Talk:Heathrow Airport/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation

Most non-British people pronounce Heathrow with the stress on the first syllable. However, I have heard several Britons pronounce the word with the stress on the last syllable. I have even been told by a person who lives in London that that is how they distinguish between foreigners and the natives.

Which pronunciation is more common in Britain?--Oz1cz (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it tends to be either fairly even, or slightly stressed on the second syllable. Lynbarn (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

It's dubious that BAA holds a monopoly position for the London area; LTN/LCY/LGW/SEN all compete. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your are probably right if you consider that BAA have now sold Gatwick and now only hold Heathrow and Stansted, London City is far smaller and mainly european business flights, Luton is still mainly a charter base with a few scheduled flights and Southend apart from not really being anywhere near London has no significant services. So I would agree that rather a monopoly it would be better the describe it as holding a commanding position with the number of movements at Heathrow and Stansted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Format of list of events

  • I have put the list of events back into dated list format, as like that it is easier to find any one event and its date, regardless of "best essay style" learned at school. During this I found events described out of time order, and rounded up stray event descriptions from elsewhere in the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Text-merging with page Great West Aerodrome

  • I have text-merged page Great West Aerodrome into here, as the Great West Aerodrome became the modern airport during and shortly after WWII. I have text-merged in airfield-related matter from Heathrow (hamlet). Page Great West Aerodrome now redirects here, but page Heathrow (hamlet) is still separate. This cleared up a quantity of content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the removal of Great West Aerodrome as a standalone article. The 1930 airfield was notable and viable as the subject of a separate article. It did not become Heathrow Airport - it was among the many farms, hamlets, houses and roads compulsorily seized and demolished before the civil airport was built in 1946. I propose that the Great West Aerodrome article should be restored. PeterWD (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Or it could be said that the start of Heathrow Airport was the Great West Aerodrome greatly enlarged. Apart from grassland, about the only thing demolishable of the Aerodrome was the old Fairey hangar, which survived until 1964. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have restored the Great West Aerodrom article, you cant just copy out text and redirect the article, suggest this needs discussion and consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Airlines/destinations section: People keep changing it!

Is it possible to lock the airlines/destinations section? People keep coming on and adding totally imaginary routes, and sometimes even imaginary airlines! Sometimes this vandalism can be quite severe. I know this is a problem that affects other airport pages too. Locking this frequently edited section would then allow it to be edited by an admin once a reference was provided. Alternatively, could editing the article be blocked to unregistered users? (1ihatehalifax (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Those routes either the airline does not fly to or they require plane changes at hubs. Also, I am seeing someone keep removing Boston and Miami from Delta as they do fly there with their own aircraft. Also, anyone wishing to edit this section must have sources to back it up. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

History section

  • I have tagged the history section as needing a cleanup, it is badly presented and really needs changing into prose, perhaps a seperate History of London Heathrow Airport is called for. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • OK found the problem the recent edits have added unattributed copyright text from another article and messed up the format after the article was copy edited. If the article had been left it would have lost its B-class rating back to C - not something we want to encourage. If you have suggestions to improve the article then please discuss, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The conversion to essay format made the article about 11000 bytes shorter and lost much information. To me, putting it in list format makes it easier to look for one bit of information, or what happened at any one time, without having to wade through a mass of elegant variation and "varying the expression", and fiddly bits of arithmetic when something is e.g. said to be "three years later" to avoid putting another date number in. I stated in comments where I merged text in from, e.g. at my first 09:19, 19 June 2011 edit. As regards copyright, when I merged text in, I merged in with it any contained references. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My experience of a time line being converted into "prose" is that the timeline list is "chopped and baled" into even-sized paragraphs with several events described in each, with dates randomly at the start or middle or end of the text describing the event, or the exact date replaced by "n years later", and events described out of time order. Down the years and even before computers came in I have waded through too much "best essay style" for one bit of information when a list would have been clearer, and the eternal confusing and ambiguity-causing nuisances "elegant variation" and "varying the expression" leaving me each time wondering whether the different word has a different meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are your really saying this is a quality change to the article:

  • 2010: Terminal 5's second satellite building was completed.
  • 12 May 2010: New 3rd runway & 6th terminal cancelled by the Cameron government.
  • Summer 2010: The old Terminal 2 was demolished.
  • October 2010: The second phase of building Terminal 2B started.
  • 20 May 2011:: Terminal 5B opened unofficially.
  • June 2011: Terminal 5C opened.
  • 1 June 2011:: Terminal 5B opened officially.

I would be interested why you think section like this is an improvement, the copyright problem was about attribution and I would expect a Template:Copied to have been used. That said I am happy to help improve the article and have suggested that a History of London Heathrow Airport would be a better vehicle but at the moment it would be really be a list of events rather than an article but I am sure with a bit of work could be a good article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This seems to be leading towards the old dispute "trivial or not?": often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. As an example of attribution, see the edit comment of my first 09:19, 19 June 2011 edit to page London Heathrow Airport. Whether to extract the history timeline into page History of London Heathrow Airport is another matter, and may be useful, if the stub-and-link pointing to it does not expand into major WP:content forking. The word "good" has various meanings: literary effect is not the same as making it easy for a reader to look for what happened at a particular date. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The dated events listed just above were extracted from the sections about each terminal. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that many Wikipedia readers read an article not for an interesting general read like a book, but looking for specific single bits of information and what happened when, and to them a timeline is often the most useful format. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section really needs to be changed back to prose. Since the history section has now started to take over the article, a new article should probably be started, as MilborneOne suggested, with this extra information. Also, Anthony, the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)) clearly encourages prose instead of lists where possible. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I converted the History section to prose yesterday but today it is back as it was in summary-style bullet points. I can't for the life of me see how this happened, but the way it looks now is a mess, and the user who converted it should change it back. The article needs an overhaul and I agree with the separate history article but I wouldn't recommend the user who converted this article should do it. Colourlines (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Busiest international routes" table lists San Francisco twice

The table of busiest routes from/to Heathrow lists San Francisco in 13th place with 1,031,000 passengers and in 26th place with 860,617 passengers. One of those has to be wrong. San Francisco also doesn't have two airports, so that's not it either (there are two other airports near SF, Oakland and San Jose, but those don't have direct service from Heathrow). --Catrope (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Iberia terminal move

Two matters about the terminal move of Iberia: i] The terminal move is supposed to be situated on the 'terminal rearrangements' section, as it is, but on other wikipedia pages it is also situated on the airlines list, should the norm be followed or since Heathrow is one of the few airports with that section should it only be in that section. ii] There has been some debate on whether the Iberia flight to Madrid will remain a codeshare or will actually be a BA Flight operated by Iberia (like the situation with Lufthansa and BMI). The flight numbers (BA5--) suggest that it is now a BA flight operated by Iberia, as many reports suggest that it will be. (e.g. [1]. In that case, it should be that the Iberia flight is shown as ending and a 'British Airways operated by Iberia' row be inserted.

I wouldn't make this edit if someone were to immediately undo it, which is why I've put it on the talk page.

--MJLRGS (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw no reason not to make this change, so went ahead with it. The Business Traveller article is a reliable source and is backed up with BA's press release. As for whether the flights will be "Iberia" or "BA operated by Iberia": I have no idea, but the Iberia flight numbers for the Iberia-operated flights are unchanged, so from that point of view it just seems that they're moving terminal. I also updated the T5 article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Flymarco?

Flymarco? Anyone have any information? Can't even find an airline by that name searching it into Google, let alone Wikipedia!--MJLRGS (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Writing all the destinations with links looks absolutely horrid. Who agreed to this? --Gdandsnahb (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Linking_destinations:_try_to_make_sense_of_all_this. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

BMI

I know it's not easy to keep the airlines and destinations section 100% up-to-date, but I noticed a minor error in the current listing:

- BMI Regional has been completely deleted. This is not so as their ERJ-135/145 aircraft continue to operate from LHR, flying to Aberdeen, Manchester and I believe Edinburgh too. I see them every day from where I work and on ba.com you will notice that there are still flights available for booking on these routes that say "Operated by BMI Regional". This will be the case until the Winter 2012/3 schedule comes into effect on 28/10/2012, as per ba.com as from that date it is no longer possible to book BMI Regional flights through British Airways.

Elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you go to the "BMI Regional" section, you will notice that London-Heathrow got deleted from its list of destinations long ago, which as stated above, is not true.

And finally -- still in the BMI Group -- London-Stansted does not figure as one of bmi baby's former destinations. It formed part of the airline's route network until June, being operated from the airline's Belfast-City hub. I flew the route in April.

Feel free to feed in these corrections/amendments to the relevant sections.

Regards, CaipiroskaCaipiroska (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Delta moving to Terminal 3

There has been no confirmation or news sources stating Delta is moving to Terminal 3 in January 2014. If you look at the Virgin Atlantic-Delta alliance page on the Virgin Atlantic's website (http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/gb/en/travel-information/customer-service/latest-news/strategic-alliance-with-delta-airlines.html) and under the FAQs's "Airports" section where it asks "Where will Delta's operations be based at London-Heathrow - T3 or T4?" The answer states "that both airlines are exploring options to co-locate in the same terminal but a solution hasn't been finalized yet. In the near term, each airline will continue to operate from the same terminal." I removed it from the terminal rearrangement section unless someone can provide a source stating that Delta will relocate to Terminal 3 in January 2014. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone with an over-active imagination, by the look of things. You have to feel sorry for whoever figures out the terminal rearrangements though: every time they have a plan for getting alliance partners in the same terminal, something happens to screw it up (UA/CO merge, BA buys BMI, Malaysia joins oneworld, Virgin/Delta join forces, etc. etc.)..... --RFBailey (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Stats Page

It is Boston and New York-JFK, not Boston-Logan and New York-John F Kennedy. Look at the very own Airlines & Destinations table of this airport. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, these edits were made by a suspected sockpuppet (see View History). WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Up until the late 1960's, London Airport's Cargo area was to the north of the airport, adjacent to the Bath Road (A4).

Davidshrimpton (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs source/ref and should be either London Heathrow or Heathrow Airport. David J Johnson (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
At any rate, the page protection has since expired. Therefore, I'm closing this request as Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Signalizing (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

Main article: London Heathrow Terminal 3

Text about foreign spellings of "Heathrow"

  • I inserted this text:
    Its name has developed adapted forms in some languages, for example Hītrovas (Latvian), हीथ्रो (Hīthrō) (Hindi), Hitrou (Azeri), Хитроу (Russian), 希斯路 (Xīsīlù, literally "hope/rare, given/this, road") (Chinese).
    and twice it has been removed as "unsourced" or "not notable". But its source is each foreign language's Wikipedia article about Heathrow Airport; and the Latvian spelling Hītrovas is notable to any English-speaker who is in Riga Airport trying to get back to Heathrow and he can't find the name on timetables because it is written in the Latvianized form Hītrovas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Every airport has a name in just about every language, so what's the relevance? The examples you gave are all phonetic transcription, so what's the relevance? The Chinese name is a pure phonetic transcription. Do you have a source proving the meanings of the three characters are relevant or purposefully chosen because of their meaning? I've seen 希思路, 希思羅 or 希斯羅. They sound about the same. So why are the characters' meanings relevant? Riga has no flights to Heathrow, only Stansted and Gatwick. Even that, Is Hītrovas ever going to appear alone without the name "London" and causes someone to be lost? My point is these adaptations have no relevance in the English article. Anyone wishing that information can go to the interwiki links. There is no relevance either if one were to say that such and such airport has a tower or a fire station and a parking lot and a taxi stand (almost all airports have them). Only their sizes and special features are notable. HkCaGu (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have seen "Gatwick" without "London" on airport time displays plenty of times. And quickly learned what "Gatwick" looks like in the Arabic alphabet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The map has not got Thailand highlighted, although the list of destinations includes Bangkok. However, it does have Myanmar highlighted, without any airline having scheduled flights there. Think someone got their geography confused. No idea how to change this, so I thought I'd bring it up on here. 80.47.91.168 (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone with an SVG graphics program will have to update the image File:Heathrow_Airport_Destinations.svg on Wikimedia Commons. I've left a note here for the person who created the map: hopefully they will fix it. --RFBailey (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I (creator) fixed it :-)Macadamia1472 (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced entries

I've added a {{morerefs}} template to the ″Airlines and destinations″ section. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT requires sources both for new services and for terminations. There are unsourced entries in the table. Let me remind you all that the persistent removal of maintenance templates is considered vandalism. The article is now in my watchlist.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Landing charge increases capped at inflation minus 3%?

The article currently contains the sentence "The annual increase in landing charge per passenger was capped at inflation minus 3% until 1 April 2003." This seems unlikely to me. Should this be inflation plus 3%? 140.247.25.54 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

CAA stats

Just to let you know, CAA have released their annual statistics for UK airports for 2013. If anyone wants to update the statistics, the link is http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2013Annual St170e (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

British Airways to Punta Cana

The entry for a new service to Punta Cana starting 26 October has been persistently removed in the last days with no prior discussion here. Can someone please set to discuss the matter. There's a reliable third-party source supporting the fact. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not according to the British Airways website. Until such time as they say there's a flight, it should stay out of the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ignore the above, I forgot to tick a box! Flight BA2205 is twice weekly and is from Gatwick Airport, not LHR. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Per official BA's press release (http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/bamediacentre/newsarticles?articleID=20140212144910&articleType=LatestNews#.U0gtONEU-Uk). PUJ will be served from Gatwick. Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mjroots: It seems there's nothing more to discuss. Given the circumstances, don't you think the article can now be unprotected?--Jetstreamer Talk 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to unprotect the article, but there'd better not be any more edit warring or the banhammer will be out to play! Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I simply followed the standard procedure of requesting protection in order to solve the differences. Unprotection will be welcome.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Unprotedted, keeping an eye on the article anyway. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Two sources in contradiction

For the record, here's a case where a third-party reliable source did not reflect the official information. Please compare the two sources below:

  • "Airline Routes - February 18, 2013". Air Transport World. 18 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  • "More Winter Sun From Gatwick With Extra British Airways Flights" (Press release). British Airways. 5 February 2014. Archived from the original on 11 April 2014.

--Jetstreamer Talk 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can sometimes get it wrong. We're all human and anyone can make a mistake. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Passenger numbers

Overview said that it was fifth busiest, but this contradicted the January to April figures in World's busiest airports by passenger traffic where it was fourth busiest. Because the current year figures are subject to change, and this article's overview was not kept up to date, I thought it best to mention the 2011-2013 figures instead.

If going back to using the latest figures, would Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports please assign someone to keep it updated and tagged "(as of Xxx 2014)", where Xxx is the month. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See also my comment at London Heathrow Airport#Traffic and statistics. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

virgin atlantic

Why not put virgin atlantic under ba for "hub for" section in the box. Same with gatwick. I'm new to wikipedia so I didn't know if I should do it.86.163.201.72 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it isn't a hub for Virgin Atlantic, it is an operating base for the airline. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the infobox, a "hub" for an airline refers specifically to the "hub-and-spoke" business model, where passengers travelling from A to B connect at a central "hub" airport. According to the interpretation given by some particularly adamant editors (especially, it seems, ones from the US where the hub-and-spoke model is widespread), Virgin don't operate this model, so therefore it shouldn't be listed in the "hub for" section. However, Heathrow is in practice a de facto hub for Virgin (especially they now have short-haul connecting flights there), and in any event the precise distinction between a hub and an main operating base is a grey area. --RFBailey (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
We need to show it somehow is Air Canada is listed as its focus city. Mark999 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I really think that Virgin Atlantic should be put as a hub and a base.JMG797 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
What LHR definetely is for Virgin is a focus city and I just put it that way in the box. I don't know what Air Canada was supposed to do there, but if Air Canada has a "focus city" here than United or American must have, too. --87.170.126.76 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read the definition of focus city. Virgin Atlantic lists LHR as a "base" (not the same thing as a focus city). Air Canada flies to about 7 destinations from Heathrow that are not hubs. American only flies to 1 non-hub destination (Raleigh/Durham) and United only has flights to its hubs so those 2 cannot be focus cities. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Snoozlepet, with all due respect, what you state about Air Canada is not accurate ! Air Canada serves 8 destinations out of LHR, namely 4 hubs, 3 focus cities and only 1 city which is neither, St. John's. So in this regard, i don't see how LHR qualifies as a focus city to me.Thenoflyzone (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We should put Virgin Atlantic back, they seem to in fact operate a hub here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Col puck (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Country flags on busiest international routes table

What is wrong with using flags in the busiest international routes table? Every other airport article uses them, for example Paris CGD. It's pretty frustrating when you try and add to an article and another editor arbitrarily un-dos your work. Cantab12 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and MOS:FLAGS. The fact that other airports do not agree with the guidelines is not an entitlement for violating them here.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus to at least drop "London". If anyone feels strongly about using simply "Heathrow" as the title they can start a new RM, though judging from the response here I'm not sure it would gain a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


– WP:CONCISE, LHR is the only Heathrow Airport with an article, and "Heathrow Airport" already redirects to London Heathrow Airport. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support "Heathrow", per WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non sense useless and inaccurate sentence: Heathrow lies 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) west

It is said: «Heathrow lies 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) west (of Central London)». This is both stupid and non sense: how can that be encyclopedic? which is the potential interest of such a sentence?

This sentence is:

  • useless to know the time to go by car because inside a city the distance is usually not measured in kilometers but in time {A reason to remove (22 km; 14 mi)};
  • useless for travels in planes as flying over a city is usually forbidden at the very specific exception of planes takeoff from an airport; {A reason to remove «12 nautical miles»}
  • useless to have an idea of number of people exposed to the noise, as people do not leave only in the central point of the city
  • useless from travelling by bus or by metro because people then use time tables.

Additionnaly, as «Central London is the innermost part of London, England. There is no official definition of its area» (Wikipedia), how can we measure the distance to a not defined zone? {A reason to remove «of Central London»}.

Additionnaly, an airport isnot a singlepoint but a larger zone, so «Heathrow» is not such acurate {A reason to remove «Heathrow»}


Each of this argument alone is enought to consider that this sentences should be removed. (The only word which make sense is «west»).

A better sentence would be: «London Heathrow Airport is located inside the Hillingdon district inside the Greater London.»

Distance in time to go to the center can be provided in the access section and subsections, for Public transport ( Train & Bus and coach ), Inter-terminal transport, Taxi, Car, Bicycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.124 (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the present statement, it is fairly normal to give the distance of somewhere from a known point, in this case central london, it gives an idea to readers roughly where we are talking about in relation to somewhere they know. Not sure why you think that is a useless fact but it is fairly normal thing to use. If you remember that wikipedia is not a travel guide then most of what you say is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The bit that puzzles me, is why the heck express the distance primarily in nautical miles? Artices like eg the one for Stanstead don't use those units at all, and Heathrow's not particularly near water nor frequented by shipping... 193.240.1.94 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nautical miles is the standard use for distances in aviation as well as maritime use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminal 1 sub-section

I'm tempted to remove the Terminal 1 sub-section, and merge some of its content into the Terminal 2 sub-section and History of Heathrow Airport. Does anyone have any objections? Cloudbound (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Terminal 6

I have removed information regarding "Terminal 6" and that Etihad and Qatar operate or will operate from Terminal 6 as there are no official announcement regarding this. Citydude1017 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of Han(n)over

In this article are two different spellings of this city. With and without the second "n". I think we should just use one spelling dependent on Wikipedia wide regulations for picking one version if more are available (there must be some). The Germans call it "Hannover" with the second "n" but I've seen the version without the second "n" more in English texts. --Tobiasinator (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency demands that we follow the title of the English Wikipedia article for the city, which is Hanover. Other variants, in sources cited for example, would be allowable exceptions. The problem is that we also have Hannover Airport. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the cargo table

Pmbma, I admit that I took a WP:BOLD move by removing the cargo table. I repeat my claim that the table contains a lot of information that is difficult to reference. While the information in the passenger airline-and-destinations table can be verified without much effort (supposedly – other editors and I have raised concerns about these tables in the RfC previously mentioned), it is much more difficult to verify cargo routes. Schedules are unlikely to be available, and sources like flight trackers do not seem appropriate. Finally, I find cargo routes to be of questionable notability. These points are raised at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which itself is not 100% supportive of cargo tables. Kindly consider these points and offer your opinion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You may have a point on verifiability of cargo routes. However if you want to delet large amounts of info from a page, please consider raising it on a talk page first. I looked at the RfC - the chosen option 3 did not mandate that info should be deleted, only that further debate should take place as to what to do about vetifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pmbma: Technically, the burden is on the person who added that large amount of unreferenced information. Also, the RfC explains why the terminal column was removed, not why the cargo table was. So what exactly are your thoughts on these tables? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Delta as a hub

Delta now lists Heathrow as a hub operated in conjunction with Virgin Atlantic. But isit really a hub? Virgin Atlantic is not a hub and spoke carrier. It is just like AMS and CDG as DL hubs. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Heathrow is not a hub for Delta according to our defintion, no matter what they call it themselves (they don't even call it a hub in the given reference, the list there includes hubs AND focus destinations). They operate flights to Heathrow from several of their actual hubs, meaning it is a focus city but not a hub itself. Also there are no onward connections on the same carrier from LHR which would also be mandatory to list it as a hub (hence why Virgin Atlantic has no hub at LHR based on our definition). The "who has a hub at Heathrow" discussion has been done several times in recent years, the outcome always is "BA and no one else". Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.176.125 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever Delta define it as in their own literature, in accordance with the Wikipedia definition of a hub Delta does not have one at LHR. SempreVolando (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Map

Hi!

I've tried adding the map, but it was deleted because of violation of guidlines. Which guidlines and what's wrong with this map? --CellarDoor85 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which guidelines the unauthenticated individual was referencing. I've undone the edit that removed the content with a message pointing to this talk section for the user to provide more information on the removal reason. Offnfopt(talk) 09:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably because it isn't very good it neither shows the runway layouts or the terminal positions clearly so does not add any value as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This "map" is poor; does not show terminals clearly, runway layouts, taxiways or road links. It should not be part of the article. David J Johnson (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is only a simple (technical) map to show the most important informations: Runway/Terminal configuration and designation. I added this map, because this is the only one which show this informations in a graphic overview. I will be the first one who will change the map, if there is a better one (with more informations). But until then... --CellarDoor85 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if you remove the guff at the top remove all the empty blue space at the top and the bottom to make the centre larger it would at least show the terminals better and the two runways. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
MilborneOne I made some changes to CellarDoor85 map and uploaded it to File:EGLL Layout-alt.svg. Take a look at the file and see if the changes are satisfactory. Offnfopt(talk) 06:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thats also a way. The "empty" space is there because I made a couple of airports charts to compare the size. Thats why all the maps have the same grid (5x5km):
  • Barcelona (BCN)
    Barcelona (BCN)
  • Guangzhou (CAN)
    Guangzhou (CAN)
  • Sao Paulo (GRU)
    Sao Paulo (GRU)
  • Istanbul (IST)
    Istanbul (IST)
  • Jakarta (CGK)
    Jakarta (CGK)

Thanks for the cooperation :) --CellarDoor85 (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Offnfopt I dont have a problem with the new alternate a lot clearer, we are not in the business of comparing sizes of layout so being clearer and just showing the relevant bits is better. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps the maps below should be added.

Will (Talk - contribs) 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Focus City

Thoughts on adding a focus city section in the infobox for Heathrow to include the airlines that classify Heathrow as an operating base but don't meet Wikipedia's standards for a definition of a hub? Similar to that of many American airports like Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, etc. I think airlines like Virgin Atlantic and Delta Air Lines that classify LHR as a hub but their definition doesn't fit Wikipedia's would fit well under this category.Iancrwebb (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I like this, I think it would add the requisite recognition for DAL AND VAA, while not taking away from BA's fortress hub status.208.93.34.83 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this. Delta operate to fewer destinations than United from LHR and just as many as Air Canada, but those don't get 'Focus City' status at LHR? The whole term is really a US one. For the purposes of Virgin Atlantic it is I believe being confused with 'Base', as they are not a 'hub-and-spoke' carrier. This is why they are not listed at Gatwick Airport either. SempreVolando (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Focus City is such an unfocused term that I would leave it out entirely. It is highly questionable what encyclopaedic value adding such would add. Remember everything needs to be verifiable and not original research.Andrewgprout (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actual name

Heathrows official name is London Heathrow International Airport (talk) 20:28, 5th September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly news to me, you need to supply a reliable source/reference for this. Your note should also say "Heathrow's". Please also sign your contribution. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Most airports have two official names, the one on the Aerodrome Operator's Licence, and the other one decided upon by the airport's commercial operator. The former name usually never changes, as it is required by legal documents and by the ICAO, the latter name often does, usually with a change in the company running the airport.
That is why the current operators of Liverpool Airport can get away with calling it 'Liverpool John Lennon Airport', although I suspect 'Speke' is still the name on the operator's licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

calgary temporary suspension and seasonal

Groger95 seems adamant that a reference saying a route is temporarly suspended means that it has become seasonal and should be represented as such in Wikipedia. I know this is such a small thing that it is hardly worth the electrons it takes to type this but disputes based on such flimsy unreferenced and synthecised logic continually permiate the management of the destination tables and really is not what Wikipedia is or should be about. Seasonal means that a route routinely only operates for part of the year - there is no suggestion in the reference that such a suspension is to be a regular thing - in fact it absolutely says that it is temporary.

The problem I'm seeing here is that such detail in these tables continually adding and deleting the exact current status of flights is so much creating a directory - which as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is WP:NOT. If we must have these tables then just leave the Calgary entry in as it currently is - it makes no difference to the encyclopedianess of the entry. I suspect the time is coming to remove all mention of seasonal entries in these tables and all the start and stop dates which are frankly pushing the tables way too far into being directory like. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tunnels

From my observations the side tunnels between Harlington Corner and Terminals 2 & 3 have been closed since 2014 and are not likely to ever open again. I know my observations aren't solid reference for this article, but no other reliable source on the internet has reported on the status of these tunnels either. iirc bicycle access would have also been discontinued due to the tunnel closures, and there is a "Heathrow Cycle Hub" with bike parking space near the Heathrow Academy where bike commuters can safely park their bikes. CALDlykLIJ (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Incidents

We seem to have devoted a large amount of space on this page to incidents over the years. While those involving deaths are noteworthy, others seem quite minor - eg airport closed for an hour because of a reported drone sighting. Perhaps time to trim some of this down ? Pmbma (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps we shall work on downsizing the page by cutting away the bits that have less importance. Josephshlee (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Terminal 1

"The last tenants along with British Airways were El Al, Icelandair, the one who moved to Terminal 2 on 25 March 2015, and LATAM Brasil, the third one to move in to Terminal 3 on 27 May, 2015."

Could someone rewrite the 'one' bits less awkwardly? I'd do it myself, but I don't know the field well enough to be clear about the intended meanings.

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And given T1 has been closed for more than five years the lead should read “FOUR operational terminals”. So I've changed it. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

From the original page. "The gates at Terminal 1 were numbered 2–8, 16–21 and 74–78" This is not correct as Pier 4D, "The Green Mile" was Gates 77-90 and the gates on the Europier and/or Terminal 2B that were used for T1 were not included. StatsJunkie (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ownership

Heathrow Airport Holdings is owned by Ferrovial, a Spanish company which at one time owned several other British airports, including Gatwick. Ferrovial divested itself of the other airports in order to concentrate on Heathrow, and in the UK assumed the name Heathrow Airport Holdings to reflect its main emphasis. Shouldn’t the article explain the unusual fact the England’s major Airport is owned by Spain?98.183.25.236 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

NO ACTION
No clear consensus, and more importantly a broad RFC for splitting all airport articles is under way on WT:AIRPORTS. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that section Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations be split into a separate page called List of Heathrow Airport airlines and destinations. The article is at the length where a WP:SIZESPLIT would be recommended, and while the content is relevant to the airport, its relevance isn't so high that it needs to be in the main article, and the length of list makes the article harder to read. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Disagree We need to be consistent with airports around the world. If you change Heathrow, you have to change all the other large airports as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. There is no requirement to be consistent with other articles for things like this, but if those articles are also in need of a split then I would support a similar action there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Disagree While there is no formal requirement for consistency, I feel it's easier for readers if airport pages stayed consistent. Someone may come to the LHR page looking for destinations, and it's an extra step to see destinations if it's on a separate page. It may be jarring for some readers having destinations remain on small airport pages, but then have larger ones split. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC))
  • Support Same politic exists on frwiki with CDG page being the main page and a specialized page focused on destinations, like an annex. Other less "important" airports aren't splitted. Pros : it helps move updating work on the specialized page Destinations au départ de Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle Bouzinac (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose "The article is at the length where a WP:SIZESPLIT would be recommended" This is dead wrong: that's based on readable prose size, which is a mere 37kb. Absolutely no reason to make readers go to a separate page for this. It's key information readers go to airport articles for, and it's a disservice to move that out and be inconsistent. The article is not difficult to read because one table is long, and this would achieve nothing. What they do on frwiki is irrelevant: their table is artificially longer by using a bulleted list, and their main article without this table is larger than this one with it! Reywas92Talk 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • A lot of prose is a bulleted list, which while "readable", isn't counted as "readably prose" by that tool. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree The destination list, which serves a dual-purpose of informing people of both which airlines serve Heathrow and the destinations that connect the UK through its largest airport, is an integral part of the article. It may be a substantial table, but that simply shows how important the airport is and the need to provide good quality encyclopedic information, without a typical reader needing to visit separate pages to find something that really isn't that trivial. Besides, if someone were to have already scrolled as far as the destinations, I'm sure they wouldn't mind scrolling slightly further. Bacon Noodles (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Better to speak about that proposal here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#RFC_on_splitting_%22Airlines_and_Destinations%22_out_from_articles rather than on specific airport pages. Bouzinac (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree The list is an integral part of airport articles. If an airport article is too long usually the history section is split off. 2001:A61:3A6A:5101:804F:94FE:5B6A:613D (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree The information should be on the main page as it is very useful information. Gusfriend (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Destinations

Hello, there has been some debate over if Heathrow has the most destinations. I have read 4 sources that say Heathrow is at least the most connected, but my research shows Frankfurt has the most connections. I don't know what is right or wrong, as there have been multiple revisions of the fact. I think we should leave the fact there until we can confirm this is incorrect. Also, there is information here which is 14 years old, and there is no information more recent than 2018 so we'll have to improvise and go with that data. If you want to discuss this, you can talk here.Macy2005 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Heathrow is the most connected according to 4 sources, ranked by how many connections possible within six hours. Macy2005 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Invalid Removal

Apologies for the invalid revert using RedWarn- I thought that the date should remain until 27 March has ended, as I was unsure when during the day the flight incepted. This is invalid for a rollback on non-constructive edit, so sorry for this mistake. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heathrow_Airport/Archive_3&oldid=1153231613"