Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 16:17:58 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
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

A taxiway serving part of the South terminal

Yes, about 15 gates in the North terminal. And 15 in the South terminal.

So you're suggesting that 30 gates should be seved by a *single* taxiway,
which would be blocked altogether if aircraft were pushing back from any of
eight gates. In railway terms, this would be the equivalent of removing all
but one of Waterloo's approach tracks. And spending tens of millions of
pounds in the process.

This is even barmier than any of Michael Bell's harebrained schemes! At
least he had the excuse that he was redesigning things he'd never seen, but
you were once a frequent flyer, and should have at least a distant memory
of how airports work.