London Gatwick Airport (LGW/EGKK) Is Having A Laugh�

As all of us in the south of England know, the world's busiest single-use runway airport is pretty much within a fair driving distance from us. At eight years ago, LGW was bustling with activity from airlines around the globe. So much, in fact, that it was giving London Heathrow (LHR/EGLL) a run for its selection of destinations. Detroit, New York, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Bali, Manila and many more destinations were discontinued since Global Infrastructure Partnership (GIP) bought LGW. Since the takeover, Qatar, Continental, American, Northwest, Garuda Indonesia and other large carriers pulled out of LGW. Delta, US Airways and even the national carrier, British Airways have greatly reduced services. What have the empty gaps been filled with? Crappy budget airlines, especially easyJet and Ryanair. At the dawn of the millenium, British Airways had ~45% of the capacity of LGW. Now, easyJet have about ~40%. Also, where have these airlines moved their routes? LHR� and for a good reason.

I say that LGW is having a laugh because of the following:
Since they bought out LGW in 2003/2004, the CEO of GIP recently said that LGW is bringing up competition against LHR. I would love to see them even contemplate trying to do so. They also branded LGW's slogans as "Your London Airport" and "It's time for a truly welcome departure". First off, LGW had a spotting area called the Skyview. It had a great view of the runway and apron. This was dismantled apparently (due to GIP speaking publically) due to the WTC attacks in 2001, however, this was completely wrong. Their real goal was to create just a few more gates and a departure lounge. Why they did not tell the public this? I do not know. This has reduced the encouragement of plane spotters and some customers alike. Secondly, there used to be a large area full of shops and restaurants called Gatwick Village. This was again dismantled by GIP and turned into security gates. Again, this has discouraged visitors and plane spotters. Lastly, something which has something to do with the general public, GIP say "Your London airport" so I ask these questions:
Can I fly direct to the following?:
Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Hong Kong, Doha, Auckland, Sydney, Kuala Lumpur, Cape Town, Paris,�
No? Then STFU and I think I'll choose to fly from LHR.

I now think my rant is now over�

*EDIT: Embarrassingly, the date of the WTC attacks was supposed to be written as 2001.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Cool story...but the WTC attacks were in 2001

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I flew out of LGW back in the 80's. You just don't hear about it anymore. The worlds airlines are just not what they use to be and have had to be a little more selective. Guess they selected LHR.

old news, 9/11 is old news now.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Originally Posted by john_v

Cool story...but the WTC attacks were in 2001

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I do apologise, just edited it :)

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Originally Posted by Rootbrian

old news, 9/11 is old news now.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

True, this is old news. Very bad too. So I wonder, why did GIP use this as an excuse to close down the Skyview? Apparently it was because it offered a great vantage point for terrorists. What BS. You was searched before you could even enter the large balcony and I don't think you'd be able to get away if you did blow an aircraft up. There is a public road on the perimiter of the airfield which offers an even better shooting point. There is also no security and you at least have a chance of getting away on the busy road :-P

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Originally Posted by middbrew

I flew out of LGW back in the 80's. You just don't hear about it anymore. The worlds airlines are just not what they use to be and have had to be a little more selective. Guess they selected LHR.

I agree. The furthest you can go from LGW is Dubai (DXB), Mal� (MLE) and Toronto Pearson (YYZ). LHR? Auckland (AKL). GIP's profit margin has risen since these airlines have left and budget airlines have replaced them. I don't know how it happened, but one thing's for certain; they're just greedy Capitalists trying to make more money with money.

I mean, I would now avoid LGW for most flights since I really do hate budget airlines. Ryanair don't even have seat pockets. Where is the safety card stored you might ask? It's stuck in your face in the back of the seat in front of you. Anything to buy onboard is just extortionate. Ryanair even asked Boeing to make WC doors have a �1 entry fee, but Boeing thought that it was just a tad too unethical and said no.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

9/11 will become old news, when the last damn terrorist is tango uniform.

Originally Posted by BigBadWulf

9/11 will become old news, when the last damn terrorist is tango uniform.

+1

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I've never been on a plane but I've worked at an airport before. I didn't like it too much.

To me the war on terror is kind of.... you know.

Some of the groups that eventually formed into al-Qaeda were partly funded and supplied by the US. It was a better alternative than directly going to war with Russia in Afghanistan. Some of the fighters in Libya are affiliated with al-Qaeda. In many ways al-Qaeda and similar groups can be assets to US foreign policy. But it's a complicated diplomatic relationship.

There's a thin line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For example, if some one drives a car bomb into a check point during a suicide attack, terrorist or freedom fighter?
Libya: Man sacrifices life, family mourns CNN NEWS - YouTube

But what is terrorism really? Terrorism didn't begin on 9/11 and it won't end any time soon. A lot of groups that are considered terrorist today have been helpful to US foreign policy in the past. This will most likely continue into the future, as evidenced by the current situation in Libya. It's a delicate balance.

One thing that I'm wary of is the use of the war on terror as a reason to erode civil liberties. A lot of laws that are passed with the aura of anti-terrorism are later used mostly in instances unrelated to terrorism.
Team 4: Law Enforcement Using Sneak And Peek Warrants - YouTube

What is terrorism really?
Terrorism:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

And if you think al-Qaeda and similar groups are assets, maybe you should sit down with them and try to negotiate peace. Be quick because they want to see you dead. All the world, other than themselves, are infidels to them, to be wiped from the face of the earth.

Anyone seen the kool-aid?

Originally Posted by trucky

What is terrorism really?
Terrorism:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

And if you think al-Qaeda and similar groups are assets, maybe you should sit down with them and try to negotiate peace. Be quick because they want to see you dead. All the world, other than themselves, are infidels to them, to be wiped from the face of the earth.

Anyone seen the kool-aid?

All of the groups that are affiliated with al-Qaeda aren't 100% pro al-Qaeda. Also many of these groups and other similar groups are willing to fight in conflicts that furthers US foreign policy. This is useful at times when the US is restricted in the use of direct combat. Even Osama Bin Laden himself had a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship with the US in the 80's.

I anticipate some of the groups that are considered terrorist organizations today will be useful to US interest in future conflicts. So yeah, you see what I'm trying to say?