I noticed that AA flies to both Gatwick and Heathrow. I've only flown to LHR, does anyone have experience with both? What's the comparison?

There isn't really much difference between them, getting from LGW to the city will take about half an hour, from LHR to the city will only take half an hour. LGW isn't as modern as other airports but as AA uses T3 at LHR (OLD!) there isn't much difference in that either. TO keep it simple, use LHR.

ScottC,

Thanks for your response, and thanks for correcting my error in the airport code.

Hey there. Strongly disagree here, sorry.

While LHR has 25 times the flights on AA vs. LGW, 2 to DFW and one to Raleigh, LGW is a thousand times more convenient than LHR.

I love LHR, as LGW, for the aviation aspect. Landing and seeing Air Namibia, Gulf Air, Tunisair, etc., whereas LGW is mostly charter and British with a few odd ones such as Air Zimbabwe, etc.

LGW is much easier for the traveler, hands down. I think the LHR people are on drugs or something. They would have to be.

LHR is difficult to navigate at best, doable if changing planes within one terminal, but very bureaucratic and the security is intense, all before 9/11. They amazed me with the Heathrow Hoppa, just talked about that on some post on here, needless to say, I hate the (damn) thing. Then, they removed the public side shuttle bus between Terminals 1,2,3 and 4, now you must take the Heathrow Express, lugging your bags on and off, no carts to the trains, and very, very time consuming. Our British cousins have got to be so embarrassed by the mess. Heathrow isn't so bad if arriving or departing London directly, and yes, it is much closer to London and you can take the tube, but to change planes they have created a new form of difficult. Many people consequently change planes at Gatwick(with fewer flight selections) or on the continent, costing Heathrow, I am sure, in the millions. I don't think it could get any better than Zurich or Amsterdam. Paris CDG is another pain. Amazing.

Conversely, LGW is far more laid back, good with security but not as anal, if you will.
Comfortable trains between the 2 Terminals, South and North, and you can even take the luggage trolleys/carts onboard. I find the staff at LGW, generally, friendlier and it is just an eaiser airport to navigate. If AA had more flights out of LGW, wouldn't even be a question between the 2, but I don't want to leave London in the afternoon, would prefer to take a late flight out of LHR.

Sorry for the book but want to help you and others who wonder. I will be doing both airports next week, will be my first since 9/11, curious to see if anything has changed.


------------------
MD
AA PLT,1 MLN Miles+
Hilton Gold
Sheraton Gold

I think any time savings between LHR/LGW is cancelled out by the time it takes to get into London.


Car/Taxi:
LHR is closer.

The Heathrow Express will put you at Paddington in 15/20 mins depending on terminal. It's modern and reliable and Paddington is a useful place to connect for trains as well as Taxis.
The Gatwick Express is old, slow(45 mins) and prone to troubles with the track and labour strikes. It puts you at Victoria Station which is useful for buses and some trains, but not as many Taxis.

For guests, LHR conveys the notion of landing someplace that's major international destination.

LGW is quicker and easier to get through but is also a bit like landing in Iowa (no offense meant to the great State of Iowa ;-> ).

I never found either airport o be overly complex; just follow the signs.

I agree with the assessment on transfers at LHR being a new form of hurt compared to LGW. The walking and waiting and bus rides are loooonggg. But the BA Club I visited once was well worth the trip. The Admirals Club at LGW is much smaller than the AC at LHR (which is great!) and there are fewer showers. I avoid the LGW Admirals Club and use the CO Presidents Club upstairs. While the train time from LGW to Victoria is greater than the train time from LHR to Paddington, Victoria may be closer to where you are going in London if arriving. Another aspect that might be important to some is that LHR is served by the Picadilly Line for a much cheaper ride into London, if you can stand the time. If you are looking for shopping, the LHR area is huge compared to LGW. Does anyone else still remember the small square transit lounge at LHR with a small snack line in the 80s?

It depends were you are staying in London... If you are staying in the west end, LHR may be your quickest conneciton. You will get into paddington in 15 minutes, BUT YOU WILL wait forever for a cab at Paddington.

Don't ever have this issue when taking the Gatwick train to london.

I was just at both airports. Both airports are great for shopping and for plane spotting, etc., both of which I love.

However, with all due respect, Heathrow can be crazy for transfers as well as getting to the local hotels, etc. I had to pay over 12 pounds, plus tip in a taxi, to make the simple journey from Heathrow Terminal 4(BA from CDG) to the Rennaissance Hotel, as the hassle of the Heathrow Express Train to 1,2,3, then a long walk to one of the terminals, then that dreaded Hoppa(I hate that thing so much!!!) to the hotel was too much to bare.

Gatwick has a nice train between the terminals and you can even take your luggage carts on board. I will agree that which area of London you go to is relevant as to the airport. The West End, for sure LHR, but Gatwick serves South London, and Southern England, for that matter.

I have seen people go way out of their way, as to flying to out of the way destinations, to avoid Heathrow, which by the way has a ton of construction going on.



------------------
MD
AA PLT,1 MLN Miles+
Hilton Gold
Sheraton Gold