BA has money to burn! (The LGW 'bridge')

[cirrus01]

Constantly being told that "Cash is King " .... So anyone care to calculate ........

How much did BA waste today on flying a 747-400 empty LHR-LGW-LHR just so they can claim a stupidly childish "record" as the first aircraft under Gatwicks new passenger bridge ? Just to beat the bearded one ?

Note....BA do not fly the 747-400 out of LGW ........even on routes that would easily be full......Miami, Orlando.

As if the publicity will be worth anything after the CDG terminal collapse.....:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

[Quidnunc]

BA made more profit this year than ALL the UK low quality (sorry low cost) airlines combined. Yup, we got cash to burn. And it feels good. And (while the going is good) we will induldge.

Great to see BA where is should be - leading the pack.
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[HotDog]

Cirrus, it was probably a training flight for landing recency or such, so it wasn't wasted.

[Bumblebee]

1: BA rent the North Terminal, and are probably responsible for around 75% of the movements at LGW (thereabouts).

2: It needed to be a 747 to check the clearances under the bridge.

3: I don't know about you....but if the Bearded one was about try and pull a publicity stunt (as rumoured), then wouldn't you want to make sure you got the PR coup?

Faced with this prospect, the words attributed to Rod E were apparently (insert Oz accent here) "Over my Dead body...!"

[Llademos]

ummm ... what has the CDG collapse got to do with this, cirrus01? BA don't use T2 there!

I'm with Bumblebee ... if it stopped the Bearded One getting in first it was worth it - Branson would have milked it for all he could, to BA's detriment.

[ojs]

Llademos, actually BA do use T2 at CDG. They moved into it last year while T1 was refurbished. Shame - I'd come to like Satellite 5 for all its quirks.

As for this stunt... Good on BA! For once taking the positive initiative. BA invests (spends) money all the time (have you any idea of the spend on IM for a start?.. It's not far off 3/4 of a million pounds a day) and to my mind this is just one of them.

I hadn't been to LGW for a while and was amazed by this bridge. It's a great feat of engineering - and dare I say more impressive than the T5 roof for now).

Isn't a bridge of this size across a taxi-way a world-first?

[Dewdrop]

Quinunc - BA didn't make that profit from trading profitably, they made it from slashing cost. That easy to do at the beginning but it gets harder and harder, lets reserve judgement shall we ?

[openfly]

The 'Bearded Virgin' is planning to FLY a 747-400 under the LGW bridge, to grab the headlines!!!!

[BOAC]

.and I know JUST the chap to do it:D

[Charley B]

I think I heard on the radio this morning ,the only other bridge like this is Denver.

Well done BA--after all the negative publicityover the last few years,this was a good one----after all it is mainly their terminal.

It would be nice to see 747's back at LGW!Come on BA lets have a few back from LHR!!!!!!!!

[BigGreenPleasureMachine]

It needed to be a 747 to check the clearances under the bridge

Couldn't they have done that with a tape measure?

[Spekkie]

BA must be getting desperate!

Next thing you know they'll be going back to trying to ambush customers on their way to the Virgin check in desks and lure them away!

BA is still a dirty word - no matter what childish and wasteful "stunt" they try and pull.

More power to Richard. Top man!

[Re-Heat]

BA is still a dirty word - no matter what childish and wasteful "stunt" they try and pull.
And Branson doesn't resort to these? Think Courtney Love and the air rage incident. How despicable was that?

[Angus Meecoat]

Im not sure it was there to check the hight of the bridge,

Yesterday we were on 107 and we had to get pushed back all the way down Q. The "L" taxiway is totally blocked off by cranes, trucks, diggers etc, still the same when we got back late afternoon.

As somebody said, why not a tape measure

[Count Acclaim]

Hot Dog

Actually if I know BA, and I think I do, its more likely to have been a couple managers having a jolly don't you? Anyone care to confirm?

[eal401]

I believe that the aircraft has now travelled under the bridge, there was a blurry photo on BBC.

[zed3]

There's a photo in today's Daily Telegraph , anyone any idea how much taller the tail of the A380 is ? The bridge must have been designed to accept that as well ..... or was it ?!!!

[BRISTOLRE]

I was just going to add, lets see if anyone can get an A380 under there in a couple of years! B74 yes but the A380 is going to be hell of a lot bigger...

[eal401]

A380 tail is 79.36 feet tall.

747-400 tail is 63ft 8in tall.

The bridge is 98.42 feet off the ground. Can't see a problem myself.

[M.Mouse]

If the A380 needs to go under the bridge they can let some nitrogen out of the tyres.

[No comment]

Bumblebee, BA do occupy the North Terminal but are only responsible for 27% of all movements this Summer season. As far as seats are concerned they only have a 25% share.

The 747 used had nothing to do with clearances, it was pure publicity. Taxied under the bridge twice under its own power for external photographs and was then attached to a tug so photographers could get cockpit shots.

The speculative cost of the BA flight LHR-LGW-LHR is £5,500, hardly a dent on their income...

A380 wont fit under the bridge, neither in fact will the 747SP. Perhaps a little short sighted but to be honest theres hardly any SP's left and the A380 can take different routes around LGW to avoid the bridge anyway.

EAL there was no way 30 feet clearance between the 747's tail and the bridge yesterday. You must be thinking about the height of the bridge's roof...

[regor]

For those of us that didn't know what this was all about, here are some pretty pictures from BAA's website:

http://www.baa.com/main/airports/gatwick/about_gatwick/pier_6_frame.html

Regardless of your views of BA's motives, it's an impressive piece of engineering.

[BEagle]

Thanks for the link - lots of interesting EasyJet prices being advertised. Oh - and a non-story about ba taxiing a 747. Big deal.

And yes - sorry, chaps, chapesses and chapthings of ba, no matter how good a job you do, the airline management's dirty tricksters have irrevocably tarnished the airline's reputation in the eyes of many people. Of the 90 flights I've had in the last 12 months, 1 was with Air France, 89 with Lufthansa. None with ba......and that's the way it'll stay.

[maxy101]

That´s your choice Beagle, but I think your spiting yourself. I still think BA has the best product around at the moment.

[Wide-Body]

Sorry Beagle

After agreeing with a lot you say, I did not have you down as being so narrow minded. It surprises me that a person with your great experience is not prepared to re-asses present conditions,and evaluate such. This incident happened a decade ago. Is is that age makes time pass quicker;)

Regards

Wide

[Anti-ice]

I'm sure it was used constructively in the process by being used as a check flight etc.......:rolleyes:
Airlines position aircraft all the time - are you going to name every single positioning flight every uk airline does every week?
At least BA's originating points are fixed.

And perhaps its a refreshing change to see BA doing a bit of PR, and still proving it has some commitment to LGW :D
Rather see a bit of tasteful pr for a change rather than the 'jumper' bouncing up down with some tasteless tat.

I've heard strong rumours that 4+ 747-400s are coming back to LGW later this year too, maybe there is more to it.

Oh, and BEagle , good for you - must be so convenient for you:}

[Crosswind Limits]

Cutting our nose to spite our face are we now Beagle! :hmm: They won't miss your business, now move on and drop the grudge!! :}

For what it's worth, I travel BA whenever I can!!!:p

[BahrainLad]

Hmmmm....Beagle I'm surprised you don't condemn Lufthansa for once flying the swastika on their tails in the same way as you continue to condemn BA for 'dirty tricks'.......

[Touch'n'oops]

BBC's links here if you wanna see it:BA's "Stunt" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3756111.stm)

[bunnygirl]

We parked on one of the remote stands, soon to be part of the new extension, just before the 747 taxied under..have to say as a BA employee, I was very impressed and made me proud to work for the company...the main reason, apart from the publicity it generated, was that the company actually put some thought behind the 'actual' aircraft that went under. As the 747 concerned was the one that has been painted up in the UNICEF "Change for Good" colours, which is where any on board donations go to.

This aircraft has recently been painted up, and will be flying around the world, carrying not just our customers. But also promoting the good work of UNICEF and "Change for Good". and in doing so, raising even more money than the £17,000,000.00 already generated over the past 10 years.

And yes you are right. it didn't cost nearly as much as people may think, to fly it to LGW and back.:ok: :D

[Gaza]

If the total cost to BA was under £20k then it was money well spent. To "buy" that much publicity would costs at least 10 times that amount. To give an example: I have recently placed a number of adverts in the weekend press (broadsheets) at a cost of £20,000 per week. They are not very large and will get about 1% of the coverage that BA received.

[timbo04]

oh dear Beagle, you really do need to let go. For "dirty tricks" read "normal commercial activity" - I didn’t hear Branson crow when all he ended up with was £256k in damages especially when he had to pay BA's costs of £500k. BA was a convenient target like so many others in his quest for publicity.

Just out of interest, given Branson's championing of the consumer and his "disgust" of anti-competitive behaviour, what is his position on open skies? Its odd that the only areas of his empire where Branson makes money is where he is gifted a monopoly or government grants (trains).

[stormin norman]

If you want dirty tricks try reading bransons autobiography.

Dirty tricks is also taking joe public for a ride or not with his lousy second rate train service,and yes i have tried it.

Well done BA !

[Da Dog]

B eagle............... the records stuck

:yuk:

[Spekkie]

Are we really meant to believe that a bridge was built at an airport and then a 747 was taxied under it "to see if it would fit"????

This is almost too stupid to even argue about.

BA - If you're gonna pull an attention seeking stunt then call it an attention seeking stunt.

BEagle - I've flown 'hansa and they were faultless :-)

[No comment]

If anyone bothered to read my post I mentioned that it only cost £5.5k to position the 744 down and back.

Its a mountain out of a molehill.

The BAA apparently paid for the cost anyway.

Check the facts then complain about them...

[cheeryguy]

Hell and that! Does it matter why and where? For once BA are grabbing some positive headline news. When the "bearded wonder" does it noone raises an eyebrow. Bravo BA!

[exeng]

The BAA apparently paid for the cost anyway

I very much doubt that as the BAA generally tend to charge rather than pay. Perhaps 'No comment' you could post your source for this 'comment'.

If it cost BA £5500 to 'pull an attention seeking stunt' then I would say it was money very well spent as it seems to have got everybodys attention.

I am surprised that RB managed to let this one slip, particularly as he has a number of his A/C parked conveniently close by.


Regards
Exeng

[Kempus]

hi

Soz if this isn't ok for you lot but stuff the facts, stuff the publicity, stuff if you've found Lufthansa flawless!

No matter what airline you work for, if an extra terminal, be it a sat is need it LGW, surly this points to a positive growth in aviation and more security in our jobs!

Anyone willing to comment, shoot me down! In this day and age in aviation, we're in it together!

kempus

:)

[Desert Nomad]

I can't believe that an aircraft going under a bridge that was designed for aircraft to go under is causing such a big debate. :confused:

However, as BA managed to create some positive PR out of such a non event, well done to them and the marketing department. :ok:

[No comment]

Besides the slanging going on, the bridge looks superb. I hear its only the second bridge over a taxiway. It seems the airport have done a great job considering the other bridge over in Denver (correct me if I'm wrong) has had its share of problems. Something along the lines of an A320 will fit underneath but not a 319? Isn't it Frontier who had to change an order to compensate for that?

On another note Exeng, nearly all of RB's aircraft had departed by the time BA ferried the aircraft down. Would have made for a good stunt if he'd got involved. Although on all the promotional mousemats the BAA were dishing out at the bridge presentation it is a Virgin 747 superimposed under the bridge...

As far as my 'comment' goes, this is a rumour site dont forget, and quite often rumours don't have a clear cut source.

[Out Of Trim]

Seems rather short-sighted if you can't fit an A-380 under it too!

But, I guess they could dig a slope under it to gain extra clearance - or how about a tunnel!:rolleyes:

[Desert Nomad]

or even a brodge over the bridge. Look a bit like spaghetti junction after a while with aircraft lost all over the shop :E

[SilentHandover]

The nose-wheel collapse has been accounted for with the bridge clearance, the SP can fit underneath the bridge as it is but if one where to suffer nose-wheel collapse there would not be sufficient clearance.

[Fuel Crossfeed]

I used taxi way Lima and went under the new bridge at LGW the other night and wondered - would an A380 fit under there??
Which plans were drawn up first - the architects for the new bridge, or Mr Airbus?
Anyone have any facts and figures for the height measurements?

[Notso Fantastic]

For goodness sake, stop this 'nose wheel collapse' thing! Are there Jumbos littered around airports everywhere tipped on their noses? It only happens as a maintenance function- the nose wheels are in fact very strong, and none of that will be going on under the bridge! What are the odds of a 747 suffering nosewheel collapse in the crucial 20 feet or so to get under? Let's worry about meteorites/Lassa fever breakout/ earthquakes/malaria in the south of England/Volcanic activity in West Sussex.....you know, real things to worry about!

[Anti-ice]

:ok: Here here Notso ;)

[Danny]

I'll put this back in R&N as long as the 'silly question' brigade promise to stop the "what if?" scenarios that have odds of 1:10,000,000 of actually ever happening. :rolleyes:

What with the "If the nosegear were to fold at just the wrong moment .........?" and the infantile BA vs Virgin handbags at 10 paces duel how can anyone expect a thread to stay in R&N?:hmm:

[Megaptera]

I agree with Out-of-trim, it seems a little short-sighted not to build this bridge high enough for an aircraft type currently under construction (A380) to pass under. I'm sure the A380 will turn up at Gatwick one day and we all know what Murphy's law says...

[spekesoftly]

Danny,

Whilst I fully agree that the probability of such a nosegear collapse is unlikely in the extreme, I had heard a rumour that certain type(s) of B747 would not be permitted to taxi under the new bridge at LGW, for this very reason, as a specific condition of the 'safety case'. SilentHandover's reply would seem to confirm this.

However, I fully respect your views on the matter, and apologise for phrasing the question (now deleted) in a manner deemed inappropriate for R&N.

If this post is also out of order, please delete.

[bunnygirl]

Re: A380..and passing under the bridge...have read in one of the LGW airport newspapers..that the BAA...bore in mind the A 380..whilst planning the bridge..and consequently, all the stands at the North terminal (Extension) will be accessible to it..but it will have to go around the extension, as opposed to under the bridge.

[woodpecker]

Its a shame if BA agreed to supply the BAA with a 747 that they didn't check to see what Branson was up to.

I havn't see any mention of this stunt on the TV or in the papers, but a few hundred mouse mats will stay on peoples desks (with the associated free advertising) long after thay have forgotten who was first!

[BEagle]

I don't think anyone really gives a tuppeny damn about whose aircraft taxyed under the bridge first - the only real story is that the bridge has been opened. That's if it's a story at all.......

Always thought that a VC10 could fit under the new Severn Bridge fairly easily. Now that would be a story;)

[Sandy Toad]

And who will be the first helicopter to air taxi under it......... ;)

[heavy crew]

On a serious note does it matter who has a jumbo under it first.

Having worked out of LGW since it opened the north terminal it fills me with pride that the terminal is expanding in such a spectacular way.

With the aviation industry able to expand at most of the worlds airports pretty much at will, London is restricted by the residents all round heathrow and gatwick, it is superb to see immagination used to solve space issues.

I hope that this is a sign of new expansion back at Gatwick and all airlines including BA and Virgin can operate profitably out of Londons 2nd Airport for many years to come.

Come on lets bury all the bad blood here and hope for a succesfull future for any airline that operates aircraft under Gatwicks eyecatching new landmark structure.

Both now and in the future.
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: