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

In message , at 14:41:32 on
Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

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's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:32 on
Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

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's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?

It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 15:57:27 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:32 on
Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

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's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?

It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.

And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 15:57:27 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:32 on
Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked:

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's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?

It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.

That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.


Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.

No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates, and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.


And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.

Which is completely painless, and you end up right by the station. In fact,
it's so painless that I usually park in the cheaper South Terminal long
stay car park even when using the North Terminal.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:


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's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?

It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.

That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.

I expect they have traveltors.

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.

No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,

Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.

and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.

And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.

Which is completely painless,

It's time-consuming.

--
Roland Perry

On 2017-01-21 15:57:27 +0000, Recliner said:

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

It's certainly preferable to any stupid shuttle train arrangement - the
problem with shuttle trains is that you have a waiting time involved in
your journey which, as they do not operate to a timetable, is
unpredictable. But then so's a walk through a tunnel, with travelators
if appropriate.

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

If a shuttle train runs every 5 minutes, I have to allow 5 minutes plus
the transit time.

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

In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams 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.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-01-21 18:18:33 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams 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.

That's irrelevant to my point. My point was that however long it
takes, it is a predictable amount of time that will always be the same,
unlike a transit train.

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

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams 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.