BA to and from Bkk

The BA flight to and from BKK will use Terminal 3, when the new Terminal 5 opens, even though Terminal 5 is going to house the majority of BA flights.

You can make of that what you wish, wonder if it is because it is trashy brits that go on holiday to Thailand that frequent their service, as opposed to other high-end cities.

There is a precedent for this. BA flights to Chicago used to leave from Terminal 2 (then a European terminal) when most long haul BA flights left from T3 in those days. Maybe something to do with available slots...

Most likely. A spanish company now runs heathrow.

[bkkguy]

You can make of that what you wish, wonder if it is because it is trashy brits that go on holiday to Thailand that frequent their service, as opposed to other high-end cities.

the flight is actually London-Sydney with a stop in Bangkok for the trashy type minority to get off (so to speak) while the more refined majority carry on to The Antipodes and they are surely deserving of a better send off!

bkkguy

[Hmmm]

I believe all BA flights to Australia via BKK and Singapore will fly out of T3, as will all of Qantas'.

The other 90% of BA flights will be out of T5.

T3 will in fact become the Oneworld alliance terminal, with other OW airlines flying out of T3: American Airlines, Aer Lingus, Cathay Pacific, Finnair and Iberia.

T3 is supposedly being upgraded for this.

Most likely. A spanish company now runs heathrow.

My first glance read that as "Spanish comedy" - shades of Monty Python and "nobody escapes the Spanish Inquisition". BA / Heathrow /Spanish Inquisition. Yes. I see the similarities.

Heathrow already comes at the bottom or close to the bottom of every list of 'favourite airports' and Terminal 3 is the arsehole of Heathrow. It is already horribly overcrowded and the thought of BA and Qantas flights also flying from there as well is horrific. Mind you I would never fly BA anyway - their service is atrocious and unless you fly business or first class the customer service both in the airport and on board is the pits (and their prices to Bangkok are a couple of hundred pounds more than, for instance, EVA Air). "The World's Favourite Airline" ???? they're having a laugh !!!

I now fly from London City on purpose via one of the other European capital airports to get to Thailand purely to avoid Heathrow (and Gatwick for that matter). It's well worth paying the small extra flight cost and the additional airport duties just to avoid the crush, hassle, and huge queues at check-in, security and immigration (not to mention the appalling baggage handling problems that LHR has).

... Heathrow is a real pain to fly from, recently the baggage at Terminal 4, computers went down or someat, and customers unless you were 1st or business class were told to get their luggage sent by DHL or Fedex, there was uproar.

However, I'm sure when Terminal 5 is up and running, it should take some of the pressure off, and also Terminal 3 is getting a makeover. In the meantime, it doesn't help, however, flying to or from City Airport is gets a gold star in my opinion, and sometimes there are good deals - both Swiss Air and KLM fly from City.

On a separate note, I talked about expensive flights this year, some of the flights like EVA and Thai are certainly up in monetary terms. However, from around March 30 (forgot the exact date) the new "open skies" agreement kicks in, which , in effect, means US and European carriers can fly where they like (I've used that term flippently, but you get the drift). Anyway, according to media reports, that should/could bring airfares down, especially during holiday/peak periods. That is all the media reports said, now whether they mean between the US and Europe, I don't know - probably. We will have to wait and see!

The open skies agreement is between the US and the EU and in effect means that any US or EU carrier can link any two destinations either side of the pond. Why WD thinks that will affect fares to Thailand is escaping me currently.

You can also link to Austrian, Lufthansa, SAS Air Chance, EVA and Thai from London City, often with VLM, but the terminal is getting a bit crowded. I'm sure you'd be happier on the Gatwick or Stansted Express.

Heathrow should be avoided at all costs.

That is all the media reports said, now whether they mean between the US and Europe, I don't know - probably. We will have to wait and see!

555 - can't understand why it is puzzling you - I don't know is the answer that is why I put the statement quoted above in my thread above - I read on the BBC website that it could bring down airfares - I would have thought between US and Europe, but in essence, if US airlines can fly where they want to, they could they fly to Asia from New York via Europe, similarly European airlines fly to Asia via the US. It opens up a lot of questions and possibilities. As I said in my thread "I don't know".

WD,

Since no Asian countries are party to the "Open Skies" agreement between the US and the EU your assumptions have no foundation.

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once; neither the EU nor the US can dictate landing rights to Asian countries.