Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:00:04 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

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.

Only two more years to go.

Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.

Even now, many non-EU citizens can use them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPas...es#Eligibility

At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens 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.

----

Similarly, I was surprised to see that I could use the equivalent gates in
New Zealand.

On 22.01.2017 12:28 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.

It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.

What about the escalators up and down?

OK, so add another minute.

They are extremely long escalators.
--
Roland Perry

I'm going to suggest you never visit the Lufthansa terminal at the
(generally outstanding) Munich airport - moving between the two piers there
combines a couple of extremely long escalators *and* a transit shuttle...
(Under rather than over the taxiway in that case.)


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.

In message , at 11:44:25 on Sun, 22 Jan
2017, Clank remarked:
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.

It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.

What about the escalators up and down?

OK, so add another minute.

They are extremely long escalators.

I'm going to suggest you never visit the Lufthansa terminal at the
(generally outstanding) Munich airport - moving between the two piers there
combines a couple of extremely long escalators *and* a transit shuttle...
(Under rather than over the taxiway in that case.)

That has very little relevance to the relative convenience of Pier 6
being attached to the North vs South terminal.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:30:53 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?
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:33:28 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
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.

Only two more years to go.

Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.

That's going to stop people working illegally, not.

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


Even now, many non-EU citizens can use them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPas...es#Eligibility

At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens 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.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:41:32 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.

It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).

I happened to pass over and under it last month, possibly for the last
time in a while, as BA is moving back to the South Terminal, so I took
some pictures:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57675681821364

There's more about its construction he
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/in...21/samaras.pdf


Thank you for those very interesting pictures.

--
John Ray

On 2017-01-22 11:44:25 +0000, Clank said:

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.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

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.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:37:46 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:30:53 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. The only acceptable link to the South
terminal would be an underground shuttle, which is overkill for an 11
gate pier. You also seem to think that the south terminal has enough
spare capacity for another 11 gates. It doesn't.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:35:14 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 11:44:25 +0000, Clank said:

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.

Not an excuse, but a one word explanation: Ryanair. It has enough of
the business through the airport to be able to veto any plans that
would make it better. And Ryanair doesn't give a fig if that makes the
airport less popular with other airlines' customers.