![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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:
Any other candidates? Colonel Warden ( talk) 15:46, 2 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)
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 apolologise if all this verbiage obscures what I am trying to achieve here. EatYerGreens ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Apparently two planes collided. [3]- Ew533 22:43, 15 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 t c 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I added these details to the article
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:
Apologies for my paraphrasing of the original, not sure any of them are notable. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:15, 16 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 :)
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)
What is the source for the claim that BMI flights from Heathrow will serve Kyiv Boryspil? 9 talk) 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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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 wroting text in Taxi section, but User:Jasepl is delete it. Can you help rewrote my poor English:
Dear colleagues, I've just nominated this article as an example of poor image management, here. Tony (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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:
Any other candidates? Colonel Warden ( talk) 15:46, 2 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)
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 apolologise if all this verbiage obscures what I am trying to achieve here. EatYerGreens ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Apparently two planes collided. [3]- Ew533 22:43, 15 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 t c 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I added these details to the article
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:
Apologies for my paraphrasing of the original, not sure any of them are notable. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:15, 16 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 :)
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)
What is the source for the claim that BMI flights from Heathrow will serve Kyiv Boryspil? 9 talk) 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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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 wroting text in Taxi section, but User:Jasepl is delete it. Can you help rewrote my poor English:
Dear colleagues, I've just nominated this article as an example of poor image management, here. Tony (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |