Mighty Heathrow
Last Sunday we went plane-spotting at Heathrow. And today is the anniversary of the belly-flop crash-landing of BA38 in 2008, you probably remember it. Fortunately there were no fatalities. I’ve been thinking about Heathrow a lot lately.
But back to the plane-spotting. I love watching aircraft in the sky, I love airports, I love Heathrow. I’m firmly in the 3rd runway camp. If you think about it, most of us only see planes up close from inside the cabin, or far away in the blue. You don’t experience up close the raw power and illogicality of these massive metal objects full of people and cargo escaping gravity or returning to Earth. For that you have to join the “anoraks” on the perimeter fences, armed with the accoutrements of their hobby: binoculars, long-lens cameras, video cameras, notebooks, high-frequency radios etc. They are all men and they mostly have beards. Some wear baseball caps and combat trousers.
On Sunday afternoon we set forth, beautiful clear day, but very nippy. Just 20 minutes on the Tube to Hatton Cross and there we were on the South Perimeter Road. Most of the time, the planes land from this end, but today they were taking off. Not everybody’s bag probably, but for me it was exhilarating. Not being a plane-spotter, apart from the obvious 747s, I couldn’t tell one plane from another. It doesn’t really matter, but I recommend it as cheap entertainment if you ever find yourself at a loose end. Here are some pictures, and a wonky video clip.
Heathrow
Londoners in general are not especially proud of Heathrow, the world’s busiest International air terminus. In fact, mostly we like to moan about it (I’ll have a little moan later!). I find this both surprising and a little disappointing: maybe it’s an English thing. I worked at Heathrow for six years between 1982 and 1988, and loved it, such a vibrant working environment, everything was on the clock, everyone was rushing. Concorde was in her pomp. Terminal 4 was opened during this time, but much has changed since, and continues to change. The mighty Terminal 5 was opened in 2008. The old Terminal 2 and Queens Building have quite recently been razed and the site is being re-developed. When done, Terminal 1 will be demolished and the new “Terminal 2” extended across the area. After that, I imagine the ageing Terminal 3 Arrivals and Departures will not be long for this world.
In 1929 Charles Fairey of Fairey Aviation in Hayes built an airstrip near the village of Heathrow to test his planes. It was later requisitioned by the government who, in 1944, decided to lengthen it to accommodate bombers. But the war ended before the work was complete. Post-war, the government decided to develop the site for passenger aviation in place of RAF Northolt, Hendon, Croydon etc., and London Airport was born, later Heathrow (LHR). It was decided to have the passenger terminals in the middle of the complex, hence Heathrow’s road tunnels with which we are familiar. The airport’s passenger terminals were opened as follows:
Terminal 2: 1955 (formerly Europa building, now demolished)
Terminal 3 Departures: 1961 (formerly Oceanic building)
Terminal 1: 1968
Terminal 3 Arrivals: 1970
Terminal 4: 1986 (south perimeter)
Terminal 5: 2008 (west perimeter)
As denizens of the 21st Century, we take air travel for granted. It’s just another form of commuting. We take airports for granted too, as – in my opinion – do architects. Why are no airport terminals as beautiful and memorable as St Pancras, Paddington, the old Euston, Temple Meads etc? Unsurprisingly, there are no latter-day John Betjemans leading campaigns to “Save Terminal One” or “Save Terminal Two”!
Heathrow serves 176 destinations in 89 countries. It has parking (stands, as they call it) for 200 aircraft. In 2010, Heathrow had 65.8 million passenger movements from a peak of 68.1 million in 2007. These were derived from 449,220 traffic movements. There are an estimated 76,000 jobs directly associated with Heathrow. See the links below to check out some more astonishing Heathrow stats.
Given the magnificent history and achievements of Heathrow, it is a great pity that it has no museum. It had a visitor centre but this has recently been closed. Apparently, it had information boards and some quite interesting artifacts. It does have a viewing lounge, however. But guess where? Not at any of the terminals where passengers or their friends could readily visit, but in a building on the A4, miles away! The same building where the visitor centre was sited: no wonder it closed! No wonder plane-spotters hang out freezing on the south perimeter road! If BAA wish to succeed in their lobbying for 3rd runway (or anything else), it would do their cause a world of good to have a viewing lounge, visitor centre and museum close by one of the main terminal areas. The cost, surely a spit in the bucket compared to the investment going into current and future expansion.
Come on BAA. How about it?
Sources:
Wikipedia (good)
BAA Heathrow web site (stats page)
I read somewhere recently that the government pulled a con when developing Heathrow. During the latter part of the war, when post war planning was beginning, the Government earmarked the site for the new ‘London Airport’, (as it was called for many years.) However to avoid local opposition the plans were cloaked as being a military requirement necessary for the defence of the realm – hence the reference to it being extended for bombers, the extension coming too late for its use by military planes.
Although Northolt was excluded as a site for post war civil aviation development nevertheless it fulfilled this role for some years until the early or mid-fifties. I believe the long-lost BEA flew to nearby Europe and the Channel Islands from there. Today it has resumed a arrtial contribution to the civil aviation needs of London by catering for executive jets and VIP flights due to its close proximity to good road links to London. (The A40 offers a quicker tranit then the A4/M4 corridor.) Members may remember it was the landing place of Princess Diana’s body. It remains however a RAF base and one wonders whether the development of the location for private civil flights was ever subject to the full rigours of planning permission. Many will recall that during WW2 Northolt was also the HQ of the Polish fighter crews seconded to the RAF, as the large memorial nearby testifies.
Returning to Heathrow, one of its secrets is the St Georges Interdenominational Chapel designed by Sir Frederick Gibberd who was responsible for the early terminal buildings. It is underground and has a strange crypt-like feel although the rough cement walls and subdued lighting also suggest an early primitive Christian chapel hewn from rock. I understand that the developments at Heathrow may threaten the future of this unique place of worship and quite rest for travellers.
That’s funny, I thought I’d done a post on RAF Northolt. It must still be in my head! I have copious notes. Yes, very much HQ of the Polish chaps. And also the Queen’s Flight. In the early years of LHR when Northolt was still operational for civilian traffic, quite a few pilots confused the two, both of them being next door to major western “A” roads, which they used for guidance before modern navigation systems. In the 50s a passenger aircraft from Northolt crashed into the roof someone’s house in Ruislip. The passengers literally escaped out of the front door. No fatalities!
What do you think of Hatton Cross? Reckon Charles Holden would be spinning in his grave!
Just read Mike’s second post.
Appearing in the early 60s, for many years the large gas holders at South Harrow (gone) and Southall (still extant) had a big ‘N’ and ‘H’ painted on their sides respectively facing the direction of on coming flights. Indeed, as Mike suggests, this was due to a jet passenger plane landing at Norholt in mistake for Heathrow, (what happened to all that electronic navigation?). My recollection as an adolescent when this happened was that they had to take very special measures to get the plane out again as the runway wasn’t really long enough. I don’t know what those measures were but possibly stripping the plane of all its interior fittings. I also think that they closed some local roads but that might be the memory inventing things
In the late 40s I think it was DC 3 that pitched itself into a roof of a South Ruislip semi detached house on the flight path into Northolt. Certainly from the photo I have seen recently it was quite feasible for ladders to have been put up and the passengers evacuated that way. Nobody was injured in the houses and amazingly it was only the roof that suffered damage.
Again, in the 50s I recall another incident where an incoming flight hit the roof of the Express Diary Depot in South Ruislip, also beneath the flight path. What reminds me of this is the recollection of the local papers headline that not an egg was broken.
I can’t imagine what the reaction would be today if something similar happened. Probably a military lockdown of Ruislip and a real campaign to close Northolt.
” Why are no airport terminals as beautiful and memorable as St Pancras, Paddington, the old Euston, Temple Meads etc? ”
Perhaps this is due to many factors, but one that springs to mind immediately is ownership. Did not the railway companies own the stations? I cannot think of one airline in the world (perhaps Aeroflot?!) that owns a terminal.
Maybe the century is the wrong one! The examples quoted are all nineteenth century and we have come to appreciate the architecture of that age perhaps more than we appreciate the architecture of the late twentieth century. After all, 50 years ago many regarded St Pancras as a Victorian anachronism and wanted to demolish it. Euston simply was not fit for the needs of the modern railway and had to go – at least from that site. Who knows what the view of Terminal 3 will be in a 100 years time – but, fear not, it will have been razed long before then.
However around the world there are many excellent examples of late twentieth century government funded airport architecture rising above the mundaneness of ordinary airport travel. I think of Hong Kong, Bangkok and several in Europe that are simply beautiful. And, like Heathrow, they have been built by governments but by those who seek to convey a message about national pride, something the UK government hasn’t always sought in its architectural commissions in the twentieth century. ( A wonderful exception must be the outstanding architecture on the Jubilee line extension,)
Maybe it is the experience of the awfulness of air travel as opposed to the pleasure of a good rail journey that makes us possibly ignore these temples to travel for what they are. Next time you go to Stanstead just pause to take in the overall conception of Norman Foster where he turns the building upside down to leave a feather weight light emitting roof of stark but graceful simplicity. But, sure, it is difficult to appreciate the totality of the design through the absolute muddle of kiosks, check ins and all the other paraphenalia found on most concourses, designed to take your money off you. Perhaps thats the answer to the the questions posed in Dana John Nield’s posting – ‘give us the money!’
That’s a good point. Terminal 5, though, although BAA-owned, is pretty much British Airways’ terminal (as was Terminal 4, kind of, previously). It is architecturally superior to the other four, which perhaps strengthens your point. And I agree with David, that Stansted is rather agreeable architecturally. A massive, all-encompassing shed, but quite a pretty one, inside and out.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the noise issues. There are many thousands of Londoners who suffer Heathrow noise and have been lied to for decades, repeatedly, that each new expansion would be the last. No report of Heathrow and its history is complete without some recognition of this. Given the prevailing wind direction Heathrow is in the worst possible location – for noise, and incidentally, safety.
I agree that there have been many occasions when deceit has been employed, as David pointed out, first comment. But, as you probably realise, I’m somewhat partisan on the Heathrow issue. I would put forward as a counter the jobs argument. Heathrow and satellite suburbs is an an airport town, an airport city, in fact. BAA web site claims 76K, BBC News has today been touting 100K. There can’t be a household in the immediate area that doesn’t have someone whose job is dependent on Heathrow. The airport has been a major jet hub for 50 years. There can’t be anyone under 80 who has bought a house, or moved in, or chosen not to move away without their eyes (or ears) open. I think LHR safety record given the number of flight movements is remarkable, but agree that if there were a major incident, it could be catastrophic.
With reference to Boris Island issue which has broken cover today, I don’t see BI / LHR 3rd Runway as being an either/or argument: I wouldn’t rule out doing both. Chocks away!
I used to like the visitors’ centre – you could get a free bus from the terminals, and sit with a cup of tea watching the planes. You’re right, it would make great sense to provide similar (or preferably, improved) facilities again.