Talk:Heathrow Airport

VFD discussion

 * Delete. Redirect to London is OK by me as well.  An airport is listed as a rare exception to get its own article per Project:What is an article?, but this one wasn't discussed and was a copyvio from Wikipedia to boot.  Personally I'd rather not see articles for airports unless there is a good reason for such an article to be created. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:44, 20 January 2007 (EST)


 * Keep - as a redirect ~ 61.91.191.11 06:41, 4 February 2007 (EST)


 * Keep - As Article ~ Heathrow being the busiest international airport on earth (according to Capital Radio some time ago), it should be worthy of description. Perhaps in more detail (WT-en) MiddleEastern 11:41, 4 February 2007 (EST)


 * Keep as article - I agree with MiddleEastern - there are numerous bars/restaurants/hotels here, and it's hardly in London - it's about 30 miles out of the centre, and only just inside the M25. Plus, as it is one of the main hubs for international flights, people will be passing through here and spending time waiting for connections, where they may well want a hotel/meal/few drinks, so it makes sense to keep it as an article in it's own right. -- (WT-en) Tim 08:45, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * Keep. Heathrow is the sort of mega-airport that warrants an article. It's arguably its own district of London. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:47, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * Problem with all this is that maybe it "could be" an article, but in point of fact, it is not one as of today. If someone wants to turn this into at least an outline, go for it, but I see no point in keeping something around that's completely empty and could fit gracefully into the obvious city article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * Started. In fact, I'd be pleased to see most of the Heathrow information in the London article moved here, because it features an unusually specific level of information about where to eat etc, in what is (for all practical purposes) a region article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)
 * Looks OK to me. Keep; I think there's a clear consensus on this one, so will deal with the paperwork shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:23, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:26, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Does this case mean that we can also convert information on other huge airports into separate articles, as long as there's at least as much information as it's here now? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:21, 15 February 2007 (EST)
 * Project:What is an article specifically mentions huge airports as an exception. So I guess the answer is yes. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:22, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * I'd prefer to be very careful with this. Separate articles make sense for special cases like Kansai International Airport, which serves three major cities and is not located near any of them, but these are very much the exception, not the rule. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:54, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * Maybe it should be mentioned then at Project:What is an article what are good/bad examples? Like:
 * Good: airport serving multiple cities
 * Good: airport having at least N terminals
 * Bad: all the rest?
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:11, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Aer Lingus Gold Circle Club Lounge, T1
Wondering whether anyone knows whether it is possible to access the Aer Lingus Gold Circle Club Lounge in Heathrow Terminal 1 from the International Departures Lounge (not Irish/Domestic departures). I would be very grateful if anyone who knows could let me know please. Thanks !203.218.224.75 02:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Bus route 285
I find that my Zone 1,2,3 travelcard on Oyster is accepted on the 285 bus from Feltham Station to Heathrow Central, despite it being a long way outside those zones. I've never been sure if this is some technical oversight or whether it's an intended feature (I've not seen it advertised) but it's worked every time I've tried it. The article doesn't quite say the opposite (it could be referring to the train part of the journey) and I'm wary of saying for sure that it will work for everyone. Can anyone else confirm/refute this?

[I fear the above contribution (mine) is based on ignorance (mine) of how bus ticketing works in London. I've now been told that any Oyster card will give you access to any bus so my 'discovery' is nothing of the sort. Hat, coat, door etc.]

Article content
I've been doing a fair bit of work on this article recently and have appealed in the traveller's pub for suggestions as to exactly what information should be in a major airport article as there aren't any template or star atricles of this type to use as a guide.

Meanwhile I've plunged forward and added information on the changes that are currently occurring at the airport, getting around the airport, facilities, etc. I've also added an unusually detailed amount of information on how to get to and from Heathrow. This contains more detail on the subject than is normal for Wikivoyage. My reasoning for this is that for most people an airport is not a destination unto itself. People are coming and going all the time: It's a transport hub - that's its purpose in the world. When somebody lands at an airport they're generally going to be far more preoccupied with getting out to their actual destination than what they can do there. I hope you agree with this rationale (because it took a fair amount of research!). (WT-en) Phlip 11:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I think it's excellent work, and it is definitely not an outline article. Albeit the language could be improved here and there, i think the overall quality is up there, so I promoted it to guide status, the only thing really missing is a map - but feel free to revert it if anyone disagrees. (WT-en) Sertmann 14:20, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Dot 2 Dot
The website says this firm is no longer operating and suggests SkyShuttle. Can someone update the information? 86.9.127.96 16:47, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Listing a hotel in Old Windsor
Any thoughts on providing other options for people who are stuck at the airport in other regions that are equally close. I represent a client who has a property in 10 miles or 15 minutes from London Heathrow Airport (depending on traffic) in Old Windsor, most of the hotels listed are either right at the airport or in Slough or West Drayton. Old Windsor would be a bit more scenic alternative. Thoughts? VerbInteractive (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, why not? There are also be people who travel to the airport the night before their flight (e.g. if they live 100s of miles away but have an early flight) and others who for whatever reason need to be near the airport but don't necessarily want to be within sight of it. I assume you realise you're not allowed to make the listing yourself, but if you post the name and some details of the hotel here, I'd be happy to make the listing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * VerbInteractive can put up listings, as a unique case (so far) of an approved marketer. See User talk:VerbInteractive and Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, I didn't realise that. I let him get on with it then :) Thanks, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, I have made the listing, a slight variation of the main listing on the Windsor and Eton page. Please review and let me know if you feel any edits are required. VerbInteractive (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is an issue. Shouldn't this listing be in Windsor and Eton? To date, haven't we still adhered to the policy that hotels listed in airport articles should be within the airport? I know there's been talk about changing that policy, but I'm not sure we ever decided on a clear alternative, and 6 miles seems a bit far for inclusion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Difficult choice. The proposed banner is a nice shot, but the original shows the gritty reality of this airport better. Not strongly inclined either way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a tough one. Both are good compositions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the new proposal. It's a travel site, do we really need to remind folks how unpleasant travelling can be? I am not strongly inclined either, but if I had to pick one, it would be ויקיג&#39;אנקי's proposal. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a nice one, I agree we here are in the business of showing the nicest side of things visually. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the symetry of the new one. Danapit (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the new one as it is not full of text and gives an impression of the scale of the airport. AlasdairW (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "do we really need to remind folks how unpleasant travelling can be?" - well, yes :) A realistic travel guide is important. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Realistic - yes, but when it comes to visual garnish, we do need to encourage travelling. What good is a travel guide that highlights delays, queues, possibly bad weather, overpriced and unpleasant food and perhaps unpleasant people you could meet? We could just as well advise readers to forgo any travel as they may find it disappointing and tell them to stay home and watch some TV.
 * Not that it has much to do with the banner at hand, but in general, we should use visuals to highlight the best of every destination or topic and make it feel exciting and worthy of visiting. The text should provide all the caveats, but one man's treat is another's poison, and destinations found awful by many will be delightful to others. And, in my experience, much depends on your initial attitude - if you expect a place to be really nice and exciting, you will often find it to be. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fully support the idea that we should show a destination in the best possible light.
 * Heathrow does present 'challenges' to many travellers however. The proposed banner is (I think) the new checkin area in Terminal 5, which is nice, light and spacious. Get the other side in departures and you are dropped in a shiny crowded shopping mall with almost no seating. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The point I was making was that everybody knows airports are unpleasant, and anyone with a brain will know that Heathrow is especially bad. Nobody's going to decide on which airport they'll use based on a banner, or even based on this article (readers come here when they already know they'll be using Heathrow in order to plan their journey most effectively). Why not at least make our article look pretty? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that it would matter much for our choice of the banner, but I absolutely love airports and find them to be a very pleasant environment and do not regret spending quite a bit of my time there. Which airport terminal in particular is another story :D PrinceGloria (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh pray do tell :D --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of the banner, the second one fits to the dimensions better. James A ▪ talk 10:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the new alternative is a better image, form and content, although as someone who tends to go through the other cramped and chaotic terminals at Heathrow it does not feel to be representative to me. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you ask me the most unpleasant aspect of airports is that most people can't leave them and the people who run them know it. Hence almost everything you find at an airport is hugely overpriced and if you happen to be on a rather tight budget spending more than an hour at an airport is akin to torture... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess that is it for me Traveler100, the shiny shot of Terminal 5 doesn't feel representative to me of this airport, whereas the imperfect original banner does.
 * Also I dispute ThunderingTyphoons!'s assertion that "anyone with a brain will know that Heathrow is especially bad" - are all people in the world familiar with Heathrow? I frankly doubt that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but they know it's one of the busiest airports in the world, situated in one of the world's most-visited cities. I know nothing of JFK or Charles de Gaulle airports, but I can surmise they're probably overcrowded and unpleasant to use. It's just common sense really. I'm of the opinion that we're in the business of selling our destinations (inasmuch as an airport counts as a 'destination'); even though we commit to painting a realistic picture of them, when it comes down to it we do highlight the positives. Terminal 5 on a good day is one of Heathrow's few positives. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should accentuate the positive in pagebanners of destinations. Airports are arguably necessary evils more than destinations, so I believe the watchword should be truth in advertising. That doesn't mean we should portray long lines or tired people waiting near gates, but it does mean to me that it's not essential to show an ugly airport as beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough. At the end of the day there's no real need to change the banner, it'll just come down to consensus, which at the moment is mixed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I meant to speak in broad generalities. I don't know Heathrow well enough to take a position on its aesthetic qualities, and I also have not expressed a preference for one banner over the other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed. Still hoping for a more wonderful one. Syced (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blowing the dust off
This article was woefully out of date. I've updated it as best I can, but information on Terminal 2 is lacking and some fares and links are out of date. Some attention from an expert is needed. Scalytail (talk) 23 August 2015‎

Suggested duplicate name
As pending and now past user of this airport, used this article several times. It took a little effort finding it each time needed because it's internationally-used name is "London Heathrow International Airport". Could I suggest that someone (who knows how) create a re-directing page with that title to reach this one. Regards Hennejohn (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a redirect already exists. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)