Gatwick-2
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah apparently a new taxiway is part of the project.
A more detailed look at the plan does little to change my view that it's been dreamed up by some intern on job experience during their coffee-break. 
Here's the best example from among some fairly poor illustrations in the document, showing the airside and landside changes that would accompany use of the standby runway:
Key to airside changes:
1 Widen existing standby runway
2 Relocate Juliet taxiway
3 New resequencing-holding area
4 Reconfigure existing RET
5 New end-around taxiway
6 Existing taxiway used as end-around twy
8 One further pier project (in one of 3 location options shown)
Here's the best example from among some fairly poor illustrations in the document, showing the airside and landside changes that would accompany use of the standby runway:
Key to airside changes:
1 Widen existing standby runway
2 Relocate Juliet taxiway
3 New resequencing-holding area
4 Reconfigure existing RET
5 New end-around taxiway
6 Existing taxiway used as end-around twy
8 One further pier project (in one of 3 location options shown)
But it's all a bit academic, as it's never going to happen.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's very hard to see stands 140-145 surviving a relocation of Twy J. The fire station might just about be OK, and I'll confess I'm not entirely surely exactly where the new Boeing hangar is being built.
But it's all a bit academic, as it's never going to happen.
But it's all a bit academic, as it's never going to happen.
Just in case you didn't bother to read it all or at least to the very end the Boeing hangar is ''currently'' being built and is situated opposite the Virgin hangar.
Looking closely at the Master Plan and the diagrams it doesn't appear to show any new parallel taxiway being planned so I think we can all safely assume that the remote stands and fire station will remain in situ regardless of any use of the second (emergency) runway.for dual operations although to be honest o can't see it happening.
Rather than this half hearted attempt of using the emergency runway for dual operations what LGW should do is to reapply for planning permission for the second runway and associated new Terminal to be built regardless of the fact that the Government has decided that LHR is favoured for a third runway.
Last edited by canberra97; 19th Oct 2018 at 14:15.
It clearly shows where the Boeing hangar is being built in the diagrams at the very end of the Master Plan plus it has an image of the hangar.
Just in case you didn't bother to read it all or at least to the very end the Boeing hangar is ''currently'' being built and is situated opposite the Virgin hangar.
Just in case you didn't bother to read it all or at least to the very end the Boeing hangar is ''currently'' being built and is situated opposite the Virgin hangar.
Having now looked at Plan 9 on P157, the hangar is nowhere near Twy J and so wouldn't be affected by any taxiway relocation (to answer the previous poster's query).
Looking closely at the Master Plan and the diagrams it doesn't appear to show any new parallel taxiway being planned so I think we can all safely assume that the remote stands and fire station will remain in situ regardless of any use of the second (emergency) runway for dual operations although to be honest I can't see it happening.
Rather than this half hearted attempt of using the emergency runway for dual operations what LGW should do is to reapply for planning permission for the second runway and associated new Terminal to be built regardless of the fact that the Government has decided that LHR is favoured for a third runway.
Though presumably anyone who was interested would exercise the usual due diligence and quickly realise what a nonsense the standby runway proposal is.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to reports Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) is part of a group of investors proposing to buy out GIP with a deal expected to be finalised in the coming weeks.
If Tegel operates with runways 200m apart, why can't Gatwick? The only thing that surprises me is that they're talking about it taking till 2025 to implement it. Not that I am anything other than an interested onlooker.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, it's a fair cop - I confess I got bored and gave up around Page 150.
Having now looked at Plan 9 on P157, the hangar is nowhere near Twy J and so wouldn't be affected by any taxiway relocation (to answer the previous poster's query).
You've got better eyesight than I have if you can discern from those blurry graphics whether the taxiway is in its original position or it's 27 metres further north.
It strikes me that the document might best be regarded as a marketing brochure aimed at whoever might decide to buy GIP's 42% shareholding in LGW.
Though presumably anyone who was interested would exercise the usual due diligence and quickly realise what a nonsense the standby runway proposal is.
Having now looked at Plan 9 on P157, the hangar is nowhere near Twy J and so wouldn't be affected by any taxiway relocation (to answer the previous poster's query).
You've got better eyesight than I have if you can discern from those blurry graphics whether the taxiway is in its original position or it's 27 metres further north.
It strikes me that the document might best be regarded as a marketing brochure aimed at whoever might decide to buy GIP's 42% shareholding in LGW.
Though presumably anyone who was interested would exercise the usual due diligence and quickly realise what a nonsense the standby runway proposal is.
Regarding my ''better eyesight'' even though I wear contact lenses and glasses if your using your phone or iPad it's not an issue as you can enlarge the graphics enough to clearly see what's proposed.
It always pays to read any document fully otherwise how can someone be in a position to respond to it if there not fully up to scratch with the topic being discussed.
The text of the document makes it clear that a significant part of the parallel taxiway (J) will have to be moved further north to provided the required clearance. Whether you class that as a "new" taxiway or a "relocated" one is just semantics.
But, having taken your advice and zoomed in on the graphic, it's pretty clear that Gatwick haven't bothered to Photoshop the new line of the taxiway (or the widened standby runway, come to that) onto the Google Earth view.
So if your statement that
Looking closely at the Master Plan and the diagrams it doesn't appear to show any new parallel taxiway being planned
The existing 'Juliet' taxiway located to the north of, and parallel to, the standby runway would be moved further to the north.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now read most of the proposal document I think that they have been quite creative in their plan to bring the back up run way into use as a step towards the eventual full second runway.
i know of no other airport that has the same number of go arounds as LGW and requires all involved to be on the ball from flying very accurate approach speeds to timely clearing the runway and being ready to roll immediately.
Given that the bulk of traffic volume flys south from LGW and that by using the back up runway would free capacity for the traffic heading in to west Europe & Scandinavia, having said that it will be a huge engineering project just to add concrete to the north of the main runway because of the need to move Juliet taxy way which have to go the north of the ponds and the fire training area will need to be relocated to allow construction of the bypass loop around the runway heads.
By making it only available for take off negates the need for approach aids and associated lighting, it will of course cause even more problems in LVP’s due the higher volume, but its only a couple of days a year that it hangs around all day ( fog)
i doubt theyll actually have two aircraft raft taking off simultaneously, but having a departure whilst another aircraft is on short final will improve flow for sure and it will allow greater flexibility for wake separation, LGW is unusual in having a very mixed aircraft type from WB to super heavy and lots of narrow body types also.
my only criticism is it’s a fudge when what is really needed is a new full length Cat3, but that’s the UK when it comes to infrastructure
i know of no other airport that has the same number of go arounds as LGW and requires all involved to be on the ball from flying very accurate approach speeds to timely clearing the runway and being ready to roll immediately.
Given that the bulk of traffic volume flys south from LGW and that by using the back up runway would free capacity for the traffic heading in to west Europe & Scandinavia, having said that it will be a huge engineering project just to add concrete to the north of the main runway because of the need to move Juliet taxy way which have to go the north of the ponds and the fire training area will need to be relocated to allow construction of the bypass loop around the runway heads.
By making it only available for take off negates the need for approach aids and associated lighting, it will of course cause even more problems in LVP’s due the higher volume, but its only a couple of days a year that it hangs around all day ( fog)
i doubt theyll actually have two aircraft raft taking off simultaneously, but having a departure whilst another aircraft is on short final will improve flow for sure and it will allow greater flexibility for wake separation, LGW is unusual in having a very mixed aircraft type from WB to super heavy and lots of narrow body types also.
my only criticism is it’s a fudge when what is really needed is a new full length Cat3, but that’s the UK when it comes to infrastructure
Read it all, or you'll get told off.
Given that the bulk of traffic volume flys south from LGW and that by using the back up runway would free capacity for the traffic heading in to west Europe & Scandinavia, having said that it will be a huge engineering project just to add concrete to the north of the main runway because of the need to move Juliet taxy way which have to go the north of the ponds and the fire training area will need to be relocated to allow construction of the bypass loop around the runway heads.
The current nominal width of J is 25 m (though the actual pavement is wider, beyond the yellow edge marking on the southern edge). So imagine another 25 m wide taxiway to the north with just a 2 m gap in between the two. Yes, the pond where the River Mole turns to go under the airfield would need to be narrowed, but I don't think the fire training area would be affected.
The relocated taxiway may impinge on some or all of the 140-145 stands - it depends whether the required runway-to-taxiway separation applies only to the TORA or to the TODA (i.e. including the 08L clearway). I don't know the answer to that without looking it up in Annex 14.
ACL report shows Turkish being granted slots for a route to Ankara. Hasn't gone on sale yet so presumably not going to happen immediately but perhaps something for the future ?
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it all, or you'll get told off.
The proposal talks about shifting Twy J a maximum of 27 metres further north.
The current nominal width of J is 25 m (though the actual pavement is wider, beyond the yellow edge marking on the southern edge). So imagine another 25 m wide taxiway to the north with just a 2 m gap in between the two. Yes, the pond where the River Mole turns to go under the airfield would need to be narrowed, but I don't think the fire training area would be affected.
The relocated taxiway may impinge on some or all of the 140-145 stands - it depends whether the required runway-to-taxiway separation applies only to the TORA or to the TODA (i.e. including the 08L clearway). I don't know the answer to that without looking it up in Annex 14.
The proposal talks about shifting Twy J a maximum of 27 metres further north.
The current nominal width of J is 25 m (though the actual pavement is wider, beyond the yellow edge marking on the southern edge). So imagine another 25 m wide taxiway to the north with just a 2 m gap in between the two. Yes, the pond where the River Mole turns to go under the airfield would need to be narrowed, but I don't think the fire training area would be affected.
The relocated taxiway may impinge on some or all of the 140-145 stands - it depends whether the required runway-to-taxiway separation applies only to the TORA or to the TODA (i.e. including the 08L clearway). I don't know the answer to that without looking it up in Annex 14.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vueling
i see next summer they are showing 7 BCN flights per day, I guess this is utilising the slots BA had for their now cancelled BCN service, are Vueling still operating all other routesas per previous seasons... seem to have a small but significant presence these days.
i see next summer they are showing 7 BCN flights per day, I guess this is utilising the slots BA had for their now cancelled BCN service, are Vueling still operating all other routesas per previous seasons... seem to have a small but significant presence these days.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to an article on ch.aviaton ASKY Airlines intend on using a B737 MAX from their hub in Lome, Togo to London and Johannesburg, the article is behind a paywall.
I had mentioned on this forum before that ASKY were looking into flying to London in a previous post from last year as I had read an article online that was in French that suggested this.
Although it states London in the article I should imagine that it will be Gatwick that gets this new West African connection and with ASKY Airlines comprehensive network it will open up many destinations on the African continent and in particular west and central Africa.
I had mentioned on this forum before that ASKY were looking into flying to London in a previous post from last year as I had read an article online that was in French that suggested this.
Although it states London in the article I should imagine that it will be Gatwick that gets this new West African connection and with ASKY Airlines comprehensive network it will open up many destinations on the African continent and in particular west and central Africa.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a post on another aviation site Air China 3 weekly Chengdu to LGW will move to LHR and will be increased to 5 weekly.
If true yet another long haul airline and another Chinese destination lost from the LGW route portfolio :-(
I wonder how long China Eastern will hang around at Gatwick for with their Shanghai flights before they too are eventually moved to LHR!
I know that the market speaks volumes but on a personal note I find it a great shame that Gatwick can't sustain these airlines and routes.
I know that circumstances and the markets have changed and many airlines have either merged or ceased trading or have relocated to LHR but to think of how many long haul airlines were serving Gatwick thirty years ago compared to now.
I've got time on my hands so I'm going to list them, I'm using the year 1989.
Air Afrique
Air Gabon
Air Gambia
Air Lanka
Air New Zealand
Air Seychelles
Air Tanzania
Air Zimbabwe
All Nippon Airlines
American Airlines
Avianca
Azerbaijan Airlines
CAAC
Cameroon Airlines
Canadian Airlines
Cathay Pacific
Continental
Delta
Emirates
EVA Air
Garuda Indonesia
Korean Air
Northwest Orient
Philippine Airlines
Piedmont Airlines/US Air
Royal Brunei Airlines
Royal Nepal Airlines
Sierra Leone Airways
Trans World Airways
Uganda Airlines
Wardair
Yemenia
If true yet another long haul airline and another Chinese destination lost from the LGW route portfolio :-(
I wonder how long China Eastern will hang around at Gatwick for with their Shanghai flights before they too are eventually moved to LHR!
I know that the market speaks volumes but on a personal note I find it a great shame that Gatwick can't sustain these airlines and routes.
I know that circumstances and the markets have changed and many airlines have either merged or ceased trading or have relocated to LHR but to think of how many long haul airlines were serving Gatwick thirty years ago compared to now.
I've got time on my hands so I'm going to list them, I'm using the year 1989.
Air Afrique
Air Gabon
Air Gambia
Air Lanka
Air New Zealand
Air Seychelles
Air Tanzania
Air Zimbabwe
All Nippon Airlines
American Airlines
Avianca
Azerbaijan Airlines
CAAC
Cameroon Airlines
Canadian Airlines
Cathay Pacific
Continental
Delta
Emirates
EVA Air
Garuda Indonesia
Korean Air
Northwest Orient
Philippine Airlines
Piedmont Airlines/US Air
Royal Brunei Airlines
Royal Nepal Airlines
Sierra Leone Airways
Trans World Airways
Uganda Airlines
Wardair
Yemenia
Last edited by canberra97; 6th Nov 2018 at 02:10.