Discussion:
Gatwick airport overbridge
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2017-01-21 14:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.

It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).

I happened to pass over and under it last month, possibly for the last
time in a while, as BA is moving back to the South Terminal, so I took
some pictures:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157675681821364

There's more about its construction here:
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/ingenia/issues/issue21/samaras.pdf
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 15:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-21 15:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 16:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<415069492.506706814.048260.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 15:57:27 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.

And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-21 16:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 15:57:27 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.
No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates, and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.
Post by Roland Perry
And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
Which is completely painless, and you end up right by the station. In fact,
it's so painless that I usually park in the cheaper South Terminal long
stay car park even when using the North Terminal.
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 16:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<590243568.506708294.358053.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.
I expect they have traveltors.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.
No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,
Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.
Post by Recliner
and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.
Post by Roland Perry
And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
Which is completely painless,
It's time-consuming.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-21 17:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.
I expect they have traveltors.
Yes, and it's still a long hike, unless you just stand still on them.
You've obviously never used the gates at the far end of that long, long
pier. I have, and too often.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.
No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,
Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.
Far fewer than from most of the North Terminal gates. I get the impression
you've hardly ever used Gatwick?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.
Post by Roland Perry
And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
Which is completely painless,
It's time-consuming.
Indeed, all of two minutes.
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 18:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<631303069.506711481.868918.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 17:14:06 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.
I expect they have traveltors.
Yes, and it's still a long hike, unless you just stand still on them.
You've obviously never used the gates at the far end of that long, long
pier. I have, and too often.
Actually, I have.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.
No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,
Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.
Far fewer than from most of the North Terminal gates. I get the impression
you've hardly ever used Gatwick?
Dozens of times. Including quite a bit of Easyjet from that new(ish)
pier.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.
Post by Roland Perry
And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
Which is completely painless,
It's time-consuming.
Indeed, all of two minutes.
If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a
long time.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-21 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a long time.
Indeed. I have a great dislike of these transit shuttle things. I
vastly prefer a tunnel with travelators *even if it takes longer*, as
you are not at the mercy of something else.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-21 20:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 17:14:06 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?
It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.
It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.
That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.
I expect they have traveltors.
Yes, and it's still a long hike, unless you just stand still on them.
You've obviously never used the gates at the far end of that long, long
pier. I have, and too often.
Actually, I have.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.
No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,
Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.
Far fewer than from most of the North Terminal gates. I get the impression
you've hardly ever used Gatwick?
Dozens of times. Including quite a bit of Easyjet from that new(ish)
pier.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.
Post by Roland Perry
And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.
Which is completely painless,
It's time-consuming.
Indeed, all of two minutes.
If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a
long time.
About five minutes wait.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 09:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<739276958.506724180.244269.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 20:49:18 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a
long time.
About five minutes wait.
That's long enough to miss a train at the railway station, and if the
next one is 15 minutes later, you might then miss your connection to a
1tph train out of London.
--
Roland Perry
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-21 20:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.
Blimey, Rolands turned into a New York cartoon plumber.


G.Harman
Neil Williams
2017-01-21 18:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.
It's certainly preferable to any stupid shuttle train arrangement - the
problem with shuttle trains is that you have a waiting time involved in
your journey which, as they do not operate to a timetable, is
unpredictable. But then so's a walk through a tunnel, with travelators
if appropriate.

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

If a shuttle train runs every 5 minutes, I have to allow 5 minutes plus
the transit time.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 18:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-21 19:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
That's irrelevant to my point. My point was that however long it
takes, it is a predictable amount of time that will always be the same,
unlike a transit train.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-21 20:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 09:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1741464503.506724066.519241.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 20:49:18 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 09:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 20:49:18 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute. It's still much quicker, and more interesting,
than getting to many other Gatwick gates, particularly if you're coming
from one of the business lounges.

Anyway, with BA moving south, and all easyJet operations now being based in
the North terminal, I don't expect to be using it much in the future. It
used to be a nice terminal before easyJet moved in, but is now too crowded,
and will only get worse.

I just hope that BA hasn't degraded Virgin's excellent Flying Club lounge
in the South terminal too much during the conversion.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 10:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<418746188.506769667.434467.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 11:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
walkways:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 11:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <563270497.506775297.963474.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 11:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message <563270497.506775297.963474.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
No, that's clearly much shorter.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 13:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<791651586.506777511.068896.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
No, that's clearly much shorter.
fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 14:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
No, that's clearly much shorter.
fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?
Where's the 'deliberate inconvenience' in Gatwick? Your Bellysian
plan would be far worse, and more expensive to boot.

The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now. The only acceptable link to the South
terminal would be an underground shuttle, which is overkill for an 11
gate pier. You also seem to think that the south terminal has enough
spare capacity for another 11 gates. It doesn't.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 15:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
No, that's clearly much shorter.
fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?
Where's the 'deliberate inconvenience' in Gatwick? Your Bellysian
plan would be far worse, and more expensive to boot.
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 15:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
They are extremely long escalators.
Not compared to the ones down to the Heathrow T5 transit or the T2
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28105847650/in/album-72157671130714396>
Looks about the same to me.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Gatwick_North_Termi
nal_escalator_up_to_Pier_6_passenger_bridge.JPG>
No, that's clearly much shorter.
fsvo "much" - counting the steps about a third shorter. But why does
greater inconvenience at Heathrow excuse deliberate inconvenience at
Gatwick?
Where's the 'deliberate inconvenience' in Gatwick? Your Bellysian
plan would be far worse, and more expensive to boot.
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 16:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<2038704948.506792595.339884.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.
You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 16:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.
You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.
The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal (Gatwick is the world's busiest
single runway airport, and multiple planes are moving at once). This
proposal gets more barmy the more we hear of it. Michael Bell would be
proud to have made it!
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 09:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1412473151.506794401.194018.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 16:17:58 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.
You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.
The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal
A taxiway serving part of the South terminal
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-23 15:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 16:17:58 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.
Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.
How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.
You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.
The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal
A taxiway serving part of the South terminal
Yes, about 15 gates in the North terminal. And 15 in the South terminal.

So you're suggesting that 30 gates should be seved by a *single* taxiway,
which would be blocked altogether if aircraft were pushing back from any of
eight gates. In railway terms, this would be the equivalent of removing all
but one of Waterloo's approach tracks. And spending tens of millions of
pounds in the process.

This is even barmier than any of Michael Bell's harebrained schemes! At
least he had the excuse that he was redesigning things he'd never seen, but
you were once a frequent flyer, and should have at least a distant memory
of how airports work.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 17:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<851757652.506878629.347807.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 15:54:18 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal
A taxiway serving part of the South terminal
Yes, about 15 gates in the North terminal. And 15 in the South terminal.
So you're suggesting that 30 gates should be seved by a *single* taxiway
The taxi-way under the bridge, as far as I can tell from Google Earth,
serves nine gates of the North Terminal, seven at the South Terminal and
eight at the South Satellite. Plus five on the Pier 6 north face.
--
Roland Perry
Clank
2017-01-22 11:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
--
Roland Perry
I'm going to suggest you never visit the Lufthansa terminal at the
(generally outstanding) Munich airport - moving between the two piers there
combines a couple of extremely long escalators *and* a transit shuttle...
(Under rather than over the taxiway in that case.)


Of course, nowhere can match Stansted for sheer awfulness - the slow and
infrequent transit shuttle there just being the icing on the cake of
passenger-hating crap if you have the misfortune to arrive at a remote
gate.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 13:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.
It's much more than 2 minutes.
It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.
What about the escalators up and down?
OK, so add another minute.
They are extremely long escalators.
I'm going to suggest you never visit the Lufthansa terminal at the
(generally outstanding) Munich airport - moving between the two piers there
combines a couple of extremely long escalators *and* a transit shuttle...
(Under rather than over the taxiway in that case.)
That has very little relevance to the relative convenience of Pier 6
being attached to the North vs South terminal.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 14:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Of course, nowhere can match Stansted for sheer awfulness - the slow and
infrequent transit shuttle there just being the icing on the cake of
passenger-hating crap if you have the misfortune to arrive at a remote
gate.
Agreed there, Stansted is a terrible airport in just about every way.

They got to start from scratch on a greenfield site, too, so there is
no excuse for just how awful it is.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-22 14:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:35:14 +0000, Neil Williams
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clank
Of course, nowhere can match Stansted for sheer awfulness - the slow and
infrequent transit shuttle there just being the icing on the cake of
passenger-hating crap if you have the misfortune to arrive at a remote
gate.
Agreed there, Stansted is a terrible airport in just about every way.
They got to start from scratch on a greenfield site, too, so there is
no excuse for just how awful it is.
Not an excuse, but a one word explanation: Ryanair. It has enough of
the business through the airport to be able to veto any plans that
would make it better. And Ryanair doesn't give a fig if that makes the
airport less popular with other airlines' customers.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 15:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clank
Of course, nowhere can match Stansted for sheer awfulness - the slow and
infrequent transit shuttle there just being the icing on the cake of
passenger-hating crap if you have the misfortune to arrive at a remote
gate.
Agreed there, Stansted is a terrible airport in just about every way.
They got to start from scratch on a greenfield site, too, so there is
no excuse for just how awful it is.
It has to some extent been "a victim of its own success". When there was
just the original check-in hall, and access via bridges to the
satellites, and a car park at its door, it was excellent. What they've
perpetrated now is a combination of security measures, congestion, a
shopping mall, and new gates built down to a budget for low-cost
airlines.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-21 18:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-21 20:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times, as there
aren't nearly enough ePassport readers. You can easily queue for 20
minutes, by which time your bags will have arrived on the belt.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 09:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1834935211.506724237.572780.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 20:49:19 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 09:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 20:49:19 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)? So you'll now be in the same long queue as everyone
else. That can easily delay you by 20 minutes.
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 10:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)? So you'll now be in the same long queue as everyone
else. That can easily delay you by 20 minutes.
Correct, it was replaced by the e-gates.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-22 16:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)? So you'll now be in the same long queue as everyone
else. That can easily delay you by 20 minutes.
Correct, it was replaced by the e-gates.
Neil
They had e-gates at Copenhagen some years before LHR, BTW. It was in
2007, IIRC.
Recliner
2017-01-22 16:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)? So you'll now be in the same long queue as everyone
else. That can easily delay you by 20 minutes.
Correct, it was replaced by the e-gates.
Neil
They had e-gates at Copenhagen some years before LHR, BTW. It was in
2007, IIRC.
Heathrow's had them since 2009. But the early ones were slow and quirky;
the third generation ones are much faster and more reliable.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 10:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1624277436.506769369.060184.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)?
Not much, and not from Gatwick North. But I felt significantly
inconvenienced when I did.
Post by Recliner
So you'll now be in the same long queue as everyone
else. That can easily delay you by 20 minutes.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 11:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)?
Not much, and not from Gatwick North. But I felt significantly
inconvenienced when I did.
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 11:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<779327103.506775391.647240.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 11:00:04 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 11:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 11:00:04 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.

Even now, many non-EU citizens can use them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPassport_gates#Eligibility

At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens
of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled in the Registered
Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates, provided that they are aged
either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding
valid biometric passports.

----

Similarly, I was surprised to see that I could use the equivalent gates in
New Zealand.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 13:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<647857068.506777049.056506.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.
That's going to stop people working illegally, not.
Post by Recliner
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPassport_gates#Eligibility
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens
of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled in the Registered
Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates, provided that they are aged
either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding
valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.

[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].

I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 13:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.
That's going to stop people working illegally, not.
They'll be able to come in via Ireland in any case.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPassport_gates#Eligibility
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens
of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled in the Registered
Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates, provided that they are aged
either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding
valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.
[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].
I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 14:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
They'll be able to come in via Ireland in any case.
For a time. I have a feeling Brexit will push NI in the direction of a
majority view in favour of rejoining the Republic, then there will be a
hard border.

Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales. And
only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends too much
on England's economy.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-22 14:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:37:18 +0000, Neil Williams
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
They'll be able to come in via Ireland in any case.
For a time. I have a feeling Brexit will push NI in the direction of a
majority view in favour of rejoining the Republic, then there will be a
hard border.
Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales. And
only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends too much
on England's economy.
So does Scotland, of course. And Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic
isn't volunteering to take over England's role in subsidising Ulster,
and the EU27 won't take over the Barnett formula subsidies for
Scotland. Neither economy is viable on its own.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales. And
only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends too much
on England's economy.
Albania once depended on England's economy?
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 16:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales. And
only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends too much
on England's economy.
Albania once depended on England's economy?
You know what I meant.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 09:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Within 10 years I think the UK will consist of England and Wales.
And only Wales because on its own it'd be like Albania; it depends
too much on England's economy.
Albania once depended on England's economy?
You know what I meant.
And you knew what I meant - it was a joke.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 15:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens
There should really be a more formal delimiter here
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
and citizens of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled
in the Registered Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates,
provided that they are aged either 18 and over or 12 and over
travelling with an adult and holding valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.
[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].
I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.
And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 15:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens
There should really be a more formal delimiter here
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
and citizens of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled
in the Registered Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates,
provided that they are aged either 18 and over or 12 and over
travelling with an adult and holding valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.
[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].
I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.
And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.
The question is whether they'll have to formally register, or if they'll be
automatically regarded as such. No doubt it will be the same as we get in
the EU.

My guess is that for non-working visits, no registration would be
necessary, as the numbers would overwhelm the bureaucracy. After all,
no-one wants to impede toursm, or educational visits.

The UK aim is simply to control employment and benefit entitlement. Most
EU citizens won't want to come to work illegally, as they wouldn't be
entitled to any benefits, or healthcare.
Roland Perry
2017-01-22 16:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<805092264.506792082.456058.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 15:40:51 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.
And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.
The question is whether they'll have to formally register, or if they'll be
automatically regarded as such. No doubt it will be the same as we get in
the EU.
My guess is that for non-working visits, no registration would be
necessary, as the numbers would overwhelm the bureaucracy. After all,
no-one wants to impede toursm, or educational visits.
Without some bureaucracy, how do you tell the purpose of the visit?

Maybe some kind of 'Visa waiver' scheme?
Post by Recliner
Most EU citizens won't want to come to work illegally, as they wouldn't
be entitled to any benefits, or healthcare.
Neither of those appear to stop the USA putting tourists and people on
educational visits through quite a bit of bureaucracy.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 16:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Without some bureaucracy, how do you tell the purpose of the visit?
Like Switzerland, which is in Schengen but does not allow freedom of
work without a work permit (though these are available in large numbers
to EU people), you control the work, not the entry.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 09:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
Without some bureaucracy, how do you tell the purpose of the visit?
Like Switzerland, which is in Schengen but does not allow freedom of
work without a work permit (though these are available in large numbers
to EU people), you control the work, not the entry.
My question was about the USA who *do* control the entry (as well as the
work).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-22 16:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 15:40:51 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I think they have to join the Registered Traveller Service to do so.
And I'd expect EEA citizens to get bumped into the second group
post-Brexit.
The question is whether they'll have to formally register, or if they'll be
automatically regarded as such. No doubt it will be the same as we get in
the EU.
My guess is that for non-working visits, no registration would be
necessary, as the numbers would overwhelm the bureaucracy. After all,
no-one wants to impede toursm, or educational visits.
Without some bureaucracy, how do you tell the purpose of the visit?
Maybe some kind of 'Visa waiver' scheme?
Post by Recliner
Most EU citizens won't want to come to work illegally, as they wouldn't
be entitled to any benefits, or healthcare.
Neither of those appear to stop the USA putting tourists and people on
educational visits through quite a bit of bureaucracy.
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 16:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-22 17:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.

But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
Neil Williams
2017-01-22 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
Assuming you accept anyone who hasn't pre-registered. The US doesn't.
Post by Recliner
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
True.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-22 19:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
Assuming you accept anyone who hasn't pre-registered. The US doesn't.
The US ESTA is part of a Visa waiver scheme. I'm optimistic that we won't
need visas for casual travel within Europe. As we were never part of
Schengen, I'm hopeful that things won't change much.
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
True.
Let's hope sense prevails!
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 00:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a Visa waiver scheme.
It's a pseudo-visa waiver more like an e-visa system. It's been
proposed that Schengen would introduce something similar. But really
API offers most of the same benefits with less faff.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-23 02:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a Visa waiver scheme.
It's a pseudo-visa waiver more like an e-visa system. It's been
proposed that Schengen would introduce something similar. But really
API offers most of the same benefits with less faff.
Yes, I hope API is regarded as adequate for flights within Europe,
post-Brexit.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 10:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1584235883.506825701.679263.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 02:26:56 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a Visa waiver scheme.
It's a pseudo-visa waiver more like an e-visa system. It's been
proposed that Schengen would introduce something similar. But really
API offers most of the same benefits with less faff.
Yes, I hope API is regarded as adequate for flights within Europe,
post-Brexit.
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being met
at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines not to
let them board?
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 12:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being met
at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines not to
let them board?
The latter is how it already works.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 15:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?
The latter is how it already works.
I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-23 16:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?
The latter is how it already works.
I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
The UK unwelcome list might include anyone who had been deported for any
reason, or who had a UK criminal conviction, or who had broken UK
immigration rules in the past.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 17:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<980556943.506880820.840128.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 16:29:38 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?
The latter is how it already works.
I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
The UK unwelcome list might include anyone who had been deported for any
reason, or who had a UK criminal conviction, or who had broken UK
immigration rules in the past.
You think the anti-terrorist no-fly list would scale like that?
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 17:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 16:29:38 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?
The latter is how it already works.
I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
The UK unwelcome list might include anyone who had been deported for any
reason, or who had a UK criminal conviction, or who had broken UK
immigration rules in the past.
You think the anti-terrorist no-fly list would scale like that?
Yes, of course it would, why not? Hardware is cheap these days. For a
bigger database, all you need is more storage and more/faster CPUs.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 17:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?
The latter is how it already works.
I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
The UK unwelcome list might include anyone who had been deported for any
reason, or who had a UK criminal conviction, or who had broken UK
immigration rules in the past.
You think the anti-terrorist no-fly list would scale like that?
Yes, of course it would, why not? Hardware is cheap these days. For a
bigger database, all you need is more storage and more/faster CPUs.
No, the scarce resource is those deciding who to put on the list, and
handling complaints when people are denied boarding.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-23 15:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 02:26:56 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a Visa waiver scheme.
It's a pseudo-visa waiver more like an e-visa system. It's been
proposed that Schengen would introduce something similar. But really
API offers most of the same benefits with less faff.
Yes, I hope API is regarded as adequate for flights within Europe,
post-Brexit.
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being met
at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines not to
let them board?
The UK Border force should provide airlines with a list of passport numbers
of unwelcome EU citizens. They should automatically be denied boarding.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 10:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a
Tourist-
Post by Recliner
Visa waiver scheme.
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
Post by Recliner
I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.
Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.
--
Roland Perry
David Walters
2017-01-23 11:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message <1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a
Tourist-
Post by Recliner
Visa waiver scheme.
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
Post by Recliner
I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.
Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.
The US ESTA scheme is for business, pleasure or transit.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 11:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a
Tourist-
Post by Recliner
Visa waiver scheme.
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
Post by Recliner
I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.
Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.
The US ESTA scheme is for business, pleasure or transit.
Yes. I was getting a bit muddled between "business" (buying and
selling?) and "working". And what counted as "other than working".

Quite a bit of my time in Europe would probably have counted as
"working".
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 12:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
You don't need one for business meetings either.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Clank
2017-01-23 12:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message <1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a
Tourist-
Post by Recliner
Visa waiver scheme.
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
Post by Recliner
I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.
Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.
Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 12:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.
Of the places I've travelled to on business, India is the only one that didn't.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 15:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clank
Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.
Of the places I've travelled to on business, India is the only one that didn't.
The only two times I've been to India I had in effect a United Nations
"diplomatic visa", so wouldn't know.

But what if I were to organise a meeting, booking a conference room,
greeting guests and holding a seminar (where I was speaking). Is that
closer to "work" than "business"?
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 16:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
But what if I were to organise a meeting, booking a conference room,
greeting guests and holding a seminar (where I was speaking). Is that
closer to "work" than "business"?
It would depend on that country's rules, but typically it would be
about whether you were there to be paid to do a specific task (e.g.
hold a seminar), or if you were there to have discussions and do
presentations etc about something you are being paid to do while
elsewhere, e.g. to discuss requirements for and present a new piece of
business software.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Clank
2017-01-23 16:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clank
Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.
Of the places I've travelled to on business, India is the only one that didn't.
The only two times I've been to India I had in effect a United Nations
"diplomatic visa", so wouldn't know.
But what if I were to organise a meeting, booking a conference room,
greeting guests and holding a seminar (where I was speaking). Is that
closer to "work" than "business"?
That would depend on whether you are planning on becoming an employee of a
company in the country you are visiting in order to do it, one would think.

By way of example - I regularly visit a sister company of my employer in
China, a country which is tediously strict about all such things. I do not
require a work visa when I am there - even though I am obviously working
for the entire duration - because I am employed by a non Chinese company. I
require only a business visa (supported by, among other things, a letter
from the Chinese company extolling our long and fruitful working
relationship. A similar distinction tends to apply to jurisdictions where
business activities are, along with tourism, exempt from visas.


Of course, everyone has the right to do things their own way. I'm
intimately familiar with Russian visas, and there they do have a separate
visa for business as opposed to tourism. That's mainly a mechanism for
charging more for the benefits of a business visa - not, surprisingly the
right to do business in particular (you don't even have to show you intend
to to get one, you just buy your invitation from a different place), but
rather the more expensive business visa gives you multiple entries over a
year, rather than the tourist visa which is issued for the exact number of
days of your planned trip. (This applies to UK passport holders - Russia
applies a "principle of reciprocity" which basically says "you make our
citizens lives hard, we'll make yours the same", so the regime is more
relaxed for citizens of a country with less dickish* immigration.)



It's not hard to do your own research - gov.uk has surprisingly good
information on visa (or other) requirements for anywhere you can think of.




* The number of my friends who have been refused visas to UK is absurd.
(Two who have are currently enjoying a holiday in New York.) What in
God's name makes UK Gov think that someone living like a king, earning 100x
national average salary in a beautiful part of, say, west Ukraine, is going
to want to abscond for a life of misery in Luton... People in the UK
seriously overestimate the appeal of living there, let alone living there
illegally.
Neil Williams
2017-01-23 17:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Of course, everyone has the right to do things their own way. I'm
intimately familiar with Russian visas, and there they do have a separate
visa for business as opposed to tourism.
India is even more curious (and typically bureaucratic) - officially
you aren't to do business on a tourist visa, nor to do tourism on a
business visa, you'd need both if a trip was dual-purpose. However, I
doubt anybody actually does this - you get a tourist one if only being
a tourist, and a business one if business is involved. What that does
mean, though, is no access to tourist quotas on the train!

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 17:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Of course, everyone has the right to do things their own way. I'm
intimately familiar with Russian visas, and there they do have a separate
visa for business as opposed to tourism. That's mainly a mechanism for
charging more for the benefits of a business visa - not, surprisingly the
right to do business in particular (you don't even have to show you intend
to to get one, you just buy your invitation from a different place), but
rather the more expensive business visa gives you multiple entries over a
year, rather than the tourist visa which is issued for the exact number of
days of your planned trip.
Just to show Usenet is living up to its reputation of provoking
counter-examples, I've got a Russian visa for what they classified as a
business trip, valid for one entry/exit during a 30 day window.

Similarly I have one-visit dated business visas for Egypt.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-23 15:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message <1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
The US ESTA is part of a
Tourist-
Post by Recliner
Visa waiver scheme.
If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.
No, business visitors don't. I've visited the USA more than 60 times on
business after the visa waiver scheme came in, without a visa.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.
Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.
Sure, and so you shouldn't need a visa in the post-Brexit world.
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 09:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<95520299.506797019.688252.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septem
ber.org>, at 17:03:45 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-01-23 10:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:59:27 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ber.org>, at 17:03:45 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?
The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 11:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?
The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.
And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-01-23 13:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:59:49 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of
Europe.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?
The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.
And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?
Tough. If they want to live here they either become citizens or put up with
being at the bottom of the list.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 15:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.
And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?
Tough. If they want to live here they either become citizens or put up with
being at the bottom of the list.
I knew you'd say that, but like most other civilised countries you can't
naturalise until you've been living here several years, and quite often
shown to be supporting yourself. How would that work?
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-01-23 16:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:57:02 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.
And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?
Tough. If they want to live here they either become citizens or put up with
being at the bottom of the list.
I knew you'd say that, but like most other civilised countries you can't
naturalise until you've been living here several years, and quite often
shown to be supporting yourself. How would that work?
I don't particularly care. I guess they'd just have to take their chances
and if they couldn't get a job they could feck off elsewhere couldn't they.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-01-23 15:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ber.org>, at 17:03:45 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Recliner
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.
Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.
Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.
But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.
In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?
They weren't objecting to tourists and casual visitors. They wanted to
limit the number of foreign workers potentially taking jobs from British
workers, and foreign users of the NHS and other welfare services.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-22 16:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.
That's going to stop people working illegally, not.
Post by Recliner
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPassport_gates#Eligibility
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens
of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled in the Registered
Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates, provided that they are aged
either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding
valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.
[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].
I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
They would not be as, IIRC, e-gates are only available to EEA citizens,
besides just UK.
Recliner
2017-01-22 16:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 11:30:53 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
Only two more years to go.
Really? EU citizens are very likely to continue using the ePassport gates
post-Brexit. After all, visa-free movement is likely to continue; what's
likely to be restricted is employment (ie, getting an NI number) and access
to benefits.
That's going to stop people working illegally, not.
Post by Recliner
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPassport_gates#Eligibility
At present, British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens
of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and the United States who are enrolled in the Registered
Traveller Service,[1] can use ePassport gates, provided that they are aged
either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding
valid biometric passports.
I'm genuinely surprised by that. I have an Australian ex-colleague who
often complains about being grilled by UK Immigration about why they are
such a frequent visitor here.
[The reason being, they are in effect in transit to several different EU
countries, but like to break the trip for a few days in London].
I should see if they are eligible to use the ePassport gates.
They would not be as, IIRC, e-gates are only available to EEA citizens,
besides just UK.
Read the post he was replying to: the gates can also be used by citizens of
Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan and the United States who join the Registered Traveller Service.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-22 16:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 09:27:36 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
I thought that IRIS was discontinued years ago (have you not flown in the
last few years)?
Not much, and not from Gatwick North. But I felt significantly
inconvenienced when I did.
The ePassport queues have got worse and worse, as more people have got
chipped passports and have learned how to use the gates. At one time, the
majority preferred the manual queue, but as fewer desks are now manned,
most EU citizens now use the gates.
And the vast majority of people who use the e-gates now appear to be
luddites.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-22 16:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 20:49:19 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
Same in my case.

They eventually got wise to it, however. Thus, whenever IRIS failed to
recognise somebody, they would simply say the equivalent of:

"That's your fault. Get to the back of the queue, you dog!"
Roland Perry
2017-01-23 10:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times
I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
Same in my case.
They eventually got wise to it, however. Thus, whenever IRIS failed to
"That's your fault. Get to the back of the queue, you dog!"
It's their fault the machine doesn't recognise me (I was enroled, not
pretending to be enroled).
--
Roland Perry
Offramp
2017-01-22 09:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for the photos, they are very good. They made me think of that episode of Thunderbirds that involves landing a Concorde-like plane.
John Ray
2017-01-22 14:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:41:32 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.
It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).
I happened to pass over and under it last month, possibly for the last
time in a while, as BA is moving back to the South Terminal, so I took
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157675681821364
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/ingenia/issues/issue21/samaras.pdf
Thank you for those very interesting pictures.
--
John Ray
Loading...