Srilankan will move to T3 from 30-Oct

[flying.monkeyz]

T2 has 35 gates vs T3's 28. But T2 doesn't have enough A380 capable gates.

And if you minus the gates only for narrow-bodies that's even lesser gates for SQ.

[ek&sq]

What about T2?

T2 has 35 gates vs T3's 28. But T2 doesn't have enough A380 capable gates.

[flying.monkeyz]

The problem goes back to design.

Heathrow T5 was designed and built for the job in hand. If T3 doesn't have enough gates, then it's a design and planning problem from day 1.

Let's hope they get their acts together with T4.

[scooby5]

The problem goes back to design.

Heathrow T5 was designed and built for the job in hand. If T3 doesn't have enough gates, then it's a design and planning problem from day 1.

[cscs1956]

The fundamental problem with T3 is it doesn't have enough gates to handle all of SQ's flights at peak times. Passenger capacity wise, its capable. Now if SQ used remote gates..

What about T2?

[j.lin]

That's right, but the discussion between SQ and CAAS would have taken place long before the opening. The discussions turned sour, so CAAS invited the rest to go to T3. Anyway I'm glad I'm no longer dealing with both parties.

As usual, bureaucratic...

[flying.monkeyz]

IIRC UA, QR and MU were among the five initial airlines to move to T3 in March 2008 following SQ's move in Jan 2008.

That's right, but the discussion between SQ and CAAS would have taken place long before the opening. The discussions turned sour, so CAAS invited the rest to go to T3. Anyway I'm glad I'm no longer dealing with both parties.

[wsssaero]

Now there's GA, VN, UA, QR, IT, MU... It doesn't command its exclusivity anymore...

IIRC UA, QR and MU were among the five initial airlines to move to T3 in March 2008 following SQ's move in Jan 2008.

[flying.monkeyz]

So when CAAS finally build T4, you think it's gonna be for SQ or LCC?

[scooby5]

BA still operates several sectors from LHR T3, including (some?) flights to SIN.

I think that is true but is born out of problems getting in partners Qantas and Iberia. Maybe BA felt it was better to move/keep their flights at T3 instead of having Iberia and Qantas shift their entire operations to T5 as well?

The plan WAS at any state to have all the BA flights go through T5 so the terminal was made big enough to do that. Maybe a few operational hickups came in during the way with Bangkok, Singapore, Sydney, and Spain but the rest is working to plan.

Initially the domestic sectors remained at T1 but even those have moved over.

[milehighj]

T5 at Heathrow clearly shows that a consolidation would be beneficial, reducing the need to switch terminals during a connection, or simply to pick up your car.

BA still operates several sectors from LHR T3, including (some?) flights to SIN.

[ek&sq]

The fundamental problem with T3 is it doesn't have enough gates to handle all of SQ's flights at peak times. Passenger capacity wise, its capable. Now if SQ used remote gates..

[j.lin]

Agree. You need to be good at predicting which terminal that SQ will be landing.

[scooby5]

Relating to something we discussed before, this is what makes a farce of SQ not shipping their entire operation into T3, when all these other airlines are now also getting a bigger and bigger slice of the operation.

I still believe SQ should have taken the whole thing, and if it wasn't big enough.....design and build it big enough from the beginning. T5 at Heathrow clearly shows that a consolidation would be beneficial, reducing the need to switch terminals during a connection, or simply to pick up your car.

[flying.monkeyz]

Was that ever the plan?

I think that was the plan during the planning stage. SQ and CAAS couldn't see eye to eye on some of the issues. That's why we see what it is now. E.g. Row 1 was suppose to be SQ JCL check-in and share the PCL Immigration which leads straight to SKL. But both can't agree on their terms, so it became a white elephant for a while (and some Segway track?!?!?!) and now occupied by GA.