Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.

Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.

How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.

You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.

The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal (Gatwick is the world's busiest
single runway airport, and multiple planes are moving at once). This
proposal gets more barmy the more we hear of it. Michael Bell would be
proud to have made it!