Heathrow terminal to undergo tests

DevilsPGD wrote:.

This has the nice side effect of not opening up any security holes
(since if you could already sneak through items anyway, why would you
bother applying for a permit to sneak items through?)

Applying for a permit wouldn't prove that you have been able to sneak
items through, but would now give you permission to sneak the item
through and not risk anything by getting caught. How would this make us
safer? Are you suggesting that the average Joe be permitted to take
weapons through security, or just a banned 12 oz can of Coke? (Let's
forget for a second how deadly a Coke can or the ingredients can be)

That reminds me of an idea a guy I know used once when he was a bit
younger. People were reluctant to buy returned items because the
packaging didn't look new. I fixed that problem by convincing the owner
to buy a shrink wrap machine. So, even though the items were still
marked as returns, people trusted them simply because they were shrink
wrapped. This is the same guy, who sent a letter to his local post
office, when he was 18, saying that it would be a good idea to add to
the zip code, as it would make sorting easier. After all, if you put a
route number in the zip code, then the mail could get quickly sorted to
the right carrier. The next thing he knew, the letter had been forwarded
to Washington, and nothing was ever heard from the local office again.
A few years later, Washington managed to mangle that idea by Zip+4.

At least the guy didn't claim to invent the Internet, but.... he was
there in the early years.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


Stephen Farrow wrote:

(cut)


Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they want
the people testing the facility to behave like everyday travellers,
rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size of the
building - and given things like the much-publicised teething troubles
with new airport facilities in places like Denver and Bangkok - it's an
approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very cramped site. If the
terminal opens and problems are discovered that present the new facility
from operating at optimum efficiency, it will cause enormous problems.
Makes sense to test the building now, using "fake" travellers to make the
tests as "lifelike" as possible.


I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats and
awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.

An hour on London Transport getting to LHR should be a good substitute. I
often arrive off 15-20 hours trips feeling quite OK, then the last 90
minutes getting from LHR to my house finishes me off, especially if I have a
heavy bags and the escalators are broken on the tube etc..



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 28 Mar, 11:11, "RAK" wrote:
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in om...





Stephen Farrow wrote:

(cut)

Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they want
the people testing the facility to behave like everyday travellers,
rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size of the
building - and given things like the much-publicised teething troubles
with new airport facilities in places like Denver and Bangkok - it's an
approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very cramped site. If the
terminal opens and problems are discovered that present the new facility
from operating at optimum efficiency, it will cause enormous problems.
Makes sense to test the building now, using "fake" travellers to make the
tests as "lifelike" as possible.

I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats and
awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.

An hour on London Transport getting to LHR should be a good substitute. I
often arrive off 15-20 hours trips feeling quite OK, then the last 90
minutes getting from LHR to my house finishes me off, especially if I have a
heavy bags and the escalators are broken on the tube etc..

Thank your self lucky you are not hiring a car with 1 person in the
queue.

The real question is not how aesthetically pleasing the new terminal
is but
how much time will it really save passengers..?





--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stephen Farrow wrote:

Frank F. Matthews wrote:



Stephen Farrow wrote:

Mike Hunt wrote:

Rubba Luva wrote:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27032007/34...rgo-tests.html


Heathrow terminal to undergo tests
The Press Association Tuesday March 27, 08:01 AM

Thousands of people will act as passengers to test out a new £4.3
billion terminal which will open at the UK's biggest airport in
exactly one year's time.

Around 16,000 volunteers will be used to check facilities at
Heathrow's Terminal 5 (T5) which will undergo six months of proving
trials before its March 27 2008 opening.



They spent 4.3 BILLION POUNDS on the terminal and want
non-professional volunteers to check it out?



Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they
want the people testing the facility to behave like everyday
travellers, rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size
of the building - and given things like the much-publicised teething
troubles with new airport facilities in places like Denver and
Bangkok - it's an approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very
cramped site. If the terminal opens and problems are discovered that
present the new facility from operating at optimum efficiency, it
will cause enormous problems. Makes sense to test the building now,
using "fake" travellers to make the tests as "lifelike" as possible.


I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats
and awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.


Method acting has its place, but there are circumstances in which it can
be taken a little too far.


I don't know. The only way to test the efficacy of the signage might be
as I suggest. I suspect that the drugs necessary to get the effect
would be illegal.

On Mar 29, 12:02 am, wrote:
On 28 Mar, 11:11, "RAK" wrote:



"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in om...

Stephen Farrow wrote:

(cut)

Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they want
the people testing the facility to behave like everyday travellers,
rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size of the
building - and given things like the much-publicised teething troubles
with new airport facilities in places like Denver and Bangkok - it's an
approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very cramped site. If the
terminal opens and problems are discovered that present the new facility
from operating at optimum efficiency, it will cause enormous problems.
Makes sense to test the building now, using "fake" travellers to make the
tests as "lifelike" as possible.

I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats and
awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.

An hour on London Transport getting to LHR should be a good substitute. I
often arrive off 15-20 hours trips feeling quite OK, then the last 90
minutes getting from LHR to my house finishes me off, especially if I have a
heavy bags and the escalators are broken on the tube etc..

Thank your self lucky you are not hiring a car with 1 person in the
queue.

The real question is not how aesthetically pleasing the new terminal
is but
how much time will it really save passengers..?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Terms 1,2,3 are ****e and the once new Term 4 is now jaded, so Term 5
will at least be better for the cattle.
But if you want to see a decent airport come to Brussels.

On 29 Mar, 08:03, "ocelot" wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:02 am, wrote:





On 28 Mar, 11:11, "RAK" wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in om...

Stephen Farrow wrote:

(cut)

Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they want
the people testing the facility to behave like everyday travellers,
rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size of the
building - and given things like the much-publicised teething troubles
with new airport facilities in places like Denver and Bangkok - it's an
approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very cramped site. If the
terminal opens and problems are discovered that present the new facility
from operating at optimum efficiency, it will cause enormous problems.
Makes sense to test the building now, using "fake" travellers to make the
tests as "lifelike" as possible.

I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats and
awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.

An hour on London Transport getting to LHR should be a good substitute. I
often arrive off 15-20 hours trips feeling quite OK, then the last 90
minutes getting from LHR to my house finishes me off, especially if I have a
heavy bags and the escalators are broken on the tube etc..

Thank your self lucky you are not hiring a car with 1 person in the
queue.

The real question is not how aesthetically pleasing the new terminal
is but
how much time will it really save passengers..?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Terms 1,2,3 are ****e and the once new Term 4 is now jaded, so Term 5
will at least be better for the cattle.
But if you want to see a decent airport come to Brussels.

Been there. Somehow I have forgotten it.

Berlin Tegel is drab, but the distances are much shorter. Basically
like a
bus station. Newark is a boot camp, 'Guantanamo Bay Lite'. All the
hubs are
much of a muchness, prone to turn into hell-holes in case of bad
weather.



- Hide quoted text -




- Show quoted text -

wrote:

On 29 Mar, 08:03, "ocelot" wrote:

On Mar 29, 12:02 am, wrote:






On 28 Mar, 11:11, "RAK" wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in om...

Stephen Farrow wrote:

(cut)

Yes. They need people to act as, essentially, human lab rats - they want
the people testing the facility to behave like everyday travellers,
rather than travel industry professionals. Given the size of the
building - and given things like the much-publicised teething troubles
with new airport facilities in places like Denver and Bangkok - it's an
approach that makes sense. Heathrow is a very cramped site. If the
terminal opens and problems are discovered that present the new facility
from operating at optimum efficiency, it will cause enormous problems.
Makes sense to test the building now, using "fake" travellers to make the
tests as "lifelike" as possible.

I wonder if they are going to keep a bunch of them in cramped seats and
awake all night before the tests? That's 'lifelike'.

An hour on London Transport getting to LHR should be a good substitute. I
often arrive off 15-20 hours trips feeling quite OK, then the last 90
minutes getting from LHR to my house finishes me off, especially if I have a
heavy bags and the escalators are broken on the tube etc..

Thank your self lucky you are not hiring a car with 1 person in the
queue.

The real question is not how aesthetically pleasing the new terminal
is but
how much time will it really save passengers..?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Terms 1,2,3 are ****e and the once new Term 4 is now jaded, so Term 5
will at least be better for the cattle.
But if you want to see a decent airport come to Brussels.


Been there. Somehow I have forgotten it.

Berlin Tegel is drab, but the distances are much shorter. Basically
like a
bus station. Newark is a boot camp, 'Guantanamo Bay Lite'. All the
hubs are
much of a muchness, prone to turn into hell-holes in case of bad
weather.



There are hubs and hubs. A hub which draws in a lot of local traffic
and short hop feeders is a lot simpler from a place like Newark where a
lot of the service is from other hubs. In any case size appears to make
a negative impact.