Gatwick Airport - facilities, improvements and incidents - merged posts, ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

I think you mean *what* drone. Police saying it might not even exist as no footage, only human verbal reports with no details exist.

And that was a "miscommunication" by police. 67 individual reported sightings.

[ChrisB]

hmmm. Video of interview with Police not withdrawn yet...

[broadgage]

I suspect that some of the initial reported sightings were real, but that the situation then degenerated into hysteria, with most subsequent reports being mistaken.
I also consider it possible that a large drone, or even a manned glider or microlight was flown at a permitted distance from the airport, and was mistaken for a smaller craft much nearer.

If the initial drone flights WERE a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, then those responsible are probably very impressed with the results.

[Clan Line]

It's starting to remind me of the Warminster "Thing"......................

[Surrey 455]

Could be a portal to Rendlesham Forest. 

[CyclingSid]

The news that BA^» (British Airways - about) might no longer use Gatwick, if I have understood it correctly, must have all sorts of ramifications for transport.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013
Presumably spare slots that could relieve the pressure on LHR.
Another reason to put off a decision on a third runway for LHR.
Does this remove the need for an increase in frequency on the North Downs line.
Reduction in Gatwick Express frequency, allowing paths for other use (if needed).

[Celestial]

I wonder whether BA^» (British Airways - about) is doing this to avoid losing valuable slots at Heathrow.  Presumably there will be a significant period when it will not need to use all it's normal capacity, which in normal circumstances it would lose. Whilst at the moment those rules are (I believe) suspended, I suspect that won't be the case in a couple of years, if other airlines want them.  And given they are as rare as hen's teeth, and are a valuable tradable commodity too, some foreign airlines might be willing to take up capacity to gain a foothold into LHR.

So by consolidating all its traffic into Heathrow, it minimises under-utilisation.

[grahame]

I wonder whether BA^» (British Airways - about) is doing this to avoid losing valuable slots at Heathrow.  Presumably there will be a significant period when it will not need to use all it's normal capacity, which in normal circumstances it would lose. Whilst at the moment those rules are (I believe) suspended, I suspect that won't be the case in a couple of years, if other airlines want them.  And given they are as rare as hen's teeth, and are a valuable tradable commodity too, some foreign airlines might be willing to take up capacity to gain a foothold into LHR.

So by consolidating all its traffic into Heathrow, it minimises under-utilisation.

It makes sense beyond safeguarding slots.

Forecasts suggests air traffic returning at a lower level.   With the Gatwick operation being about a fifth of the size of the Heathrow one, absorbing the traffic that was covered from Gatwick into Heathrow would reduce overheads from two operations into one. It would also improve BA flight connections through London - same airport connections where previously those connection in London were hamped by an airport change competitors in Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do not suffer.

BEA started services from Gatwick in 1950 ... merged with BOAC into BA.   Could be the end of 70 years.    I wouldn't see all the other airlines leaving Gatwick though, but we could see further rationalisation from those who use multiple "London" airports.

[Surrey 455]

Hadn't BA^» (British Airways - about) been reducing services at Gatwick in recent years? Transferring some routes to Heathrow? They moved from the North terminal a few years back where they were the main (only?) tenant to the South whilst easyJet moved the other way. Up till that point easyJet had been operating mostly from the South terminal but I think they had a small number of North terminal routes.

[Bmblbzzz]

I wonder if this long term implications for the viability of other London airports, such as Stanstead or Luton? If flying only comes back at a very low level there may not be enough to keep those going, especially if airlines move to take up vacated slots at Gatwick as being more accessible for passengers? Though it must depend on the relative charges of these airports as well.

[Thatcham Crossing]

Hadn't BA^» (British Airways - about) been reducing services at Gatwick in recent years?

No, if anything they were slightly growing, especially long haul, which I think was up to 13 based 777's, flying mainly the "beach fleet" routes to Florida, the Carribean and Indian Ocean islands.

Transferring some routes to Heathrow?

A few premium/high-yielding routes have been moved to/also operate from Heathrow. Gibraltar is one that springs to mind.

Up till that point easyJet had been operating mostly from the South terminal but I think they had a small number of North terminal routes.

Their North Terminal routes were a legacy of their takeover of GB^▸ (Great Britain) Airways, which operated as a BA franchise.

BA must think things are going to be bad if they are prepared to surrender Gatwick to Easyjet (who have around 60 aircraft based there).

However, some analysts are suggesting that what they might do is bring in Vueling (Spanish low-cost airline that's also part of IAG), who will have lots of excess capacity due to the collapse of Spain's holiday industry, to operate at Gatwick with a lower cost-model. Vueling did operate some Gatwick routes in their own right, including a very frequent (multiple-daily) service to Barcelona.

The whole thing about BA looking at closing Gatwick operations could also be a ploy by the airline to sort out long-running (I mean decades long) labour disputes within the airline, that mean for example you have different onboard crewing regimes (and vastly different pay scales), even within Heathrow operations, let alone Gatwick.

[Celestial]

I wonder if this long term implications for the viability of other London airports, such as Stanstead or Luton? If flying only comes back at a very low level there may not be enough to keep those going, especially if airlines move to take up vacated slots at Gatwick as being more accessible for passengers? Though it must depend on the relative charges of these airports as well.

Not sure why Gatwick is more accessible for passengers.  If you're north of London, Luton and Stansted are better, south of the river it's obviously Gatwick.  I would think all will survive, but may put back any investment aimed at increasing passenger numbers by a few years.  Southend I suspect is in a more precarious situation though.

[GBM]

Our daughter lives in the Brighton area, and on occasions, flies down to Newquay from Gatwick.
Then Flybe moved to Heathrow.  Not convenient at all from the South Coast.
Flybe towards the early part of this year then said it was moving back to Gatwick, then collapsed.

There was a Flybe service from Stanstead to Newquay, but that's now gone.
BA^» (British Airways - about) also ran a service of sorts from Heathrow to Newquay.  We await to see what happens to that; and, of course, to Newquay and other provincial airports.

[Bmblbzzz]

I wonder if this long term implications for the viability of other London airports, such as Stanstead or Luton? If flying only comes back at a very low level there may not be enough to keep those going, especially if airlines move to take up vacated slots at Gatwick as being more accessible for passengers? Though it must depend on the relative charges of these airports as well.

Not sure why Gatwick is more accessible for passengers.  If you're north of London, Luton and Stansted are better, south of the river it's obviously Gatwick.  I would think all will survive, but may put back any investment aimed at increasing passenger numbers by a few years.  Southend I suspect is in a more precarious situation though.

I was thinking that it's easier to get to from London. From Bristol it's definitely easier to get to as there are direct coaches and trains (maybe not at the moment), no need to change in London with the inevitable journey between termini. But yeah, it clearly depends where you're starting from.

[grahame]

Gatwick strikes me as easier to reach by train from the south, west (via direct train from Reading) and much of the north (via Thameslink) than Heathrow.

Heathrow is ... OK ... from Central London. From the West, you can double back at Paddington or struggle over a footbridge (or is there a lift in yet?) off a local train at Hayes and Harlington.   Come Crossrail it will be much better the with branches into Essex and Kent.

Which will be first - through opening of Crossrail or full recovery of air travel (assuming we want that latter rather tan more selective us with many UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and near Europe journeys by train).