LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23461 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
Large fact due to the terminal ownership differences in the US versus the rest of the world. In the US many terminal are either owned, or under exclusive long term leases to airlines which have facilities tailored to their needs.
Overseas many facilities are owned and operated by the government on more common use basis with the funding coming often from central government coffers for facilities unlike the US where airline can each build or fund their individual facilities.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7479 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
A lot of it also is the development of the air transportation in the US. The US is so large that it has the need for a lot more aviation than other forms of public transportation, with flying being the primary transport in the US for long distances and such its necissary for good facilities. Jetways add a lot for companies as well especially in inclement weather, also it's all about passenger comfort in facilities, hence why NW hubs even had gates for all the RJ's. As far as US airports with hard stands really there are few but those that come to mind are:
Not sure if MEM still had hard stands for RJ's, but ORD doesn't use jetways for most of the RJ's, ATL still has some and SLC for sure. DEN, LAX, SAN etc all don't have jetways for RJ's, however, for mainline jets, just about every airport has jetways.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6507 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): Overseas many facilities are owned and operated by the government on more common use basis with the funding coming often from central government coffers for facilities unlike the US where airline can each build or fund their individual facilities.
AND OLD: Munich - Riem (MUC / EDDM) (closed), Germany">MUC T2 was designed tailor-made for LH's hub operation and is owned 45% by LH. Still, the building has waaay too few contact gates with jetways to cater for all widebodies it is serving (at times), let alone for all mainline jets.
Using a remote stand (unfortunately) is the norm at LH T2.
Even though traffic has risen to a level, where a satellite to T2 is now approved, it still will not add sufficient gates to cater for all mainline jets.
In the end it is a decision based on economy.
Extra terminal (concourse) area with contact gates is much (!) more expensive to create. Expenses that will need to be recovered via usage fees. OTOH, just pouring some concrete to create a remote stand is comparable cheap.
Ground support, OTOH, will be slightly more expensive at a remote stand, calculated on a aircraft by aircraft basis.
In the end, all such expenses will need to be factored in into the ticket price ...
Here in Europe, there is one example of LCC that prefers remote stands over using jetways: FR. They claim that boarding is faster using front AND aft door. Still, FR sometimes (but seldom) uses jetways if mandated by the airport.
In the end, the use of jetways (or not) most often is an economical decision by the airline.
As long as the pax do not revolt and do come back again and again, use of remote stands appears to be acceptable.
In the U.S. direct competition on routes often is given, and any airline trying to lower the long-established standard for pax being able to board via jetways will see a hard time.
OTOH; here in Europe, pax are accustomed to using remote stands (some with bus transfer, some with walking to the terminal building), so expectations are different.
One example: Kirkenes is Northern Norway is not exactly the place with the warmest weather, but even though KKN is served by mainline jets of AND Air Djibouti">DY and SK regularly, it does not feature any jetways. Even in Norway with its high living standard it is considered to be uneconomical to invest in such a thing as a jetway, seeing that KKN served only 278 000 pax in 2009 - despite quite a chunk of them being cruise passengers for Hurtigruten that look for some pampering ...
But I do agree that it is not acceptable from a pax' point of view if intercontinental flights are required to use remote stands for deplaning and/or boarding on a regular base.
One other positive thing about using Jetways has not been mentioned yet: They reduce the risk of pax being able to run off on the tarmac / the apron, thus reducing the risk of security breaks.
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
BD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 654 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
I'm glad we don't have them in the US, it slows down the boarding/deplaning process as people have to walk up/down stairs with bags, I witnessed some poor old lady with two walking sticks having to be helped down an icy set of airstairs in FRA last week onto the bus. Some of the stands at some airports are so remote (CDG is a case in mind) that the combined taxiing and bus transfer times can destroy any chance of making a tight connection, and using a remote stand, bus and stairs for a long-haul route with premium passengers is hardly the image I would imagine airlines want to portray, FRA seems to excel in that category