Heathrow boss who slept through airport fire shut-down should never have had phone on silent, says rival airline chief
The boss of Heathrow who was unaware of that a substation fire shut down one of the world's busiest airports should 'never' have had his phone on silent, according to an airline chief.
A review into the fire which took place on March 20 into March 21 and disrupted more than 200,000 passenger journeys found that the airport's chief executive, Thomas Woldbye, had been called when the fire broke out but did not answer his phone.
The Kelly Review concluded that Mr Woldbye's phone was muted 'without him being aware' and that he only knew of the fire at 6.45am - more than seven hours after it broke out at 11.20pm.
Chief operating officer Javier Echave attempted to call his boss 'several times' during the night and raised an F24 alarm to activate emergency command response teams, but did not hear back.
As detailed in the 75-page report, Mr Woldbye - who was paid more than £3million last year - said he felt 'deep regret' at not being contactable during the incident.
But Virgin Atlantic CEO Shai Weiss said he would 'never' have made the same mistake when speaking today at an industry event, as first reported by The Telegraph.
Mr Weiss said: 'The last time I put my phone on silent when running an airline was – never. I think all of my colleagues would share that observation. This is a 24/7 job and safety and security are the number one priority.'
The Virgin boss added that Heathrow should begin compensating airlines for the cost of the shutdown in the wake of the Kelly Review.
Emirates Airline chief Sir Tim Clark also said he was 'shocked' by Heathrow's 'floundering' response to the fire, adding that Emirates 'never close their eyes' to such problems potentially arising.
Meanwhile International Air Transport Association CEO Willie Walsh said the shutdown of Heathrow showed Britain to be 'vulnerable' under Labour leadership.
A Heathrow spokesman told MailOnline: 'The Kelly review, as well as independent legal counsel assisting the panel, had access to all Heathrow decision-makers and company papers and published a well-documented and robust report containing a number of findings and recommendations.
'The review concluded that while some detailed elements of our response could be sharpened, the overall approach to prioritise safety was the right one and the right decisions were taken on the day. We have accepted all the recommendations in full.'
The report was led by former Labour Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and concluded that closing the airport was the 'correct' and 'essential' decision.
Ms Kelly said the fire at the North Hyde substation had been 'unprecedented' and that waiting until March 22 to fully re-open was wise, given that safety checks needed to be carried out before full service could resume.
'The evidence confirms that Heathrow made the right decisions in exceptionally difficult circumstances,' she said in a statement accompanying the report.
'Whilst the disruption was significant, alternative choices on the day would not have materially changed the outcome.
'The airport had contingency plans in place, and the report highlights that further planned investment in energy resilience will be key to reducing the impact of any similar events in the future.'
The shutdown of the substation prompted questions over why Heathrow was not prepared to cope in the event of a total power loss and why it took 18 hours for power to be fully restored.
But the report revealed that the power loss crippled vital safety systems and infrastructure including an airport fire station.
Security staff in Terminal 2 had to use the torches on their phones to see at night because of the total loss of power.
The report revealed that the power loss crippled vital safety systems and infrastructure including an airport fire station
London Fire Brigade officers also told Heathrow they would not be able to safely bring the fire under control for at least six hours.
Interim findings published by the National Energy System Operator earlier this month found power was restored to a chaos-stricken Heathrow around seven hours before flights were allowed to resume.
The electricity was switched back on for all four terminals - Terminal One no longer being in use - at 10.56am on March 21, almost 12 hours after the fire broke out.
Heathrow said the report raises 'important questions' for National Grid - which owns the substation that caught fire - and Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN), which is responsible for power distribution in the area.
In all, 1,273 flights were disrupted by the near-24-hour closure with economists estimating that the fire cost the UK up to £4.8million in lost tourism alone.
But not a single Heathrow employee interviewed for the review disagreed with the decision to close.
While the review was largely positive about the airport's response to the fire, Ms Kelly issued 28 recommendations for Heathrow to consider.
They include firming up relations with SSEN - which is responsible for local power distribution - as well as ensuring emergency lighting is in place across terminals, and assessing whether to invest in additional back-up generators.
There is also a recommendation to have a 'second means of contact' for key individuals, such as CEO Mr Woldbye.
Heathrow Chairman Lord Deighton said after the report: 'The Kelly Review is thorough with clear recommendations which the management team will be taking forward.
'This was an unprecedented set of circumstances, but the learnings identified in the Kelly Review will make Heathrow more fit for the future.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Amazon data centres to consume ‘as much electricity to power Burnley'
A complex of huge data centres being built by Amazon in Britain will consume as much electricity needed to power a town the size of Burnley, campaigners have claimed. The proposed data centres, near Houghton Regis in Bedfordshire, are projected to consume around 114.8 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity a year. This equivalent to the power consumed by more than 42,500 UK households, according to researchers at Global Action Plan, which is campaigning against the development. It exceeds the number of homes in Burnley, which stood at 41,955 after the most recent Census in 2021. Planning documents show the two data centres in the development will include 42 back-up diesel generators, each around 25 metres tall, that need to be fired up fortnightly to check they are working. It is estimated this will produce the same emissions as 1,079 homes heated by gas. The plans were lodged with Central Bedfordshire Council by Colliers Properties, a known partner of Amazon Web Services (AWS), the retail giant's cloud computing division. The documents name Amazon Data Services UK as the site's eventual operator. Known as Linmere Island, the project would sit on an empty 22-acre greenfield site. While the plans also include 140 solar panels, it is not clear how much power they will supply to the data centres.
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
Prada CEO Gianfranco D'Attis to quit Italian luxury brand, WWD reports
June 22 (Reuters) - Prada (1913.F), opens new tab CEO Gianfranco D'Attis will leave the Italian luxury brand at the end of the month, fashion trade publication WWD reported on Sunday. It said the publication had learned D'Attis was leaving the group "by mutual agreement". Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Times
16 minutes ago
- Times
Trump tariffs leave UK firms scrambling to renegotiate contracts
British companies are looking to renegotiate supplier contracts as they scramble to find savings that can protect them from the impact of escalating US tariffs, according to new data. A survey of firms with more than 5,000 employees found that 90 per cent fear that President Trump's import duties would hurt their revenues and profits, with businesses looking at a series of ways to manage rising costs. More than half (55 per cent) said their main tool to deal with tariff threats was to review existing contracts to find savings or renegotiate better terms with break clauses that could account for the imposition of new levies, according to Acertis, which provides contract management software. Bernadette Bulacan at Icertis said companies' first resort 'to protect margins is to take a critical look at customer and supplier relationships. For many companies, the path to surviving tariff disruption starts not with policy lobbying but with a forensic look at what's already been committed to on paper.' She said firms were taking measures to include rules of termination and force majeure clauses in contracts to deal with costs caused by tariffs, while also seeking out new suppliers in countries that were not affected by sweeping US levies. The Trump administration applied a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs he had announced on most of the world economy on April 8, which is due to expire in early July. The president has signed a partial tariff deal with the UK, but most British goods will still be subject to a 10 per cent tariff when selling to US markets, raising the average US tariff rate from about 1 per cent last year to more than 6 per cent. The European Union is also in talks with the White House about avoiding a potential 55 per cent tariff on all its goods exports. • Britain's exporters at a loss over US tariff turmoil The debate over contractual terms between suppliers and customers is part of a swathe of legal complexities about who should shoulder the cost of import taxes. In April, Howmet Aerospace, an American supplier of components to the sector, declared a force majeure event that would allow it to stop shipments if it remained subject to US tariffs. Although the full gamut of threatened tariffs has not yet been applied on most countries, recent data has shown a spike in invoice rejections as businesses attempt to delay supplier payments until they have more certainty about US trade policy. Icertis's survey, which included 1,000 companies across Britain, the United States and India, found that just under half of them were 're-evaluating' where to find suppliers to avoid tariffs, restructuring their supply chains and manufacturing plants, and also considering 'sunsetting relationships that no longer serve under new cost and compliance pressures'. About 40 per cent of UK firms said they would absorb higher costs into their margins and just over a third said they were planning to raise prices charged to consumers to deal with tariffs. Bulacan said companies should also consider price adjustment clauses that account for tariff changes. 'In the same way that force majeure clauses changed fundamentally during the pandemic, these clauses could be invoked against new tariffs to prevent potential losses,' she said.
