This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Back to Squawk list
  • -7

London Heathrow's New Terminal 2 Opens for Business - United Operates First Flight to Arrive at the Queen’s Terminal

United Airlines inaugurated London Heathrow Airport’s new Terminal 2: The Queen’s Terminal Wednesday with tremendous fanfare. The new terminal, which is one of the largest privately funded construction projects in the United Kingdom in recent history, will eventually bring all Star Alliance airlines under one roof. It was designed to make the passenger experience “very British” according to its designers as for many in transit it may be their only encounter with the United Kingdom. The first… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

AWAAlum 2
I'm reasonably certain this will be an unpopular view, but having read posts concerning management for a couple of years on FA, it's my opinion that most of you seem to have a flight crew versus management point of view, and almost unfailingly don't approve of management - no matter what. It seems you must believe you could do it better since the criticism is usually pretty harsh. It's so easy to sit back and pick away at someone else's performance - not so easy to actually be doing it. Try and remember the meaning of the idiom 'Walk a mile in my shoes' - that you should try to understand someone before criticising them. I can't imagine that these heads of airlines along with the board members aren't doing everything they can to keep the airlines in the black and the stockholders happy which, in turn, keeps a lot of you employed. The adjectives "infantile in nature" has been brought up, which I find ironic, since finding fault in the type of aircraft that was sent to Heathrow's new terminal is exactly that. I don't believe anything management does would receive "approval" here.
James Eaton 0
Your hypothesis is not accurate regarding one's point of view. I am in the fortunate position of having been a pilot and subsequently being head of a large division in a publically quoted company. So, although it is common sense (which is not that common....) that one does not make decisions as a result of a "hissy fit" (i.e. an emotional outburst)if one wants to remain objective or as a result of a "spat" with a local dignatory, etc., etc., this is what appears to have happened on several occasions. As many people know, the people at the top set the mindset for the rest of the people within the organisation, this fact also works in a reverse mode where several police forces stop all minor infractions in the belief that minor becomes major in due course. The decision not to take this T2 opportunity leads one to conclude that their is a "slackness" throughout the organisation. The surge of the "let's fix it/let's be better" attitude prevelant within the early Conti organisation seems to have waned to a trickle in the "new" United - the hunger has abated. That stalwart of aviation history Gordon Bethune being appointed Chairman brought hope to the "new" United but one person cannot do everything that needs to be done to effect a turn-around. A team of similarly minded (and spirited) people is required to achieve great things. Great leaders surround themselves with people who think along similar lines to them and have a record of achieving success. Just how many times did the "old" United try and make a go of matters without success - I recall they even tried the "all employees are shareholders" route which didn't pan out. One just has to look at their plans (and planes) to see how tired the company was compared to the upsurgent Conti. The melding of the two airlines'philosophies/attitudes is a major task. Many a potentially great merger is scuppered by the personalities involved: when personalities have differences it is an unfortunate fact that shareholders fall in the pecking order of importance. Although of importance, the day-to-day running of the organisation trumps the shareholders' interests. Hopefully, someone will rise and save this merger. It all starts at the top.
jeff slack 2
Sadly, UNITED could not arrange for one of their 787's to be the first to land and use the new terminal.
What company misses this sort of 'branding' opportunity?
Ben Deneweth 1
United doesn't fly the 787 to London currently. Why would they go through all that effort and schedule disruption to send a SMALLER plane to London? Just because it's new? Is anyone seriously going to avoid booking on United because they didn't do that or book on United only because they did?
Nick Dean 3
United flies IAH-LHR daily with a 787
Bill E 1

Just sayin
Pileits 0
With that dim bulb CEO that United has got no wonder they didn't think of this. United has become a rudderless ship.
preacher1 5
Proverbs 13:20 King James Version (KJV)
He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

I think the merger was OK, but the move to Chicago and surrounding himself with a bunch of losers was just plumb stupid. IMHO One good example is the post below. They couldn't even get a 787 in there for that ceremony.
josh homer 3
Not sure why you were downvoted Preach. Your bible quote is spot on, and I'm agnostic!
preacher1 3
To each their own opinion, and on top of that, today is a day that we celebrate of people dying and fighting that we have that right to express it.
preacher1 1
BTW guys, I do appreciate the support. LOL
Oh Preacherman Preacherman, your appreciation is best shown in the collection plate. Open your wallet, I mean your heart...
LGM118 -5
I'm from Chicago, I've loved United all my life, I for one will downvote anything that impugns Chicago's perfection and/or graft.
AWAAlum 2
I was born and raised in Chicago and love the town. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe every nook and corner of it is "perfection".
I'll down-vote you just for the fun of it...
josh homer -1
They should've named an old and outdated terminal "The Queen's Terminal"
James Eaton 0
Have been hearing 'stories' about the CEO and how some of the decisions are being made. Many adjectives are used but "infantile in nature" seems to be the common theme. This missed opportunity is indicative of such decisions.
Pity, because if that is the case, the airline deserves better - much better.
preacher1 1
Well, it's an attempted blend of the old & new corporate worlds; an upstart in COE and the old and entrenched UAL. The merger, as I said below was not a bad thing, but the original intent, I'm sure, was to shake the dust out of the old. By moving out of Houston to Chicago, he left the management team behind that made COE work. While some went with him , all did not. The old wound up in the majority and in control instead of the other way around. Seems to me that UAL has been reorganized several times in the past and, while maybe as with a band aid, the bleeding would stop for awhile, it really needed stiches in the first place. The merger provided an avenue for stitches. The move to Chicago just left the band aid in place.
steve rogers -1


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!