In message , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.


Gatwick does not have two runways. It has one runway and a parallel
taxiway that can be used as a runway only in an emergency.

The taxiway does not meet ICAO standards for a runway and lacks even a
basic ILS (instrument landing system). When it is in emergency use as
a runway there are no proper taxiways. So, contrary to what
Wonkypedia says, the taxiway is NOT a runway.

In message , at 23:41:07 on Mon, 10 Oct
2011, Richard J. remarked:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together
(about 200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways
at the same time.

The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.
--
Roland Perry

Bruce wrote on 11 October 2011 00:10:45 ...
"Richard wrote:

Clive D. W. wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.


Gatwick does not have two runways. It has one runway and a parallel
taxiway that can be used as a runway only in an emergency.

The taxiway does not meet ICAO standards for a runway and lacks even a
basic ILS (instrument landing system). When it is in emergency use as
a runway there are no proper taxiways. So, contrary to what
Wonkypedia says, the taxiway is NOT a runway.

So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end? It
may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Oct 9, 1:18*am, "Richard J." wrote:

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? *The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. *Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. *So how is this capacity increase achieved?
--
Richard J.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
amogles wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:18=A0am, "Richard J." wrote:

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? =A0The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. =A0Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. =A0So how is this capacity increase achieved?
--
Richard J.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days and thats
not even from the aircraft landing at london airports. Perhaps they won't
be happy until the sky looks like the M25 with wings?

B2003

On Oct 11, 9:53*am, wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days

You do know what contrails are, right? They aren't pollution. Though
the aircraft will emit that as well.

Neil

In message
, at
01:30:10 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, amogles remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? *The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. *Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. *So how is this capacity increase achieved?

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

Only for transit passengers (which are few at Gatwick).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:13:16 on Tue, 11
Oct 2011, Richard J. remarked:
So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end? It
may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.

It's best to describe it as an alternate runway, not a second runway.
--
Roland Perry