d wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby.


You have to wonder just how many more flights will be needed to
satisfy the future demand for air travel.

"Richard J." wrote:

So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end?


So pilots don't land on the proper runway when it is closed, and
collide with maintenance equipment or other aircraft?


It may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.


Of course it is shown on charts, so it can be used in an emergency.

But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

Roland Perry wrote:

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.


There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

amogles wrote:

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.


Do you really think that there are a lot of half-empty planes arriving
and departing at Heathrow and Gatwick because they are two separate
airports? If so, you must have a very strange view of how commercial
airlines operate.

On Oct 9, 9:06*am, "tim...." wrote:

But it only works if turn up and go fares are available at rock bottom
prices, which is almost certainly unlikely to happen

If it's holidaymakers you're looking at, these normally book their
flight well in advance to secure a good price. Seeinmg they know
they're flying, they can book the train well in advance as well.

When it comes to buiness flyers, the price premium is more acceptable
seeing the flight will also be more expensive.

Maybe travel agents or airlines can even offer train tickets in a
package deal. This already happens in Germany for example.


.
No-one (outside the natural catchment area) is going to chose to fly from
Birmingham (as an alternative to London) if it costs 200 pounds return to
get there

Unless maybe airport fees and other charges reduce that prife
differential to some extent

In message
, at
02:00:25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
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.

They are visual pollution, but a negative greenhouse factor

Though the aircraft will emit that as well.

Aircraft emissions are overall slightly greenhouse negative (which seems
to be the trendy "pollution" to worry about) but there's also a separate
poisonous effect, which because of the jetstreams lands mainly in south
Asia.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:41:35 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
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.

There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

There has been a proposal since at least 2005 (I've been quoting from
the BAA documents). No doubt the new owners considered such proposals
before buying - it would be an insane leap in the dark not to.

What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:53=A0am, 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.

Yes thanks, I'm fully well aware of what they're composed off. But do you
think all the CO2 and nitrous oxides run away and hide? They follow the
exact same path as the ice crystals and in fact the ice itself will be
slightly acidic due to dissolved N02. Besides which contrails on their own
affect climate as was demonstrated after 9/11 when all flights in the US
were grounded and the average temperature went up a degree or so.

B2003

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:34:04 +0100
Bruce wrote:
wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby.


You have to wonder just how many more flights will be needed to
satisfy the future demand for air travel.

Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.

B2003

On 11/10/2011 09:13, Richard J. wrote:
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.

Because it is usable if the primary runway is out of commission for any
reason.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail