Who's in charge of Heathrow?

[Eric Mc]

They are Spanish.

They don't like having to dip into their resrves in case theu p-off their shareholders.

[MX7]

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

[TEKNOPUG]

I have a friend who works at Heathrow on ocassions and he told me that the runways weren't the issue - it was clearing all the snow and ice around where the aircraft are parked during refueling/maintenance and at the gates themselves. Basically H&S having a fit about anyone being out and about working in the snow/ice.

[Fish]

Also you can't use grit or salt at airports as salt corrodes the alloys in aircraft. It has to be manually shifted then the remaining surface de-iced.

[singlecoil]

TEKNOPUG said:

I have a friend who works at Heathrow on ocassions and he told me that the runways weren't the issue - it was clearing all the snow and ice around where the aircraft are parked during refueling/maintenance and at the gates themselves. Basically H&S having a fit about anyone being out and about working in the snow/ice.

Fish said:

Also you can't use grit or salt at airports as salt corrodes the alloys in aircraft. It has to be manually shifted then the remaining surface de-iced.

I don't think the people who have had their travel plans affected by the closures, and who want to slag off the management, will really want to hear stuff like that.

[Eric Mc]

MX7 said:

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

Exactly. Thw two concepts do not mix together very well at times.

[JVaughan]

Well thankfully the chaos at Heathrow / Gatwick has stopped me having to travel for the last 2 weeks with work.
So, its "working from home" & getting the christmas shopping finished for me.
Really feel for the people stuck though ...

[Balmoral Green]

singlecoil said:

I reckon the problems at Heathrow have more to do with the weather than whoever is in charge. Heathrow simply isn't designed to operate properly in this kind of weather. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't, and it's too late to do anything much about it now.

This.

We could sort it out, just like we could sort out the roads too. But we'd have to pay for it, an extra 17% on your Council tax would cover it I reckon. Who wants to divvy up?

[stripy7]

Is there actually any financial incentive for Heathrow to invest in sufficient plant/expertise? I doubt their revenue stream has been to adversely affected as opposed to the cost/misery inflected on the [strike] cattle [/strike] customers passing through their tacky shopping arcade passing itself of as a transport hub.

[oyster]

MX7 said:

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

Flying from a privately owned airport on a privately owned airline is hardly public service. It is not a right to be in Barbados for Christmas is it.

[F i F]

315 million profit last year for LHR
0.5 million spent on snow clearance.

4 inches, 4 sodding inches, and the place is shut down for two days completely, and then operating on one third capacity until after Christmas, and the LHR PR guy, I forget his name, let's call him Douchie McSnotbucket, claims this is a master recovery plan.

s.

[stripy7]

oyster said:

MX7 said:

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

Flying from a privately owned airport on a privately owned airline is hardly public service. It is not a right to be in Barbados for Christmas is it.

Yeah because its only holidaymakers who use Heathrow, forget about all the business cargo.

[Vipers]

Compensation? some time ago, post 1996 I do know, we were on the evening BA flight to Singapore from Heathrow, due to a technical problem we disembarked at 2330, they said they had tried and couldnt find any accomodation for the passengers, due to it being Wimbledon week, but if any passenger did find some, they would reimburse them in the morning.

I stayed in the terminal, following day at around 0800 I wandered to the check in desk to see what was going on, I was given a very apologetic leter, and as comensation, a round trip to any airport served by BA at the same class I was travelling valid for a year.

And FREE food and drink all day, except the suschi bar, that expensive fish stuff.

To cop it all, when we embarked that evening, I enquired why the lady to me wasn't sitting with her husband as it wasn't the same guy last night, she told me they couldnt get seats together, and he was at the back, I asked the stewardess if I could change, no probs.

On arrival at Singapore, the stewardess came up to me and thanked me being so kind and changing seats, and gave me a FREE bottle of champagne.

Good old days.

[badgers_back]

Have you noticed how the recently sold off Gatwick is dealing with it a whole lot better, more investment etc etc

[F i F]

Did they, Gatwick, deal with it very well about two weeks back? I don't think so, albeit a lot more snow, but then only a single runway operation.

They've put a lot of effort in after that fiasco admittedly.

By the way did I mention that LHR had only 4 inches to clear?

[oyster]

F i F said:

315 million profit last year for LHR
0.5 million spent on snow clearance.

4 inches, 4 sodding inches, and the place is shut down for two days completely, and then operating on one third capacity until after Christmas, and the LHR PR guy, I forget his name, let's call him Douchie McSnotbucket, claims this is a master recovery plan.

s.

It was a lot more than 4 inches of snow at Heathrow.

Incidentally, how much have you spent on snow-related equipment for your home? Have you bought grit, snow shovels, spare food supplies, snow chains, spiked tyres, crampons, ice picks, spare heaters?

If you haven't, then why not? Presumably because you feel that we don't get enough snow to warrant the cost. Why should anyone else act differently?

[MX7]

oyster said:

MX7 said:

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

Flying from a privately owned airport on a privately owned airline is hardly public service. It is not a right to be in Barbados for Christmas is it.

Transport is a public service. You've got the choice of using the Army, or ignoring it and letting the public sit in an airport at Christmas. It's not as if it would cost any extra to get the Army to help, and the Army are public servants who would be helping the public. Not to help, when you can so easily, seems a bit shabby.

[F i F]

oyster said:

F i F said:

315 million profit last year for LHR
0.5 million spent on snow clearance.

4 inches, 4 sodding inches, and the place is shut down for two days completely, and then operating on one third capacity until after Christmas, and the LHR PR guy, I forget his name, let's call him Douchie McSnotbucket, claims this is a master recovery plan.

s.

It was a lot more than 4 inches of snow at Heathrow.

Incidentally, how much have you spent on snow-related equipment for your home? Have you bought grit, snow shovels, spare food supplies, snow chains, spiked tyres, crampons, ice picks, spare heaters?

If you haven't, then why not? Presumably because you feel that we don't get enough snow to warrant the cost. Why should anyone else act differently?

You've not read the numerous winter tyre threads then have you. Be on your way numpty.

fyi I even have a snowblower, don't let the door slap you on the arse on the way out will you.

[TEKNOPUG]

F i F said:

Did they, Gatwick, deal with it very well about two weeks back? I don't think so, albeit a lot more snow, but then only a single runway operation.

They've put a lot of effort in after that fiasco admittedly.

By the way did I mention that LHR had only 4 inches to clear?

Gatwick spent £8m on snow clearing machines which were delivered 2 days before the snow.

Russians don't seem to have much difficulty

[Talksteer]

oyster said:

MX7 said:

Buggles said:

Langweilig said:

I've just heard on News at Ten that the Government offered to send troops in to Heathrow. But in their finite wisdom, the suits at Heathrow declined the offer. In which case the Government should've IMPOSED the troops on Heathrow.

Why should they have? Why should the troops have to go and clear an airport on their Christmas leave?

Is it that urgent that people jet off everywhere? Do the troops get anything back? Have they ever done any favours for us?

They are a money making company who should damn well be left to sort out their own mess.

They may be a private company, but they run a public service.

Flying from a privately owned airport on a privately owned airline is hardly public service. It is not a right to be in Barbados for Christmas is it.

Ok then in a true "market" people would realise Heathrow is a st hole and some competitor will come along an build an improved airport and everyone will go there.

Oh right they can't...

It may be privately owned but it is also a pseudo monoply "competition" alone will not drive the airport opperator to opperate it in the optimum manner for stakeholders/customers.

Big units of infrastructure like airports cannot opperate in a laise fair environment, they have to be regulated in their construction and opperation by governments. In the case of airports I suspect some regulations in terms of preparedness for extreme weather events should probably apply.