Talk:Gatwick Airport

Europe Airpost @ LGW

Could somebody provide a source to say that Europe Airpost are flying from LGW. Also which Tour Operator are they operating for. Thanks. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

City Place Gatwick

I recently noticed on my daily commute to/from Gatwick that BT Wholesale seem to have vacated their premises at #1 City Place as all signage has been removed and the building looks completely deserted. Can someone please verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

According to local news reports in the Crawley and Croydon press respectively, Nestle are moving their regional HQ from the latter to the former by September 2012 re-occupying the former BT Wholesale premises at #1 City Place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.36.78 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Gatwick/Heathrow railink

I removed a large section that had been added about the idea that a rail link might be built between Gatwick and Heathrow but was reverted, most of it is not actually about the rail link but goes on about a lot of speculation about the government airport policy. Most of this is not needed and really should be moved into Some guesses about what might happen at airports in the south east england. The speculation and crystal balling doesnt warrant more than a few lines in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am moving the section into a new article Heathwick as it is as much about Heathrow as about Gatwick and so does not belong solely in either article. Ben Finn (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gatwick airport in popular culture

for many poeple, the first contact with the word 'Gatwick' is from hearing the famous Barrington Levy mix of Here I Come.

Mentioning this famous instance of Gatwick airport's name being used in modern popular music is clearly essential to the Gatwick wiki.

Anthony Appleyard and MilborneOne, by undoing the mention of barrington levy's lyric here on the gatwick airport wiki you are applying your own overt or unconscious cultural prejudice. Your deletion of factual and informative content without engaging in debate is indicative of an ugly eurocentric prejudice, your dismissive attitude towards black carribean art and culture is an embarrassment to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.84.17 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your addition has been challenged so you need to gain a consensus on this page before a mention of the song is added. If evidence that a song by Levy is notable enough to the airport to be mentioned then you need to provide it and other editors can judge for them selves. It probably also help to read our guideline about being civil to other editors. Making personal and racial attacks on other editors will probably not help your cause and may get you blocked from editing wikipedia. Please sign your posts MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say I have to sign my posts? imo that is against the spirit of wikipedia. I don't see any personal or 'racial attacks' at all - and your intentional misunderstanding to that effect along with a superfluous mention of 'blocking' feels a little bit _uncivil_ to me.

What is clear, is that Barrington Levy is a ground breaking exceptional musical talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.84.17 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

London Gatwick

Despite the new owners rebranding efforts, Gatwick Airport is also known as London Gatwick (LGW), just as London Heathrow (LHR) is also known as Heathrow Airport. The "change of name" is referred to later in the text; the footnote is unsourced and does not belong in the lead — Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it back to say it had reverted back to its original name which is explained later in the text. I have removed the uncited bit of the footnote. Why should the change of name not be in the lead? MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of the refs. I have provided above for starters; also and previously do not mean the same thing. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The correct name is Gatwick Airport so previously is fine as it was a previous name, just because a few people still refer to it as London Gatwick Airport doesnt make previously wrong, lots of places and things are known by some by older or local names. Still not unusual for Manchester to be called Ringway and Birmingham as Elmdon Airport although they are clearly previous names. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a rebranding exercise by the new owner, not a change of name. A "few people" includes the CAA (responsible for the licensing and naming of aerodromes in the UK), NATS and IATA. By convention the airport name is at least prefixed by the city or region it serves. Heathrow is not universally referred to as London Heathrow either (even by BAA), why should we treat this article differently? Chrisieboy (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jet2

Deleted jet2 destinations- as per jet2.com (http://www.jet2.com/Destinations.aspx) LGW is NOT served by Jet2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.190.222 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange then as two operated into Gatwick last night, one operated the EXS2178 from Tromso in Norway. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

VS27 incident

I have re-instated this incident as new information not available at the time of its original inclusion has now come to light, which the article cited discusses, ie 16 passengers being injured and 15 requiring hospitalisation, as well as there being an undercarriage fire upon landing. This contradicts Virgin's original statement that there were no injuries and no mention of that undercarriage fire. These new facts constitute a substantial alteration of the actual chain of events warranting re-inclusion into the accidents/incidents section. By the same token, why are the 1970s BCal VC10 landing and BIA Herald takeoff incidents noteworthy and the latest incident involving the Virgin A330 not, despite nobody being harmed and there being no post-incident fire in either of the former unlike in the most recent case where a number of people were actually injured and part of the aircraft caught fire.

It must meet the criteria at WP:AIRPORTS, namely that (a) The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground. It was not, (b) The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. It did not and (c) The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry. It has not. In the VC-10 incident the aircraft suffered severe structural damage, so much so that it was written off. So it meets (b). I think you're right about the Herald incident though, so I've removed that as well. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've re-instated the VS27 incident (as well as the 1975 BIA Herald incident). Both ARE noteworthy, protocol notwithstanding. They can be classed as non-fatal aircraft accidents/incidents that not only disrupted the airport's functioning but either injured people aboard the aircraft involved or damaged those planes in a way that prevented their immediate return to sevice without a thorough investigation/repairs, ie in the case of VS27, there was an actual fire in a part of the aircraft following the emergency landing that needed to be extinguished by fire crews kept on stand-by and people sustained injuries during the evacuation that required hospitalisation; in the BIA case, an aircraft that was already airborne fell out of the sky back onto the ground, without (luckily) injuring anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.161.68 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect you are missing the point. They are only noteworthy in your opinion, not when judged against the standard criteria. What's the point in having the notability criteria if we are going to ignore them? They were established to avoid minor, non-notable incidents like this one cluttering Wikipedia. There are countless airliner evacuations where passengers have been injured, but which don't feature on here for that very reason. SempreVolando (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Support not included it, the VIR27 is not really notable and probably falls uner WP:NOTNEWS and what is called a bad day at the office type incident, they happen all the time and are rarely notable so should not be included. The Balloon incident in the same week was far more disruptive to the airport but that is not worth a mention either! MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Operations

"It has a runway designation to avoid planes landing on it by mistake." This sentence re LGW's 2nd emergencies only runway sounds misleading and doesn't make sense. I suspect it contains a typo and should actually read: "It has no runway designation to avoid planes landing on it by mistake." Can someone please look into this and correct it if need be? Many thanks.

It does have a runway designation as described earlier in the same para, the statement just needs removing, a designation doesnt stop anybody landing on it by mistake, it has been done in the past, here and at other airports. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your clarification, user MilborneOne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.153.17 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Gatwick a London airport?

Where is a current map of southern England that shows Gatwick Airport in relation to London? The sole map provided (having words on it) seems to be strictly a historical one of the Gatwick area before the airport was even built (and likewise without showing where in England it is), and hence doesn't illustrate the topic at hand. Am I missing something here?

Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt the current map of southern england in the infobox show where the airport is, as far as I can see it does. Also if you click on to co-ordinates link at the top of the page you can pick you map of choice. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian air shuttle mistakes?

There are several references to the fact that Norwegian Air Shuttle (trading as Norwegian) starts services in April 2013. This is incorrect as the airline has been operation at the airport for several years already,notably to Stavanger and Oslo (as a minimum), which the article currently state will start in April 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.255.237 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is next year Norwegian will base aircraft at Gatwick and operate the services from Gatwick rather than to Gatwick. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation for EZY Gatwick-Moscow start date

Snoozlepet: I have deleted (once again) your entry in the list of destinations served by Gatwick's airlines for the following reasons: 1. Although your citation mentions a start date for this service, it has thus far not been confirmed by any other authoritative source, incl the EZY website. Also, if you try to book it there, it doesn't work because EZY still hasn't released it for sale (unlike Manchester-Moscow, to which the article you cited mainly refers). Instead, the EZY website only states that it will be released for sale in mid-January 2013. 2. If you look at the original CAA statement that awarded the right to serve this route (under the terms and conditions of the existing Anglo-Russian bilateral air services agreement) to EZY in preference to VS (who wanted to fly to Moscow from Heathrow), you'll see that EZY's traffic rights are still subject to successful conclusion of a code share agreement with Transaero (the second incumbent Russian carrier on Moscow-London that already serves the route via Heathrow and had a previous code share partnership with bmi prior to that airline's takeover by IAG and amalgamation with BA). To the best of my knowledge, this still hasn't happened. (Otherwise, if not EZY themselves, some other source would have already reported it.) 3. VS's legal team, in response to the CAA decision to award London-Moscow traffic rights formerly held by bmi to EZY for a Gatwick-Domodedovo low fare operation rather than to VS themselves for a Heathrow-Domodedovo full-service operation, are still exploring options to have this overturned, either by persuading the Russian authorities to amend the existing restrictive Anglo-Russian bilateral so that VS could fly LHR-DME alongside the EZY LGW-DME service (as well as existing incumbents' BA, Aeroflot and Transaero who already fly LHR-DME/SVO), which is Branson's preferred option, or to seek a judicial review. As long as this hasn't been resolved, EZY are unlikely to announce a start date and release this route for sale. 4. The source you cited doesn't mention that EZY are going to operate this service from Gatwick South (in fact, there isn't any mention of any of the airport's two terminals). So, why jump the gun? Devanahalli2008 (talk)

I would leave the entry there for right now but put it on a seperate line (since we don't know which terminal). As long that there is a start date, the service MUST REMAIN THERE. Doesn't have to be necessary an airline press release but some other news article but that source is the only one that states EasyJet will start LGW-DME services on 18 March 2013. 71.91.69.220 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree. If you read what I wrote in my earlier comment above re EZY's obligation to enter into a codeshare with Transaero (a condition stipulated by the Anglo-Russian bilateral air treaty that EZY must satisfy before they can operate their LGW-DME route authority and which hasn't happened thus far to the best of my knowledge) and VS's still outstanding decision on whether they're going to appeal the CAA's original decision not to award the route to them, you'll hopefully see why I'm questioning the information in the source you cited. This, in my opinion, raises doubts as to its veracity/credibility, even though the source you cited may generally be reputable. (We've probably all come across instances where overenthusiastic journalists have misreported events or reported them out of context, which consequently resulted in a misrepresentation of facts.) Devanahalli2008 (talk)

Auction of sex slaves

An auction of two sex slaves in 2004 openly conducted in a coffee shop was widely noted by the media and is part of the literature of human trafficking. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

See page 1 Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective (Paperback) by Louise Shelley. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things go on at Gatwick Airport but I cant see anything that makes this notable to the airport, have you a reference that says in the fifty-odd year history of the airport this has any significance, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC thought it was notable. That's enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gatwick is a node of the transportation network which facilitates the global movement of populations associated with globalization. As there is no public slave market in the U.K. the traffickers were auctioning the slaves off at the airport; there were also auctions at other London U.K. airports, check the reference. You can search inside the book for "Gatwick" on Amazon. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As your edit has been challenged you still need to get a consensus to add it again, I was a bit dissapointed that another Admin would do that. Gatwick is a large airport so all sorts of stuff happens, why is this incident any more notable than hundreds of other such incidents at airport all over the world. Criminals and drug and people traffickers use them same airports as everybody else, it doesnt make the activities notable just news on the day and no more. We dont list very single criminal activity that make the news at the airport, they are just not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability is defined by prominent mainstream coverage of a matter in reliable sources. Wikipedia policies cannot be overridden by a few editors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better at Gatwick_Airport#Notable_criminal_activity. The re-emergence of slavery in Europe and of impromptu slave markets in London is surely notable, in fact, that anyone thinks it is not notable is part of its notability as is pointed out in a reliable source on Page 1 Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective (Paperback) by Louise Shelley. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you still need consensus for a challenged edit, notability is only a guideline and I cant see why it is notable to this airport. The book you refer to says it happens at all London airports, and I suspect before that at British ports. So it is not a notable feature of activity for Gatwick, I can see it being mention in an article like Human trafficking in the United Kingdom. So airports have a large transition of people its what they do, this sort of thing is not notable to the airport, using your logic that it reported in the press then it should be added to Costa Coffee and all other incidental locations. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to advance any valid reason why this well-sourced material should be removed from the article, and that in the context of a blizzard of aviation trivia that is included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well sourced is not an automatic inclusion criteria, the edit has been challenged as not being notable to the subject, it is up to you to gain a consensus to add it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fix the map?

The current map shows the airport location in relation to West Sussex, which is utterly useless for the typical visitor to London, looking for info on where this airport is and how to get to London. I don't have the resources or the know-how, so I was hoping someone else could fix this. Ie make the map center on London and show Gatwicks location relative to the city. 83.209.120.211 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide so doesnt need a map showing how its relationship to anywhere. If you click on the co-ordinates either at the top right of the article or in the infobox it takes you almost all known map and similar sites you can think of. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN copyedit

FWIW, some of my MOS-compliant copyedits were reverted by an IP; although I did my best, the article may not be stable enough at this time for GA. Miniapolis 19:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, I will have a look at find out what upset the IP. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

HELP!

I only made a minor update with some of the punctuation and the table that contains all of the airlines in it is not there anymore. I only put spaces between words and commas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AviationRhys (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thomson Airways destinations from LGW

I noticed that the places Thomson fly to from Gatwick have been listed separately as scheduled and charter. To the best of my knowledge, all Thomson flights are charter only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Major Airlines" section and "City Place Gatwick"

I am considering the removal of these sections, as they are not really notable and City Place Gatwick has it's own article, any suggestions? RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Destinations list

The destinations list seems to be incorrect or even a mess at some airlines. Nowhere I can find proof of many Thomson Airways destinations, e.g. Denpasar/Bali that they exist as usually served charter destination (in this case it seems to be added quite recently and neither appears at the Denpasar/Bali airport wiki). At the other side, Iraqi Airways serves Baghdad via Malmö today according to the Gatwick website, but nothing is shown here. Time for cleanup? --OPolkruikenz (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put Iraqi Airways back in, it was probably removed as a reaction to Iraqi Airways aircraft being banned from EU countries but ignored the fact the flight has continued using leased european-registered aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Major airlines

Changed wording in this section re Gatwick being a hub for British Airways and EasyJet.

While the airport has been a major hub for the former (until its decision to de-hub there in 2001), this is strictly speaking no longer the case as BA offers only a very limited number of "on line" connections there (compared with is global hub at Heathrow) which falls far short of typical omnidirectional airline hubs, Gatwick (or for that matter any other airport) has never been a hub for the latter as EasyJet doesn't make flight connections, either between its own or flights or with other airlines. Although both EasyJet and BA participate in GatwickConnects for Gatwick flight connections, this is a facility initiated and provided by the airport (not the airlines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations

This section requires updating. According to all plausible (as well as credible and reliable) sources in the public domain, it still lists airlines/destinations that seem to have left/been discontinued from Gatwick quite a while ago while missing out airlines/destionations that actually feature at Gatwick (at the time of writing this comment). For example, there seems to be no trace in timetables and other relevant sources (incl GAL's own website and actual airport signage on site) of Alba Star or BH Airlines while Freebird Airlines (which seems to have recently relocated from the South to the North Terminal according to on site signage) and Titan Airways actually do fly to/from Gatwick (although in the case of Titan this may be under contract to another airline/other airlines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 drone disruption

My proposed addition was reverted: [1] I can understand that, in terms of the overall operation of the airport, this incident might be considered trivial. But I'd like to record three points here:

• 1. The incident received national TV and radio news coverage (maybe also international by now?)
• 2. This is a new and growing threat to aircraft safety enabled by uncontrolled public access to a new technology (similar to personal high energy lasers)
• 3. Changes to the law are now being considered.

So I'm surprised it's not wanted here. Perhaps the Unmanned aerial vehicle article would be a better place to add this? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And now the government has decided to act by proposing registration of all drone users: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk)

Might be worth a mention on one of the UAV article if it can be linked to the legislation proposal but as far as Gatwick is concerned it is not that noteworthy. Just to note that Gatwick has been disrupted before by hot air balloons, road accidents on the approach roads or M23, building fires and even stray aircraft in the control zone, none of which are noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems with drones have been mounting over the last few years. I think this incident was the one that finally pushed the government into some kind of action. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations

I suggest this sub-article be removed, or reduced to a small paragraph. It clearly breaches 10YT and is not encyclopedic. It does, however, give some editors an endless supply of reasons to tinker. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - see WP:AIRPORT - the page on Gatwick has been standardised in line with articles on every other airport in the world. If you want to modify this page in such a way you need to apply the same principle to several thousand other pages and change WP agreed policies. Pmbma (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point, but so what? See [3] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

LGW-LED service operated by Rossiya on behalf of Aeroflot

I noticed that this service is listed as an Aeroflot service, which seems to be correct as per the airport website's timetable page. However, I was at the airport yesterday and noticed that the Aeroflot signage directing passengers from the airport railway station via the shuttle station to the North Terminal has been removed and replaced with Rossiya signage. Also, the arrivals board in the North Terminal only prefixes the flight number of this flight as FV (Rossiya) rather than SU (Aeroflot). Should LED therefore not be listed as a Rossiya destination in the "Airlines and destinations" section?

Deleting redundant citation

Request for clarification: whenever I happen to edit the "Airlines and destinations" section of this article, I delete citations where new services have actually begun or resumed. My rationale for doing this is that if every citation relating to new service announcements / service resumptions is left in there, this section will become cluttered with citations that have lost their relevance. Is my understanding of this correct (as per Wiki guidelines)?

please. Do not delete citations WP:V a core Wikipedia policy is clear that these are required. And in particular clutter is never a reason to delete references. The other problems you see in the tables are real but these question the validity of the tables themselves not attempts to validate them with the required referencing. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 drone incident

It is highly questionable that the current drone incident is of encyclopaedic value. Despite what the creating editor says. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As it is looking more like a criminal act (protest or blackmail) rather than just a drone incursion it may become noteworthy but we need to give it another 24 hours to see what happens. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy to wait and see. Significance may be enough for inclusion if this is the first instance of a new type of protest. If it’s a one off maybe not. The way it is currently written is very WP:NOTNEWS recentism.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The UK's second busiest airport has been closed for 24 hours owing to a criminal act. Civilian authorities have called in the army to help find the drone operator(s). This could go on all Christmas if there are two or more operators working in shifts, which seems likely given the sustained nature of the attack. It's an unprecedented crime and increasingly deserves an article of its own (I suggest 2018 Gatwick Airport drone incident). Firebrace (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Main image

I propose changing the main image to this one on the right:

Image suggested by User:Ikon21

It's a better view of the facility as compared to the previous photo. Only concern is that there is a small red arrow pointed at an aircraft on the runway and I'm wondering if that's acceptable. --Ikon21 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose a change as I dont see it as an improvement on the current image. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As this image allows readers to view the entire airport at a much better angle than the previous image, I think it is an improvement. The old image was cropped tightly and has worse air quality, but that's just my preference. --Ikon21 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No Current image is better, proposed change is too far away and contains that red arrow. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's too far away but the red arrow is fair. -Ikon21 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternative version

Current main image

@Ikon21:@David J Johnson:@MilborneOne: This is an improved version of the photo suggested by User:Ikon21 last year. It does not have the red arrow pointing to the runway. I think it is better than the current infobox image, because it shows the whole airport clearly and from a higher altitude. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have received no response from the three posters involved in the previous discussion, so I am pinging @Jack1985IE: @EireAviation: @TheRealMC36: @Airportlover147812: and @SeanMoulton1997: (all regular editors of the article) to ask whether they support or oppose a change to the main infobox photograph. Also repinging @Nkon21: Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic and COVID suspension

I see someone has removed any current reference to Virgin operating from Gatwick, I can't see that any other airline has been removed; even though very few flights are currently operating for obvious reasons. Both Virgin and British Airways have made announcements that they do not intend to resume flying from LGW in the near future, and I'm sure other (non-UK based) carriers have no immediate plans to resume.

So has Virgin been singled out inappropriately? Might it be simpler to reinstate the list as it was with a note saying the lists of airlines and routes are current before the worldwide 'lockdown'? Thanks. Sussexonian (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19

Being that the Corvid-19 virus debacle has impacted Gatwick movements so drastically (August 2020) it would be good if an entry was made explaining the massive drop in flights compared with LHR, STD and LTN. It is likely to be a long time before Gatwick will recover (if ever) to it's previous status of second busiest UK airport. Why is Gatwick (still) so badly affected while STD and LTN numbers are recovering substantially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.31.244 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ryanair at Stansted and Wizzair at Luton have been more willing to fly planes post lockdown, while Easyjet at Gatwick has been more cautious. Additionally, British Airways and Virgin have moved a lot of flights from Gatwick to Heathrow. All airports in the UK are affected by Covid - I don't think there needs to be a special explanation at Gatwick about Covid. Wait until maybe October and passenger numbers will start to seem a little more comparable with other London airports Pmbma (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gatwick Airport logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

22 November 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Pmbma: About the suspected bomb found, it has garnered significant coverage- BBC, Washington Post, [4], etc, and was exposed in controlled way TOI. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

As far as I can see no aircraft involved and also no casualties. So I have removed this irrelevant incident. The Banner talk 14:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

News reports on BBC and Sky indicate that the incident has been resolved without any confirmed reports of a bomb and the terminal will reopen shortly. This does not sound sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Pmbma (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Happens everyday at some airport in the world. This is in no way notable. A bomb exploding and causing damage/injuries in the terminal is different, but a suspected bomb removed in a controlled way is not in anyway notable and massively commonplace. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.