On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:37:18 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 13:45:01 +0000, Recliner said:

They'll be able to come in via Ireland in any case.

For a time. I have a feeling Brexit will push NI in the direction of a
majority view in favour of rejoining the Republic, then there will be a
hard border.

Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales. And
only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends too much
on England's economy.

So does Scotland, of course. And Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic
isn't volunteering to take over England's role in subsidising Ulster,
and the EU27 won't take over the Barnett formula subsidies for
Scotland. Neither economy is viable on its own.

In message , at 13:45:01 on
Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens

There should really be a more formal delimiter here

and citizens of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled
in the Registered Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates,
provided that they are aged either 18 and over or 12 and over
travelling with an adult and holding valid biometric passports.

I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.

[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].

I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.

I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.

And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:49:00 on
Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:
They are extremely long escalators.

Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
walkways:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396

Looks about the same to me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ck_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG

No, that's clearly much shorter.

fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?

Where's the 'deliberate inconvenience' in Gatwick? Your Bellysian
plan would be far worse, and more expensive to boot.

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.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:35:14 on Sun, 22
Jan 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

Of course, nowhere can match Stansted for sheer awfulness - the slow and
infrequent transit shuttle there just being the icing on the cake of
passenger-hating crap if you have the misfortune to arrive at a remote
gate.

Agreed there, Stansted is a terrible airport in just about every way.

They got to start from scratch on a greenfield site, too, so there is
no excuse for just how awful it is.

It has to some extent been "a victim of its own success". When there was
just the original check-in hall, and access via bridges to the
satellites, and a car park at its door, it was excellent. What they've
perpetrated now is a combination of security measures, congestion, a
shopping mall, and new gates built down to a budget for low-cost
airlines.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:45:01 on
Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens

There should really be a more formal delimiter here

and citizens of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled
in the Registered Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates,
provided that they are aged either 18 and over or 12 and over
travelling with an adult and holding valid biometric passports.

I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.

[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].

I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.

I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.

And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.

The question is whether they'll have to formally register, or if they'll be
automatically regarded as such. No doubt it will be the same as we get in
the EU.

My guess is that for non-working visits, no registration would be
necessary, as the numbers would overwhelm the bureaucracy. After all,
no-one wants to impede toursm, or educational visits.

The UK aim is simply to control employment and benefit entitlement. Most
EU citizens won't want to come to work illegally, as they wouldn't be
entitled to any benefits, or healthcare.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:49:00 on
Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:
They are extremely long escalators.

Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
walkways:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396

Looks about the same to me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ck_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG

No, that's clearly much shorter.

fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?

Where's the 'deliberate inconvenience' in Gatwick? Your Bellysian
plan would be far worse, and more expensive to boot.

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.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 15:40:51 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.

And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.

The question is whether they'll have to formally register, or if they'll be
automatically regarded as such. No doubt it will be the same as we get in
the EU.

My guess is that for non-working visits, no registration would be
necessary, as the numbers would overwhelm the bureaucracy. After all,
no-one wants to impede toursm, or educational visits.

Without some bureaucracy, how do you tell the purpose of the visit?

Maybe some kind of 'Visa waiver' scheme?

Most EU citizens won't want to come to work illegally, as they wouldn't
be entitled to any benefits, or healthcare.

Neither of those appear to stop the USA putting tourists and people on
educational visits through quite a bit of bureaucracy.
--
Roland Perry

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.
--
Roland Perry

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!

On 22/01/2017 11:00, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.

The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times

I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).

I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)?

Not much, and not from Gatwick North. But I felt significantly
inconvenienced when I did.

The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.





And the vast majority of people who use the e-gates now appear to be
luddites.