Talk:Gatwick Airport/Archive 1

Gatwick airport transit

I am proposing the merge Frelke 13:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• YES PLEASE !! -- User:195.93.21.2 12:26, 29 April 2006
• Agree. -- Chris j wood 14:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do it -- Break 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'SUPPORT' -- As I have already moved all the text from Gatwick Airport Transit to the Airport page ! MilborneOne 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

The Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee link seems to be very unpopular. I have just replaced it for the second time. Is there any particular reason why it should be removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelke (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 22:05:42

Personally I've not removed it and I think it's an interesting site. Rather than an external link contributors to this article should take note of the site - it could be used as a reference for some of the claims. Thanks/~@wangi 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

it seems a resonable link in itself but i question its worth as a standalone link in terms of the Wiki guidlines.. Thundernlightning 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to whichever guidelines you are referring to, so that we can all engage in the discussion? Ta. Frelke 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL is the main guideline with reference to external links. Thanks/wangi 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And which particular part of WP:EL could not be considered a standalone link in terms of the Wiki guidlines. I just don't see why it would not be suitable for inclusion. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for links to be avoided, IMHO. Frelke 06:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Record Shop

I recently flew from Gatwick South Terminal, and there still is a Virgin Record shop, if I remember rightly. Can anyone confirm this?

It closed down at the end of January. The only entertainment retailer in the South Terminal is in The Village, landside. Dmccormac 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Impulse, which was landside, has also closed down. However, HMV has opened airside where Virgin used to be. Dmccormac (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Runways

The infobox cites 2 runways- but most media onyl quotes one runway for Gatwick- see for example [1] - "Gatwick became the busiest single runway airport in the world, the second largest airport in the UK and the world's sixth busiest international airport. " Astrotrain 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Officially the airport only has one runway 26L/08R, the other 'runway' 26R/08L is really only a taxiway that can be used as an emergency runway. It is certified for use but does not have the same clearance limits and standards as the main runway. It has been used at nights when maintenance work is required on the main and of course in emergency. MilborneOne 13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We really shouldn't have the "2nd runway" in the infobox. Thanks/wangi 14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay in the infobox just needs an explanation in the article MilborneOne 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can both runways be used simultaniously? This may be the difference between single and multiple runwayed airports.195.92.168.170 16:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read the official airfield information from the National Air Traffic Services website I have put the second runway back in. I have moved the statements in the intro down into a Runways paragraph. Please read the new words on the article page for clarification but in summary it has two runways but can only use one at a time, hence the term busiest single runway operation. MilborneOne 19:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the comments above User:GENET has removed the second runway for the second time - I have put it back in as per previous discussions. Please do not delete the second runway. MilborneOne 19:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We should not list the "2nd runway" in the infobox simply because it is not a second runway. It is a taxiway which can be used as a runway in exceptional circumstances when the runway is getting work done. Thanks/wangi 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In the aerodrome chart (AD 2-EGKK-2-1) it is shown as a runway, as opposed to "Taxiway J" which runs parallel to it on the north side. In Taxiway Holding Points (AD 2-EGKK-2-3) it is called "northern runway" and 26L/08R is called "main runway". In the "Aerodrome Geographical and Administrative Data" (AD 2-EGKK-1-1) all references to it as are a runway. However the AG&AD does say the same as London Gatwick Airport#Runways. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I landed on the 'other' runway late one night on an Easyjet 737 from AMS. It was not an emergency, but because of maintenance, although the Captain referred to it as 'the emergency runway', and warned us to be ready for plenty of brakes and reverse thrust. We were not disappointed :-) ChrisRed

Why is 8L/26R so dangerous to land on? It's got plenty of runway (8,000+ ft) to support 737s and other smaller aircraft. Even a light loaded 757 or 767 could use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons is the proximity of parked aircraft and very large terminal building close to one end of the runway, well close enough to be a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then they could use 26R for light takeoffs at times because 26R doesn't point toward a terminal and could be used for takeoffs, couldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what do you do with the aircraft that want to land and you cant always presume the weather conditions allow it. Your question was about landing! MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the second runway is infact a runway that is used with some regularity during both emergencies and maintenance situations, is Gatwick in fact a single runway airport? Seems to me that if it has a second runway, even for infrequent use, it's not a single runway airport like say, San Diego International which has no secondary runway even for emergencies. 24.6.186.111 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As I think it says above it cant use both runways at the same time so is only a single runway airport. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Transit link

I have changed the frequency at peak times from every 2 to every 3 minutes; this is supported by personal experience and all web links I have found (such as [2]). The units have a journey time of 116 seconds, then approx. 1 minute of dwell time at the terminal before setting off again. Hassocks5489 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Open Skies

Shouldn't there be changes now that more trans Atlantic flights will be heading into LHR? BA already has service from Houston to LHR and Continental is already working on it as well.

In reply to the unsigned comment - when information is publically available in citable sources then it can be added. At the moment all changes are just rumour. Not sure what BA flying Houston to LHR has to do with gatwick though!!. MilborneOne 11:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed that the opening of LHR T5 next year will see BA transferring many, if not all, of their LGW operations to T5. Cod 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BA is extremely unlikely to transfer all of its LGW-based services to LHR following the opening of T5 next March, mainly because LHR doesn't have the space to accommodate them. Its two operational runways are 99% full. So, until the existing runways have been switched to mixed mode usage (unlikely before 2011), this will remain a pipe dream. Even then, BA's priority will be to increase frequencies on prime long-haul business routes, almost all of which it already serves from that airport. The earliest this arrangement could conceivably change - barring any unforeseen developments with negative implications for the global air transport industry - is 2020, when LHR's third runway is expected to become operational. However, BA's (and Virgin Atlantic's) current thinking is to continue using LGW as a base for locally based and leisure travellers. Pimpom123 15:35, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

History

@Startx - note this was removed as it was advertising a future protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.162.253 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@Marklbarrett

In how far is the Immigration Centre "off topic"? It is inside the airport area and part of the airport infrastructure.Startx 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted an advertisement about an immigration centre protest. IMO, the Gatwick History section is not the place for references to protests planned for the future. Marklbarrett 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the "History" section of this article make no mention at all of the big, Gatwick-based Independent airlines of the 1960s, '70s and '80s that were primarily responsible for putting Gatwick on the global scheduled airline map, i.e. British United, British Caledonian, Laker, Air Europe and Dan-Air? Instead, the article just mentions British Airways (both the original, pre-World War II British Airways Ltd. as well as the present day British Airways plc). What has British Airways (the present day one) ever done for Gatwick, except racking up huge losses as a result of its high cost base and top-heavy organisational structure. I think it's a real shame the article doesn't make any mention of Gatwick's Independent pioneers of yesteryear. It somehow looks to me as if the article's history section is a mere copy of BAA's website, which has somehow excised this important contribution from its official version of Gatwick's history. Pimpom123 18:28, 29 October 2007 (GMT)

Then change it, that's the point of Wikipedia. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

US Airways to Charlotte from Gatwick

From my sources I have noticed that US Airways do not fly to Charlotte from Gatwick, they only fly to Philadelphia from Gatwick, like Manchester. Even on the Charlotte Airport WIKIPEDIA page it says that US Airways do not fly from Gatwick to Charlotte

79.72.221.21 —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The US Airways Timetable shows flight # 733 flying LGW-CLT. And the CLT wikipage lists LGW as a destination under the international terminal. V-train 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm US Airways do operate LGW-CLT, and have done for several years. The daily flight is operated by an Airbus A330-200. The Charlotte Airport wikipage does list the destination, as mentioned above. SempreVolando 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add the live Gatwick Airport timetable shows that the US732 from Charlotte is due in tomorrow (31 October) at 06:40. The scheduled flight timetable shows minor difference in departure times (due to clock changes in UK and USA) but is valid to 8 March. Also shows that it is operated by a A330-300, today it was operated by N275AY an A330-323. MilborneOne 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to state A330-300, however I feel we have now established the existance of this route! SempreVolando 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article restructuring

I have today made some major changes to the structure of this article. This has required some changes to headings, minor changes to wording in a few places, and the removal of a little duplication. However, the main alteration is that existing material has been shuffled around, not altered. Do people think this improves the readability?--JCG33 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it definitely does. Pimpom123 15:15, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

easyJet acquisition of GB Airways

Due to easyJet's acquisition of GB Airways, easyJet will be operating ex-GB Airways routes from the North Terminal for summer 2008. Some overlap routes may be operated solely from either terminal. I will update article as soon as specific terminal-destintion pairs become available.

Post summer 2008, easyJet will be looking at maintaining a split terminal operation, or moving all operations to either terminal. Wexcan (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I now have some further information. EasyJet will operate a split terminal schedule from 30 March 2008. Terminals are to be split by destination, so I have updated the article accordingly. The majority of ex-GB routes will remain in the North Terminal, with some exceptions such as Nantes. Some overlap routes, such as Malaga, Alicante and Faro are to be moved wholly to the North Terminal, and some, such as Marrakech, will be moved wholly to the South. Athens will move to the North from mid-June.

The 319/320/321 fleet will operate from both terminals.

Sources include [3] and [4]. Not the strongest at the moment and I hope to find more solid references, but I believe its sufficient for the time being. Wexcan  Talk  16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

easyJet is moving LGW-SXF flights to the North Terminal; I've had an e-mail from them changing my flight number to one starting with an 8 - all the North Terminal flights are numbered 8XXX. However, I've not changed the article as I can't verify when this is happening. Dmccormac (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

QC/4 aircraft

The article mentions limitations on the above landing under certain circumstances - is there an article explaining this categorisation, so a link could be created to it? Autarch (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be a starting point: Night Noise Quotas at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports - UK DfT. SempreVolando (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1950 Viking incident

A user has tried to add a 1950 incident to the article, when a Viking aircraft suffered a bomb explosion over the english channel. On further research web references indicate that the aircraft departed RAF Northolt for Paris and it has no connection with Gatwick. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Larnaca: Seasonal or not?

Does anyone know whether this edit is in fact correct? I don't doubt that the edit was made in good faith, but no summary was given so it's hard to tell whether the editor knows what they're talking about. Any aviation experts care to clarify the issue?

Cheers, CarrotMan (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Larnaca is seasonal (summer-only) per www.easyjet.com timetables. Edit reverted. SempreVolando (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we got that one cleared up. CarrotMan (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

London ?

I notice that a London portal has just been added to the article and it is part of the London project. Just curious as to why as the airport is not actually in London? MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not the one who wanted to include this in the London project, I think it should be there for the simple reason that Gatwick has officially been recognised by IATA as a London airport (along with City, Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and Southend). I agree that it is arguable whether these are really London airports as most of them lie outside the boundaries of Greater London. However, many of the world's officially designated capital city airports don't lie within the boundaries of the cities they serve; some of them are even farther away from the cities they serve than any of London's airports (e.g. the international airports of Athens and Kuala Lumpur as well as Shanghai Pudong, where the distance from/to the relevant city centre is about 75-90 km in each case). Also, if being actually located within city boundaries were to be a criterion, even Heathrow would struggle to be a London airport; though it is technically in Greater London, it is just on the city's boundary; part of its boundary is in the home county of Middlesex, outside Greater London (e.g. where it borders on the Middlesex town of Staines); in other words, nowhere near Central London. Strict application/interpretation of this criterion would merely leave City Airport as the only real London airport because it is the only commercial airport serving London that actually has a London postcode. Pimpom123 23:13, 31 January 2010 (GMT)

Incidents and accidents

Have removed the Air Malta 144 incident in 1993 where the aircraft landed on the parallel taxiway for the following reasons: 1. It is one of at least three such incidents (the two preceding incidents I recall occurred in 1989 and 1990, respectively involving a BIA One-Eleven and a Dan-Air A300. 2. I therefore do not consider it remarkable enough on its own (unless we include and reference all other similar incidents as well) 3. If we wanted to include these incidents, we should also give a short explanation why it repeatedly happened during that period (late 1980s/early 1990s; I vaguely remember the reason had something to do with the brilliancy of the taxiway's lighting, as perceived from the aircraft's flightdeck, and that the CAA subsequently instructed BAA to reduce it so as to leave no scope for future optical confusions). Pimpom123 22:53, 31 January 2010 (GMT)

Introduction

is far too long! LibStar (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the long bit about passenger numbers into the body of the article were it should really be. Does that help? MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming?

I believe that following the sale by BAA, Gatwick has dropped the "London" part from its name (see their website). The article should probably be changed to reflect this.86.162.75.228 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The official aviation name for the airport, recognised by ICAO, IATA, NATS, EUROCONTROL and many other official bodies remains London Gatwick Airport. The removal of London from the name is a transient change subject to further revision at any time. treesmill (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear from the June 2010 press release that the owner was trying to do anything more than rebranding: changing the slogan in publicity and media.[5] I haven't heard that it wants to officially change the name, and I can't find anything about a name change with search engines. Why is the Wikipedia article not titled London Gatwick Airport? Surely it should at least have London in bold in the lead sentence? (I added it to the second sentence.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They have spent a lot of money changing the signs and stuff to read just Gatwick Airport it will just take a while for the official bodies to catch up so the common name and name of the article is correctly Gatwick Airport, no harm in mentioning that it was London Gatwick in the past but the article name is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Former logos

I notice the former logos have been deleted. I think the BAA Gatwick logo could be used in the history section. Is it posible to retrieve this? Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

British Airways service to San Juan, Puerto Rico

Please discuss any concerns of BA's service to SJU at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#BA_to_SJU_from_Gatwick_.28LGW.29. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)