Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

100m Gatwick project opens gates
BBC ^ | Monday, 16 May, 2005, 10:25 GMT 11:25 UK | Staff

Posted on 05/17/2005 12:53:35 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative

Gatwick Airport passengers are to be served by 11 extra boarding gates.

Transport secretary Alistair Darling opened the Pier 6 development on Monday, describing it as "a terrific new facility".

It is connected to Gatwick's North Terminal by a 32m high footbridge and will be in use by the end of the week.

Work on the £100m building began in 2003 and it offers 11 new pier-served aircraft stands so travellers need not go outside to reach their plane.

It is estimated that 92% of North Terminal passengers will have access to this pier stand boarding, saving around 55,000 transfer-bus journeys a year.

British Airways is the first airline that will use the stands.

Big development

Mr Darling said: "This bridge will make it easier for passengers to pass through the airport while reducing the airport's impact on the environment."

Mike Clasper, chief executive of airport operator BAA, said: "This major new landmark for Gatwick sets the stage for a positive future for the airport at a time when passenger numbers are booming."

The new building will also provide shops, cafes and other amenities.

This bridge will make it easier for passengers to pass through the airport while reducing the airport's impact on the environment Transport secretary Alistair Darling

Pier 6 and its pedestrian link have constituted the biggest development at Gatwick since the opening of the North Terminal itself in 1988.

The bridge, which is 197m long, was lifted into place in May 2004 over the course of 10 days.

Three million passengers are expected to use its travelators and walkways every year.

It is also high enough to accommodate taxiing Boeing 747 jumbo jets passing underneath.

The footbridge was the first of its kind built in the UK and larger than the only other one in the world, at Denver International Airport in the US.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 747; a380; airbus; aviation; boeing; gatwick
You wouldn't beieve how stupid the design of this air bridge is. It is high enough for a 747's tail to pass under but not an A380. I can't post the pictures here but here are some links to an thread and pictures hosted on another website.


1 posted on 05/17/2005 12:53:38 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Here are the links.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2115367/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/794504/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/794503/M/

2 posted on 05/17/2005 12:55:39 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
It is high enough for a 747's tail to pass under but not an A380.

Can you imagine if a 747 pilot got a little aggressive throttling up the engines after passing through this thing? It would throw glass for about a mile. :)
3 posted on 05/17/2005 12:57:03 PM PDT by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Hunter; COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; ..
Ping!

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread. Aerospace Ping List

4 posted on 05/17/2005 12:57:29 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Chicago O'Hare had the same idea and figured a tunnel made more sense.

No beautiful airport scenery to observe, but then again, the best scenery in any airport is people watching.

5 posted on 05/17/2005 1:00:43 PM PDT by N. Theknow (What an appropriate name for the times in which we live - RAT-ZINGER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Why didn't they just go underground? Half of Frankfurt Int'l is underground.


6 posted on 05/17/2005 1:04:01 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
No beautiful airport scenery to observe, but then again, the best scenery in any airport is people watching.

Lots of people like to look at the planes. The air bridge looks like a great place to see them. Considering the money they spent on the facility, I can't figure out why they didn't build it high enough to let an A380 pass under it. Considering the British are part of the Airbus consortium, I'm surprised they would build a new facility at their second buisiest international airport that is incompatible with A380 operations.

7 posted on 05/17/2005 1:06:06 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Hmm, not big enough for an A380. Other airports don't want to build to support the A380.

I love it, when a plan comes together (evil grin)


8 posted on 05/17/2005 1:14:46 PM PDT by Salgak ((don't mind me, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers are making me write this. . . . FNORD!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Yeah, but are there any plans for Gatwick to support A380s at all, or will they all be over at Heathrow?

Nice-looking structure, if a bit impractical. An underground tunnel would've made more sense, but then you can't show it off to the public and the government and use it to try and get MORE money!

}:-)4


9 posted on 05/17/2005 1:45:44 PM PDT by Moose4 (Richmond, Virginia--commemorating 140 years of Yankee occupation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
Yeah, but are there any plans for Gatwick to support A380s at all, or will they all be over at Heathrow?

Considering the terminal will be around 50-100 years, who knows what aircraft will be operating at which airports. Even if none are planned yet, that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

10 posted on 05/17/2005 2:03:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Thanks for the ping.

Building a bridge instead of a tunnel probably isn't the best idea. The bridge in Denver was built too low so that even a 757 couldn't fit under it. And Denver already has a tunnel between the terminals.


11 posted on 05/17/2005 2:56:44 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
You wouldn't beieve how stupid the design of this air bridge is.

That's why most major airports use tunnels instead of bridges.

12 posted on 05/17/2005 3:32:25 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
You wouldn't beieve how stupid the design (is)"

LOL, you could say that about a lot of airport...I have flown in and out of Atlanta Hartsfield many times to know this.

13 posted on 05/17/2005 4:42:37 PM PDT by Guillermo (Bush is no conservative. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me that he is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

"Mr Darling said: "This bridge will make it easier for passengers to pass through the airport while reducing the airport's impact on the environment." "

How does this reduce environmental impact?


14 posted on 05/18/2005 1:36:20 PM PDT by Martin Wellbourne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I guess they don't want 380s there at Gatwick. To be honest, most of what flies in and out of there is non jumbo. The exception being the odd 747 or 777 flying to MSP or Dallas.


15 posted on 05/19/2005 9:21:24 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD
I guess they don't want 380s there at Gatwick. To be honest, most of what flies in and out of there is non jumbo. The exception being the odd 747 or 777 flying to MSP or Dallas.

That may be true now and for the next ten or twenty years, but considering how expensive the terminal is and that it will be around for 50-100 years, isn't a bit short sighted not to build the bridge high enough to accomodate an A380?

16 posted on 05/19/2005 10:13:54 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson