two hour duration in aircraft registered before April 1998." (wikilink CVR?) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the info. Had to copy out the url by hand as I daren't click on it. Title needs correcting, and url needs to be checked that it works. Mjroots (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight tweak but it is now working OK. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the link works, just need the correct title now :-) Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Star alliance under one roof in terminal 1? is this statement correct? (see the terminal re-organisation section). I believe singapore airlines does not move out of terminal 3. (at least not anytime soon or in any of that schedule. w_tanoto (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines cannot move to Terminal 1, because Terminal 1 cannot handle the A380 MrMingsz (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "baaft34" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.baa.com/portal/page/Terminal5%5EHeathrow%27s+Transformation%5ETerminal+3+and+4+redevelopment/e5fdbdb5189f1110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/ |title=Redevelopment of Terminals 3 and 4 |publisher=BAA Plc |accessdate=2008-02-21}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/General/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%5EHeathrow+transformation%5ERedevelopment+of+Terminals+3+and+4/e5fdbdb5189f1110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/ |title=Redevelopment of Terminals 3 and 4 |publisher=BAA Plc |accessdate=2008-02-21}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The section Airlines and destinations has a link to Oslo Airport, which is a disambiguation page. I'm assuming that it should point to Oslo Airport, Gardermoen. Anyone want to contest me on this? Mikaey (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't hear any objections...so, change committed. Mikaey (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that BMI flights from Heathrow will serve Kyiv Boryspil? 9talk) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (GMT)

It says on the actual text on the article that Heathrow is third busiest, but for some reason Dublin Airport has appeared to come second - is this really true? Odd; is it not? Just a thought. Amistry.mistry (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean the mention of Dublin Airport as second in the table Busiest International Routes out of London Heathrow Airport, which is nothing to do with being third in the World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ive removed the comment "Heathrow's facilities were originally designed to accommodate either 45 or 55 million passengers annually according to BAA (55 million the figure presented to the T5 Inquiry, 45 million the figure used for the consultation into the third runway)" as this is a very bias comment and does not reflect the true reason as to why the number of passengers that heathrow can "handle". this is because the 55 million passengers was quoted during the construction of t5, which increases capacity at heathrow, whereas the 45 million quoted for the construction of the 3rd runway was bearing in mind the demolition of terminals 1 and 2 as of 2008 and construction of Heathrow East, which simply replaces the terminals and not to provide any extra passenger capacity at the airport and provides the airport with a capacity of around 10 million less than current. The removal, i thought, was necessary as this was a biasness towards the opposition of Heathrows new 3rd runway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm1989 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning current events Is there something going on at Terminal 5 that warrants the news item that the London Evening Standard to issue an apology. Did they cover something, or not cover something that had to do with events at Terminal 5. If so, is it big enough news to include in this article? Trucker11 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added an assertion to the effect that Heathrow is not served by direct rail service to the national network, a fact that I believe users of Heathrow Airport would find useful. Elektrik blue 82 has removed this remark as unsourced. Of course it is unsourced; you're not going to find sources for assertions of the absence of something. BAA is certainly not anxious for people to dwell on this major failing of the airport. Nevertheless, the content is a) true, b) useful, c) stated in neutral terms.

• With respect to my removal of the content, I was just following the letter of the rules here in Wikipedia. WP:V states that the threshold for inclusion in an article is verifiability, not truth, and that editors who add information have the burden of proof of providing the source so that other people can verify whether it is indeed correct or not. And since the information was added without a source, I took the liberty to remove it. Obviously, I am not from the London area therefore I cannot verify this information, so I applied the letter of the rules in Wikipedia in deciding whether to remove the information or not. Elektrik Blue (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having examined Elektrik blue 82's contribution history, it appears that he is one of the notorious coterie of Wikipedia posters who regard certain subjects and their own personal fiefdom, and who take it upon themselves to remove any material of which they do not personally approve. His user page appears to confirm this.

• I also do not appreciate your comment about my editing history. If you look at my edits closely, I again am simply applying WP:V to my edits. Yes, I have a particular interest in aviation and travel, but never do I consider it a personal fiefdom, and I do not remove material simply for the reason that I do not approve of it. I suggest you look into WP:NPA whenever you question an editor's behavior. Elektrik Blue (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am therefore reinstating the entry, and if it is removed again without some better justification than that it is unsourced, a complaint will be made. EWAdams (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will opt to leave the information here for now. If other editors find no problem with that, then by all means. I have a problem with it being added without proper sources, but if removing it suggests to other people that I am a feudal lord and asserting my territory, then I'll leave it as is. Elektrik Blue (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I have removed the information as it is unsourced opinion, and probably not all true as you can access Heathrow from Reading and Woking railway stations (neither of which are in London). All this is already mentioned under Public Transport. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something but should there not be a section on the original plan for the runways?--Mapmark (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added Rio de Janeiro-Galeão as a TAM Airlines destination out of terminal 4. The company does fly thrice a week from LHR to GIG via São Paulo-Guarulhos, and in GIG's article LHR is listed as a destination. Dlrsbrazil, September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlrsbrazil (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Colleagues, please note WP:LINKING, which apart from other things aims to stop link-farms. Can you be on the look-out for badly overlinked airport articles? Common geographical terms (UK, US, Africa, Europe, etc) and words such as "pilot", should not be linked without a very good reason: there are plenty of high-value links in these articles that we do not want to dilute. Tony (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth a mention on the WP:AIRPORT discussion page if this is more than a LHR problem. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Tony (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, many of the images are tiny. There is no reason not to upsize them using the (250)px method. Some could be displayed using the grouping and centring methods. Tony (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the guideline is not to use forced image sizes so I think any image size changes need to be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The MoS has never said not to use forced image sizes; in any case, the guidelines have recently been revamped. Please read them here. Tony (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The understanding in aviation projects is to follow the WP:IMGSIZE in that you should generally use the "thumb" (thumbnail) option available and Where size forcing is appropriate. Which means that we generally use thumbnails and hardly ever use size forcing which enables the user to set his own sizes. I would suggest you bring it up at WP:AVIATION rather than try and change just one article out of thousands. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "the user", you're referring to the few hundred WPian editors who set their thumbnail image size. I am talking about 10 million readers a day. Just confirming we're talking about what I think we're talking about. You might be interested in the recent discussion at WT:MOS that led to a revamp of the guidelines. I have raised the matter there, too. Tony (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You link doesnt go to an image discussion! As I said the aviation project does not generally use forced image sizes and the from my reading the MOS does not disallow that stance. Again not really a discussion for an article page please take to the related project discussion page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if you are upholding such a rule, you ought to be able to defend its rationale ... What is it? Tony (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not the right place you need to take to the aviation project. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the WikiProject Airports: I have done so. Tony (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wroting text in Taxi section, but User:Jasepl is delete it. Can you help rewrote my poor English:

• Now, they got driverless taxi which they can drove 25mph from Terminal V to parking lot without anything driver.^[1] --B767-500 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A new driverless taxi is now available, which can travel at up to 25mph (40kph). This service runs between Terminal 5 and a parking lot without any need for a driver. --Tom dl (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I've just nominated this article as an example of poor image management, here. Tony (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3