Gatwick-2
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Italy
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW post COVID-19
What are people's thoughts about which airlines will return to LGW post COVID-19? BA will no doubt return, given their huge investment in the LGW South check in and lounges, as will VS for similar reasons, perhaps with reduced frequencies, but what about airlines that maintain 1 daily services or less? (CX and CI come to mind here).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think airlines, like most businesses, will be taking a much more long-term view. This is a disruption, but it will pass, like most have. Capitalism is brutal as it renews.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NEW FOREST
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect old chap 99.999% of the UK pop'n cannot fly now, nor in the foreseeable....FCO advise against all non-essential travel abroad - No one is going on Hols nor going away on VFR nor on business trips....Half the World will not let Brits in anyway without a big fuss.
Flying airplanes has almost stopped dead in its tracks let alone low levels.
Gatwick is a ghost town. the only major flying is Cargo jets right now.
Flying airplanes has almost stopped dead in its tracks let alone low levels.
Gatwick is a ghost town. the only major flying is Cargo jets right now.
LGW is one of the quieter airports due it's predominant operators ceasing flying, but there are other regional airports still open handling more flights including the exec airports.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An open forum and figures quoted should be justifiable and at least evidence based and its certainly not rude to ask for the references - We can then check for ourselves
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see “no need to furnish you with a comprehensive answer” and read it as “I can’t because “bollocks” was indeed a fair assessment”
Out of interest, where in the UK do you believe the other 700-odd departures are originating from ?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 44
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the key words from what they posted were "In UK airspace"
Perhaps the double counting comes from codeshares and cancellations still visible on websites which only show as cancelled when you click on each one. Either way, that 800 figure is vastly inflated.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To to be honest the comeback is reminiscent of social media bots, focusing on the “bollocks” bit rather than actually providing the information
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather.
I assume they’ve been using 26R to allow maintenance/resurfacing to be done to the main runway during the shutdown. This regularly happens at night during the summer, but with the majority of based aircraft arriving back between 23-1 it actually causes a fair bit of disruption, as no runway is available for 10 minutes at a time when a lot of aircraft want to use it. Getting this work done now when it can be done for days straight, rather than just 5 hours per night subject to weather, is sensible.
Or it could’ve simply been to save money. With good weather and no heavy loaded departures, there’s no need for a runway with the length and equipment of 26L. A shorter runway with far fewer lights, ILS equipment switched off would save a fair bit on the lecky bill.
I assume they’ve been using 26R to allow maintenance/resurfacing to be done to the main runway during the shutdown. This regularly happens at night during the summer, but with the majority of based aircraft arriving back between 23-1 it actually causes a fair bit of disruption, as no runway is available for 10 minutes at a time when a lot of aircraft want to use it. Getting this work done now when it can be done for days straight, rather than just 5 hours per night subject to weather, is sensible.
Or it could’ve simply been to save money. With good weather and no heavy loaded departures, there’s no need for a runway with the length and equipment of 26L. A shorter runway with far fewer lights, ILS equipment switched off would save a fair bit on the lecky bill.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"British Airways has told staff its Gatwick airport operation may not reopen after the coronavirus pandemic passes". Link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: HERE
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather.
I assume they’ve been using 26R to allow maintenance/resurfacing to be done to the main runway during the shutdown. This regularly happens at night during the summer, but with the majority of based aircraft arriving back between 23-1 it actually causes a fair bit of disruption, as no runway is available for 10 minutes at a time when a lot of aircraft want to use it. Getting this work done now when it can be done for days straight, rather than just 5 hours per night subject to weather, is sensible.
Or it could’ve simply been to save money. With good weather and no heavy loaded departures, there’s no need for a runway with the length and equipment of 26L. A shorter runway with far fewer lights, ILS equipment switched off would save a fair bit on the lecky bill.
I assume they’ve been using 26R to allow maintenance/resurfacing to be done to the main runway during the shutdown. This regularly happens at night during the summer, but with the majority of based aircraft arriving back between 23-1 it actually causes a fair bit of disruption, as no runway is available for 10 minutes at a time when a lot of aircraft want to use it. Getting this work done now when it can be done for days straight, rather than just 5 hours per night subject to weather, is sensible.
Or it could’ve simply been to save money. With good weather and no heavy loaded departures, there’s no need for a runway with the length and equipment of 26L. A shorter runway with far fewer lights, ILS equipment switched off would save a fair bit on the lecky bill.
Not wanting to get too involved in the above disagreement, those figures above look a fair assessment to me based upon data I see which is not in the public domain, however I believe even last week at one of the daily Government press conferences the figure of 18K was confirmed for passengers passing through LHR each day when a TV commentator/journalist questioned why the number was so high.