On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:31:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Heathrow is 100% better than it was 20-25 years ago.

It's also carrying a lot more traffic. The departure areas in the
central area terminals have improved quite a bit, although I seldom
spend any time in them. The arrivals areas are all bad.

I used to arrive from
Middle Eastern airports, such as Riyadh, which has fountains and large
marble Busy Barclay staircases spiralling around them, then arrive in
Heathrow, which had cheap polyurathane varbished wooden doors with
reinforced glass in them, like they use in cheap school buildings.
Everything was tatty, cheap and nasty, with very low ceilings. Look at the
height of the ceilings in Terminal 2, my flat is about the same.
T2 is a disgrace and I try to avoid airlines that use it if I can,
certainly for departures because security screening takes ages.


The
contrast was amazing, and Heathrow was the busiest international airport in
the world, in a rich country. Liverpool John Lennon is better than any
terminal at Heathrow.

Quite possibly.


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link) she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.



Even the airports that were built from scratch don't hold their
glitter for very long. For example Franz Josef Strauss in Munich was
so clean at one time that it could be mistaken for a hospital it was
so sterile. Now it's starting to look distinctly shabby.
Lower traffic airports like Oslo Gardermoen have superb wooden floors
etc. and have managed to maintain a good appearance, but have a tiny
fraction of LHR's traffic.

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I went through there not long ago. The memory was not enjoyable
because there was a four hour layover and nowhere left to sit apart
from the floor


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl