Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2141841/

Topic: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: A388
Posted 2005-05-31 02:20:24 and read 5542 times.

I was looking at areal photos of both AMS Schiphol Airport and FRA Rhein Main Airport and was asking myself whether Schiphol is larger than FRA when looking at the total area these airports use and the size of the terminals. I know that FRA has more traffic than Schiphol but Schiphol does look larger in size than FRA. Is Schiphol really larger than FRA, if so how much larger is it? Schiphol also has more runways than FRA. Can Schiphol Airport in the future become a more attractive airport for airlines who are looking for expansion of their European flights? There are plans to build a few more terminals at Schiphol Airport, one being close to the Zwanenburg runway IIRC. Schiphol Rijk will also get a new cargo terminal, unfortunately the famous spotters location there will be no more because of this. Also a there may be build two new runways, one being on the other side of Schiphol Rijk close to the industrial park there and one in between the Zwanenburg runway and Polderbaan (18R & 18C?).

FRA:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © MUC-Pix



AMS:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jacqueline Vollebregt



Regards,

A388

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-05-31 10:19:08 and read 5442 times.

think AMS is quite bigger than FRA , but indeed not as much as traffic. However for the next couple of years they expect AMS to become much bigger......

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Hardiwv
Posted 2005-05-31 10:22:01 and read 5437 times.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 1):
However for the next couple of years they expect AMS to become much bigger......

Do you have more details? AMS is already Europe's 4th biggest hub, which for a city of less than 1 million inhabitants is a superb achievement.

Rgs,

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FlyAUA
Posted 2005-05-31 10:30:10 and read 5423 times.

Quoting A388 (Thread starter):

EHAM is indeed larger than EDDF when seen from a surface area point of view. From an operational point of view, EDDF has more traffic. As you have mentioned, they are planning new terminals at Amsterdam and a new runway as well that will be situated between 36L/18R and 36R/18L named 36C/18C. Didn't know though that there would be 2 new runways. The terminals are supposed to be built somewhere north of the current location for the terminals (which RWY is the Zwanenburg runway?).

Regards,
Moe

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Squirrel83
Posted 2005-05-31 10:39:09 and read 5397 times.

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 3):



Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 3):
Zwanenburg runway?).

18R-36L runway. it was operational Nov 1, 2003

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FlyAUA
Posted 2005-05-31 11:15:41 and read 5356 times.

Quoting Squirrel83 (Reply 4):

Ahhh the new one  Smile

Cheers for clarifying!

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-05-31 11:24:59 and read 5334 times.

EHAM is indeed larger than EDDF when seen from a surface area point of view. From an operational point of view, EDDF has more traffic. As you have mentioned, they are planning new terminals at Amsterdam and a new runway as well that will be situated between 36L/18R and 36R/18L named 36C/18C. Didn't know though that there would be 2 new runways. The terminals are supposed to be built somewhere north of the current location for the terminals (which RWY is the Zwanenburg runway?).


true, wich will make it 1st or 2nd in europe... Amsterdam isn't one of the biggest city's, however 80% of the passengers at AMS are foreigners , about 80% of that is Transfer... Amsterdam is a fantastic transfer place...

18R-36L runway. it was operational Nov 1, 2003


nope thats the polder baan..... its on the left side

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © DutchAviation



polderbaan


zwanenburg baan is 18C-36C :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Filipowicz



its the one in the upper left corner, and its closer to the terminals... but between these 2 runways, the new terminal is planned, but the 2 new runways are planned further away...

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FlyAUA
Posted 2005-05-31 11:36:08 and read 5307 times.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 6):
18R-36L runway. it was operational Nov 1, 2003


nope thats the polder baan..... its on the left side

Yeah I was slightly puzzled... been googling ever since. I thought the new runway was called "polderbaan". So yes, if the new terminals are not built at the new runway, it would make sense that it's North of the current terminals as I was saying. The zwanenburg runway is (unlike what I stated in previous post already existing as 18C/36C - sorry for the mistake).

Thx for the nice pics by the way  Wink

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: JCS
Posted 2005-05-31 12:52:59 and read 5220 times.

A nice view on the 6 runways of AMS / EHAM: http://www.xinu.nl/users/edwin/aviation/schiphol/EHAM_FL100-large.jpg

(I hope it remains online!)

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2005-05-31 12:53:49 and read 5218 times.

At the end of the day it will be subject to the success of the home carrier and that will be subject to the growth potential of their hub.

AMS has already what FRA is fighting to get, we need a new runway for landings here which will increase the average movement capacity per hour to 120, presently it is abut 80. A third terminal is planned as well which will bring the total capacity to approx.80/85 Million.

CDG/FRA/AMS play the top league and LHR needs a third runway as well to keep its top position, T5 won't be enough.

Clear advantage at the moment for AMS/CDG , meanwhile LH generates the bulk of its growth at MUC. .

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Andreas
Posted 2005-05-31 13:07:00 and read 5184 times.

Just visited Schiphol last weekend for the umpteenth time, I just love this airport (and that coming from a FRA guy). Considering how long it takes to drive your car around the whole area (not using the roads that go between the terminal and Polderbaan); I'd say AMS does definitely cover much more ground!

btw: FRA is also a city with much less than 1m. of people living there...sometimes size does NOT matter  Wink, in most other cases it does, though...  Wink Big grin

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: NumberTwelve
Posted 2005-05-31 13:11:02 and read 5178 times.

Quoting Andreas (Reply 10):
I'd say AMS does definitely cover much more ground!

btw: FRA is also a city with much less than 1m. of people living there...sometimes size does NOT matter , in most other cases it does, though...

A friend of mine from Fraport uses to say "air craft carrier" because of it's shape (ok, forget the 18west) and the very limited space used for this airport.

And because of this limited space we have few slots - so FRA is totally happy to see the 380 in the nearest future.

And, Andreas, what do you mean with the size matters and size doesn't matter?
 listen 

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Hardiwv
Posted 2005-05-31 13:15:56 and read 5174 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
CDG/FRA/AMS play the top league and LHR needs a third runway as well to keep its top position

Indeed, although I'm based in AMS (I'm not Dutch) I must say that AMS is simply Europe's best airport, and certainly one of the best in the world. This also partly explains the sucess of KLM as a major world carrier.

AMS is an excellent airport. There is no discussion here; AMS is consistently ranked in the top 10 airports of the world in any survey (see recent SkyTrax survey, in which AMS and CPH were the only European airports included in the top 10 rank - bearing in mind that AMS has a much bigger traffic than CPH).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
Clear advantage at the moment for AMS/CDG , meanwhile LH generates the bulk of its growth at MUC

I also think that LH will grow with a dual-hub strategy: FRA and MUC (or very soon triply hub: FRA, MUC and ZRH). It makes sense in a country the size of Germany.

Quoting Andreas (Reply 10):
FRA is also a city with much less than 1m. of people living there...sometimes size does NOT matter

Correct. Other examples: SIN and DXB.

What could be Europe no. 5 or next emerging airport hub? MAD? MUC?

Rgs,

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Thestooges
Posted 2005-05-31 13:22:21 and read 5157 times.

Amsterdam may be the 4th biggest hub with a population of 1 million but Frankfurt is Europes 2nd biggest hub with a population of only 500,000, which is even more of an achievement.

However the total population of the Randstad which is comprised of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Utrecht, Den Hague and Rotterdam is about 10 million. To get from Amsterdam to Rotterdam takes only an hour by train. In many cities you can travel for an hour by train and easily still be in the same city.

Schipol is the only major international airport in all of the Netherlnads so in fact it serves a population of 17 million and you can easily add an extra few million on top of that as people come from Belgium and Germany to use the airport as well. It shouldnt take more than three or four hours by train or car to get from any point in the Netherlands to Schipol.

Frankfurt is also very similar. Even though the actual city is quite small the surrounding areas are heavily populated with maybe 10 million or more people living within 2 hours driving time of the airport.

The pattern of ubanisation that has occured in Holland and the Rhine valley of Germany has led to the development of many small cities the size of Amsterdam and Frankfurt that are within close proximity to each other. These cities then make up much larger urban conglomerations. This is different to Paris and London where one city enlarged to incorporate the surrounding towns creating mega-cities of 10 million plus people.

So in short its no surprise that Schipol and Frankfurt are as big as they are, even though the cities that they are named after are quite small the immediate areas they serve are just as populous as London and Paris.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Intothinair
Posted 2005-05-31 13:27:47 and read 5146 times.

In 2004:
FRA: 50,098,271PAX
AMS: 42,541,180PAX

In 2004, aircraft movements:
FRA: 477,475
AMS: 418,611

What wonders me is:
Why does AMS need 6 runways, with less aircraft movements than FRA, who only has 2 takeoff/landing+1 takeoff runway?
I think we all know that FRA needs a 4th runway AS FAST AS POSSIBLE to keep up with CDG and AMS, but aren't 6 runways ENOUGH for now, for AMS?

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 1):
However for the next couple of years they expect AMS to become much bigger......

Any source?
Once FRA gets a 4th runway(hopefully by 2009), traffic should increase quite rapidly, and looking over how much AMS has grown over the last few years, I doubt that AMS will catch FRA interms of Passenger numbers.
However, maybe in 10years+ once FRA gets a problem with slots again, as their reaching maximum capacity again, unless they can quickly build a 5th runway, AMS might just catch them.
We'll have to see!

Cheers, Konstantin G.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Hardiwv
Posted 2005-05-31 13:28:52 and read 5156 times.

Quoting Thestooges (Reply 13):
However the total population of the Randstad which is comprised of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Utrecht, Den Hague and Rotterdam is about 10 million. To get from Amsterdam to Rotterdam takes only an hour by train. In many cities you can travel for an hour by train and easily still be in the same city.

Schipol is the only major international airport in all of the Netherlnads so in fact it serves a population of 17 million and you can easily add an extra few million on top of that as people come from Belgium and Germany to use the airport as well. It shouldnt take more than three or four hours by train or car to get from any point in the Netherlands to Schipol.



Quoting Thestooges (Reply 13):
So in short its no surprise that Schipol and Frankfurt are as big as they are, even though the cities that they are named after are quite small the immediate areas they serve are just as populous as London and Paris.

Very good point, which I completely agree. AMS and FRA catching area, in terms of total population, is similar to London and Paris, as you rightly pointed out. And AMS still has the advantage that BRU is and under-developed hub, and many Beligum-based pax use AMS as their hub.

Rgs,

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Andreas
Posted 2005-05-31 13:29:00 and read 5144 times.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 11):
And, Andreas, what do you mean with the size matters and size doesn't matter?

Funny, I've known the answer all my adult life, but just now, it slipped me  Wink Big grin

Quoting Thestooges (Reply 13):
people come from Belgium and Germany to use the airport as well.

Yes actually that goes both ways, those times when people flew from their "home" airport are over...nowadays ti is easy to get to most airports by highspeed trains, even AMS and FRA are well-connected, 4 hours by ICE international, including Sneltrain from Centraal to AMS (13 minutes ride!)

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2005-05-31 13:43:43 and read 5116 times.

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 14):
In 2004:
FRA: 50,098,271PAX
AMS: 42,541,180PAX

In 2004, aircraft movements:
FRA: 477,475
AMS: 418,611

What wonders me is:
Why does AMS need 6 runways, with less aircraft movements than FRA, who only has 2 takeoff/landing+1 takeoff runway?
I think we all know that FRA needs a 4th runway AS FAST AS POSSIBLE to keep up with CDG and AMS, but aren't 6 runways ENOUGH for now, for AMS?

In fact there are 5 only, forget about the Fokkerbaan., The three parallel runways can easily handle at least 650K movements p.a.,because of their spacing, leaving AMS the luxury to "spread" the noise and never use the full daily capacity of any single runway.

With the 4 runways in FRA the capacity will come to about 650K as well and from there it's a simple calculation with average pax per plane to see that there is some room to achieve the 80 Mio (and more) pax p.a. goal

With the "Nordwestbahn" here in FRA we should not worry about growth potential over the next 10-15 years.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-05-31 13:52:06 and read 5104 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LHR needs a third runway as well to keep its top position

... but it will not get one in the foreseeable future (just my opinion), though I´d love one to see at LHR.

Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 12):
I also think that LH will grow with a dual-hub strategy: FRA and MUC (or very soon triply hub: FRA, MUC and ZRH). It makes sense in a country the size of Germany.

... anybody out there thinking that in 10 years the new SXF "Berlin Brandenburg Int´l" will become a hub for LH ? I doubt that it will.

Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 12):
What could be Europe no. 5 or next emerging airport hub? MAD? MUC?

Both MAD and MUC are already hubs IMO; with the new terminal & rwys at MAD it will become a much bigger player for traffic to South America as it is already today.

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 14):
FRA gets a problem with slots again, as their reaching maximum capacity again, unless they can quickly build a 5th runway

Where would they try to put a 5th rwy?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-05-31 14:22:38 and read 5044 times.

However the total population of the Randstad which is comprised of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Utrecht, Den Hague and Rotterdam is about 10 million.

not 10 million people near Amsterdam... In fact, almost half of North, East , and south Netherlands use FRA as theire airport... also know some photographers wich life in Holland but are spotting mostly at FRA since its closer to theire house...

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: JCS
Posted 2005-05-31 14:25:47 and read 5031 times.

Hello,

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 14):
Why does AMS need 6 runways

Perhaps another point is that at AMS is more (strong)wind from different directions. AMS is near the Northsea. When you take a look at the shape of the airport you see the runways are spread around it. And indeed, the 6th runway is only used by small trafic.

Johannes

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: NumberTwelve
Posted 2005-05-31 14:30:18 and read 5021 times.

Quoting Andreas (Reply 16):
, it slipped me

It slipped you? Maybe its because of the size?

Quoting Thestooges (Reply 13):
can easily add an extra few million on top of that as people come from Belgium and Germany to use the airport as well

Same with Frankfurt, people from Belgium and rest of Germany use FRA as a hub.

I don't know AMS (never been to the airport there) but FRA is totally shortened and every squaremeter has to be used.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FlyAUA
Posted 2005-05-31 14:31:32 and read 5023 times.

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 14):
What wonders me is:
Why does AMS need 6 runways, with less aircraft movements than FRA, who only has 2 takeoff/landing+1 takeoff runway?
I think we all know that FRA needs a 4th runway AS FAST AS POSSIBLE to keep up with CDG and AMS, but aren't 6 runways ENOUGH for now, for AMS?

It's more about being pro-active rather than reacting once the problem already exists. I can't recall ever hearing that AMS was restricted due to terminal space, RWY limitations, etc... It is one of the airports that has always planned way ahead. So just because there is talk of it, doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow. Also, note that they have purchased a LOT of land within the airport permimeter to make life easier for themselves when they need to expand in the future. The additional runway capacity that is being discussed also has to do with accommodating the 85 million pax capacity figure which they foresee in the near future. I agree however that it may seem unecessary at the moment.

AMS is definately my favourite airport. It is a pleasure to travel from/to/via Schiphol. Good job, and I hope they keep up the good work  Smile

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LHR needs a third runway as well to keep its top position

It most certainly does. If I remember correctly, it is considered the airport (or at least one of them) with the highest denisty... i.e. highest number of movements/pax/whatever per square kilometre.

What puzzles me though is why they talk of a RWY that is almost half the length of the existing ones. The plan is to build one parallel and north of 27R/09L. Is this just lip-service to not piss off the public that were promised (1) T5 would not be built (2) There would be no 3rd RWY if T5 was built? And if so, isn't it better to get it right in the first place since you are going through all the trouble anyways, than to build a RWY that would restrict movements to an extent and was not long enough for certain aircraft types?

Regards,
Moe  Smile

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: JCS
Posted 2005-05-31 14:32:12 and read 5027 times.

Beste MauriceB,

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 19):
since its closer to theire house...

This is big BS. No way that FRA is closer to any peace of Netherlands. And all people in Netherlands use FRA when they may travel cheaper. But it is not closer. But there are other airports: Dusseldorf, NRN, Brussels, CDG and Rotterdam which have big deals with Dutch. And we have the airports at Eindhoven/Maastricht/Groningen/Twente.
BTW Did you ever drive to FRA? In that case you know how SMALL Netherlands is...

Johannes

[Edited 2005-05-31 14:35:12]

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-05-31 14:36:22 and read 5005 times.

BTW Did you ever drove to FRA? In that case you know how SMALL Netherlands is...

Johannes


2 weeks ago for the last time.... but thrust me i know a lot of people who use FRA, since a lot of flights are cheaper with LH... Didn't u noticed the hugh LH campagnes in holland?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Hardiwv
Posted 2005-05-31 15:05:19 and read 4975 times.

Quoting JCS (Reply 23):
And all people in Netherlands use FRA when they may travel cheaper.

Indeed, a lot of Germans use AMS because KLM is in general cheaper than LH...Germany's population is much bigger than the Netherlands and you have a lot of Germans from the Koeln/Duesseldorf area using AMS.

I also think LH probably is the second or third biggest operator in AMS together with AF.

Rgs,

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-05-31 15:18:30 and read 4952 times.

Isn´t it the usual scheme ? Always the "Homecarrier" is more expensive than carriers from another country ...
That´s how KL and AF try to siphon-off pax from Germany and route them through CDG and AMS - and of course the same is true for LH for pax originating outside Germany.

When I serched for B-Class flights on LH, these often were considerably cheaper from both ZRH or AMS via FRA compared to HAJ via FRA or even originating at FRA itself.
So I already made up plans a while ago to fly HAJ - ZRH on a LCC and then LH via FRA to the U.S. - but that vacation would not materialize.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: JCS
Posted 2005-05-31 15:37:59 and read 4922 times.

Ha, okee MauriceB.

It is really funny that KLM tickets are cheaper on www.klm.de, for example with a tranfer Dusseldorf-AMS then when you buy the KLM tickets in Holland.

I live in The Hague, 20 minutes by train from AMS. But for me it is cheaper to go to Dusseldorf (about 2 hours?) and catch a KLM-flight back to AMS and a transfer to Sao Paulo. On the way back I ask in Sao Paulo to send my luggage for AMS instead of Dusseldorf and I drop off at AMS.

Johannes

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Hardiwv
Posted 2005-05-31 15:46:46 and read 4925 times.

Quoting JCS (Reply 27):
But for me it is cheaper to go to Dusseldorf (about 2 hours?) and catch a KLM-flight back to AMS and a transfer to Sao Paulo

You are correct. I have friends that do the same: flying KLM from BRU is cheaper than AMS!

Rgs,

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Morvious
Posted 2005-05-31 18:44:51 and read 4774 times.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 19):
not 10 million people near Amsterdam... In fact, almost half of North, East , and south Netherlands use FRA as theire airport... also know some photographers wich life in Holland but are spotting mostly at FRA since its closer to theire house...

Well, from my house (living 30 minutes from germany) it is:
110 Km to Schiphol, 1 hour and 10 minutes driving.
360 Km to Frankfurt, 3 hours and 45 minutes driving.
150 Km to Düsseldorf, 1 hour and 35 minutes driving.
240 Km to Zaventem, 2 hours and 33 minutes driving.

Best solution is Schiphol, nomather what direction I want. And the place where I live is quite central to all of them. My choice also would be Schiphol.. I love the airport, its easy to get there by train and car.
When I am there, I always see lots of germans and people from belgium driving around. A reason to think that not only Dutch people use Schiphol to transfer.

Question though.. For airliners, what airport is more expensive? AMS seems to be a nice place for a hub/destanation, for passengers and airliners, but it seems airliner are avoiding Amsterdam for that goal? Like Asian and middle east carriers and AAL to name a few! LHR and FRA are big airports to, and not (by air)far from AMS.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: A388
Posted 2005-05-31 19:18:41 and read 4729 times.

That's true. I remember the time when a lot of people booked and went to Germany to fly to Curacao with KLM as this was cheaper compared to a ticket from AMS.

A388

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Tripple7
Posted 2005-05-31 19:51:12 and read 4692 times.

Quoting JCS (Reply 27):
Ha, okee MauriceB.

It is really funny that KLM tickets are cheaper on www.klm.de, for example with a tranfer Dusseldorf-AMS then when you buy the KLM tickets in Holland.

I live in The Hague, 20 minutes by train from AMS. But for me it is cheaper to go to Dusseldorf (about 2 hours?) and catch a KLM-flight back to AMS and a transfer to Sao Paulo. On the way back I ask in Sao Paulo to send my luggage for AMS instead of Dusseldorf and I drop off at AMS.

This is what I do all the time. I live right between AMS and DUS, so it doesn´t matter to which airport I drive. Both are about a 1 hour and 15 minute drive. If I fly on KLM I originate from DUS and when I fly on LH I start my journey in AMS  Wink
When you start to think logically about it, it makes no sense at all  Smile

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FlyAUA
Posted 2005-05-31 19:55:21 and read 4676 times.

Quoting Tripple7 (Reply 31):
If I fly on KLM I originate from DUS and when I fly on LH I start my journey in AMS
When you start to think logically about it, it makes no sense at all

LOL Big grin

No it doesn't but it's cheaper  Wink

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-05-31 20:00:41 and read 4669 times.

to clear things up first, Sorry i confused with DUS!!!!!


Question though.. For airliners, what airport is more expensive? AMS seems to be a nice place for a hub/destanation, for passengers and airliners, but it seems airliner are avoiding Amsterdam for that goal?

well AMS isn't the cheapest (thats why Easy is reducing flights out of AMS) and it will get 13 euro's expensiver , the full 13 euro's will go into AMS security..... 42,541,180x13 is about 530 million euro's for security each year... sounds like they are going to use tanks and Apaches to me!!!!!

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Morvious
Posted 2005-05-31 20:11:42 and read 4652 times.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 33):
42,541,180x13 is about 530 million euro's for security each year... sounds like they are going to use tanks and Apaches to me!!!!!

Apaches would be a nice extra for spotters  Wink

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Stirling
Posted 2005-05-31 20:38:20 and read 4626 times.

I am wondering....last year this time, I took the train from Amsterdam to Antwerp, around the airport, it goes underground, or at least sub-terrean, blocking the view of Schipol.
My question is, anyway to point out on these photos here, of where that station might be? My usually keen sense of direction is failing me, I can't even make out which way is nord or sud...

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: AMSSFO
Posted 2005-05-31 21:58:03 and read 4551 times.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 35):
My question is, anyway to point out on these photos here, of where that station might be? My usually keen sense of direction is failing me, I can't even make out which way is nord or sud...

At the large photo from JCS reply 8 you look north. The three parallel runways on that picture are all 36/18.
You can't see the station because it is all underground. On the picture showed by the thread starter the train station is just below the green triangle north of the tower. End yes that's right in the middle of the airport next to terminal. Very handy! There is no faster way to get at AMS than by train!

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Stirling
Posted 2005-05-31 22:14:34 and read 4520 times.

AMSSFO-

Thanks! Excellent info.

One more question. Then that means the view in the first post, is looking north? (or south?)
I will assume the rail line runs through the picture from top to bottom? (more or less?)

Curious about the construction of the rail line....when was it completed? How long did it take to construct?
Was it a cut and cover?, or did they use some type of tunneling device?

Sorry 'bout all the questions...Dutch engineering across all sectors of industry is something I find tremendously interesting. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention!

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-05-31 22:31:00 and read 4489 times.

Quoting HT (Reply 18):
Quoting Intothinair (Reply 14):
FRA gets a problem with slots again, as their reaching maximum capacity again, unless they can quickly build a 5th runway

Where would they try to put a 5th rwy?

Better yet, perhaps they should think about building a 4th runway first

Quoting HT (Reply 18):
... anybody out there thinking that in 10 years the new SXF "Berlin Brandenburg Int´l" will become a hub for LH ? I doubt that it will.

10 years from now it seems likely that SXF will still be how it is and TXL will still be open

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 24):
since a lot of flights are cheaper with LH

That's a first

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: AMSSFO
Posted 2005-06-01 00:44:11 and read 4268 times.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 37):
One more question. Then that means the view in the first post, is looking north? (or south?)
I will assume the rail line runs through the picture from top to bottom? (more or less?)

picture is taken from the south looking to the north. The city in the right upper corner is Amsterdam.
And yes you can actually see the railway. At the left lower corner when going up there is a transition of fields to buildings. There the rail way enters the picture ; it goes underground south of 36C/18C (Zwanenburg) runway, just below where you see a road in construction parallel to that runway.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 37):
when was it completed? How long did it take to construct?
Was it a cut and cover?, or did they use some type of tunneling device?

I can't help you with this, unfortunately. I think the first part of the tunnel was built in late 70s; it was expanded in the 90s with an additional tube.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Stirling
Posted 2005-06-01 01:08:04 and read 4172 times.

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 39):
I can't help you with this, unfortunately. I think the first part of the tunnel was built in late 70s; it was expanded in the 90s with an additional tube

You've been more than helpful, thanks.

Maybe someone else knows?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Thestooges
Posted 2005-06-01 05:26:05 and read 3956 times.

Almost every point in the Netherlands with maybe the exception of the Maastricht area is definitely closer to AMS than FRA. In additon to this, most of the cities in the urban conglomeration of the Rhine Westphalia region such as Dusseldorf, Duisburg, Essen and Dortmund are exactly equidistant to both AMS and FRA. Im sure quite a lot of Germans from these cities use AMS, and given that the population of this area is 20 million they probably make up a significant proportion of pax in AMS. The proximity of this region to two of Europes largest hubs is why there are so few long-distance flights from DUS.

FRA of course would draw some people from the Netherlands, being a larger airport with more flights and non-stops, and sometimes lower fares

FRA is definitely a major connecting point for Germany, but then again so is AMS, as KLM flies to Hamburg, Bremen, Hannover, Berlin, Dusseldorf, Cologne/Bonn, Stuttgart, Nuremburg, Munich and Frankfurt. There's no reason why someone travelling from Berlin to New York wouldn't end up connecting in AMS as opposed to FRA.

FRA is of course a connecting point for Dutch people coming from Amsterdam or Rotterdam on Lufthansa but I would think that there are a lot more Germans connecting in AMS than Dutch in FRA (obviously due to the fact that the population of Germany is more than 4 times that of the Netherlands).

At the end of the day all you can infer from this is that all four of Europes big hubs, LHR, FRA, CDG, AMS, are all given a large amount of O/D taffic from their heavily populated surroundings and in the case of the Continental hubs: FRA, CDG and AMS, that they compete with each other for O/D passengers
due to their close proximity and the fact that other cities in the area such as Brussels or Dusseldorf lack there own decent size international airports ( as passengers from Brussels could choose CDG or AMS and passengers from Dusseldorf could choose AMS or FRA). All four hubs are in direct competition with each other for connecting passengers as anyone travelling from Dublin to Tokyo or from Prague to Los Angeles could end up connecting in either of them.

So theres theres no reaon as to why AMS couldnt become bigger one day than LHR, CDG and FRA, especially if the other are space and capacity restrained and it is not.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Joost
Posted 2005-06-01 10:50:55 and read 3860 times.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 40):
Maybe someone else knows?

The Schiphollijn is built in 3 phases. Next to that, there are 3 additional projects (Zuidtak 1993, Hemboog 2003, Utrechtboog october 2005) that can also be considered as a part of the project.

The first phase being the connection from Schiphol to Amsterdam Zuid WTC (eastbound), a metro/sneltram (lightrail)-station at the time. This was finished in 1978.

The second phase was the connection Schiphol to Leiden, (southwest) where it connects to the trains to Rotterdam and The Hague. It also was an extension from Zuid WTC to Amsterdam RAI (east). This was completed in 1981.

At this time, there was no direct connection from Amsterdam Central Station to Schiphol yet. This 3rd phase, a branche northbound, also connecting Amsterdam Sloterdijk, was finished in 1986.

At this time, travelers from the southwest of the country traveled via Leiden to Schiphol, all other connections from the north, east, center and southeast, ran via Amsterdam Centraal.

In 1993 the another link was created, the Zuidtak, from Amsterdam RAI to Weesp. This enabled direct connections from Amersfoort (and thus the northern and eastern parts of the country), bypassing the busy Amsterdam Central Station. It also included the Duivendrecht station, a crosslink, so passengers from Utrecht and further south could also bypass Central station; only changing trains in Duivendrecht.

The Hemboog, finished in 2003, enabled direct connections from Zaandam to Schiphol.

The last link, the Utrechtboog, will be finished by oct. 2005. With this link, Utrecht and other important cities southeast of Schiphol (Arnhem, Nijmegen, Eindhoven) will have direct connections to Schiphol too. Also the ICE international to Frankfurt and Basel (via Utrecht, Arnhem, Dusseldorf, Cologne) will use this to call at Schiphol.



In the lower left corner, where the green line ends, is Schiphol. Further to the southwest is Leiden. The horizontal part east of the junction is to Zuid WTC, from there it is Zuidtak to Weesp (junction just under the word Diemen). Amsterdam Central station is the other end of the green line. The Utrechtboog will be there where it's said A35. The hemboog is where the green line makes a corner.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Iberiadc852
Posted 2005-06-01 13:43:56 and read 3771 times.

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 39):
I can't help you with this, unfortunately. I think the first part of the tunnel was built in late 70s; it was expanded in the 90s with an additional tube.

By the way of talking about the seventies, I am very interested in airports' evolution but in the retrospective way, and especially all about Schiphol; could anyone tell me any information about Schiphol runway's configurations in the mid seventies? (or where to find it?)

Thanks in advance

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Intothinair
Posted 2005-06-01 13:47:31 and read 3764 times.

Quoting HT (Reply 18):
Where would they try to put a 5th rwy?

This is a hard one, at the moment, looking at an overview, the only place for a 5th one is behind the future T3, however this runway would cross over with runway 18, this seems the most logical place to put it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Better yet, perhaps they should think about building a 4th runway first

Yes indeed, I was just saying that in 15+ years, once FRA reaches full capacity with 4 runways, their going to have to quickly build a 5th one, not take 20+ years to get the rights to build it, if this takes that long indeed, we can forget FRA staying in the top 5 in Europe, let's hope they will though.

Cheers, Konstantin G.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Joost
Posted 2005-06-01 14:04:56 and read 3735 times.

Quoting Iberiadc852 (Reply 43):
By the way of talking about the seventies, I am very interested in airports' evolution but in the retrospective way, and especially all about Schiphol; could anyone tell me any information about Schiphol runway's configurations in the mid seventies? (or where to find it?)

As I am working 6 meters from the Dutch Aviation Archive, I left my desk for a while to check out the old photo books.

The 'new' (current) Schiphol opened in may 67, back at the time with Pier A, B and C. Currect me if I'm wrong, AFAIK the old B is what now is D (it already had the snake tongue at the end, but not as big as it's now), A is what now is E; C is still the same. The current B is new. (this is why their is no A-pier).

The texts in the book aren't complete. They don't mention the Kaagbaan or Aalsmeerbaan anywhere, but next to a 67 picture it's stated that when the airport opened in may 67, the Buitenveldertbaan and Zwanenburgbaan where still under construction; and 2 runways are already there. The Buitenveldertbaan opened in november 67, the Zwanenburgbaan nov 68.

This old books are very interesting. Nice old aerial photo's from the old Schiphol. Love to look at it in lunch break. If you have any specific questions, just ask.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-01 14:29:02 and read 3724 times.

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 44):
Quoting HT (Reply 18):
Where would they try to put a 5th rwy?

This is a hard one, at the moment, looking at an overview, the only place for a 5th one is behind the future T3, however this runway would cross over with runway 18, this seems the most logical place to put it.

This place would have several disadvantages:


  • Next to the proposed T3 is already Cargo-City Sued (South)
  • Building a rwy south of this combined complex (i.e. even further away from T1&T2) would require to remove even more trees (I would not like to volunteer for trying to sell that to the local enveronmentalists ...)
  • Still south of T3: As you already said, this rwy would "cross" rwy 18: As there is not enough space available between rwy 18 and the motorway A5, it is not possible to build a full length rwy (i.e. 4000m) there. Solution would be either to build a bridge over the motorway A5 which is currently 8-lanes wide in this spot plus the adjacent railway (or replace the bridge by putting motormay and railway into a tunnels) or to make an intersection of runways (something all airports try to avoid, as this leads to potenially dangerous LAHSO-oeprations)
  • Still south of T3: Movements on 18 would be limited whatever solution (see topic above) is built, as operations an the two rwys would have to synchronized.
  • Even further south, the area is already built up with housing estates.

The question is: Which capacity needs to improved most after rwy4 is operational ? Landing or take-off ? And also taxying times would become a problem from rwy 4 to T3 ...
My proposal would be boost take-off capacity by building a parallel rwy 18R (albeit usable for take-offs only due to the hills north of FRA) west of rwy 18 (then "18L"). This would lead to 2 parallel rwys for take-offs with acceptable taxying times from all terminals. In my plans, 18R and 18L would note be wide-spaced - a little bit more distance than just a taxiway in between should be enough, as this layout is used at U.S.-airports and synchronizing parallel takeoffs seems to be easier than synchronizing parallel approaches (IIRC the creation of turbulances is more a problem during landing than for takeoffs).
Having 2 rwy´s dedicated to takeoffs leave the other 3 (or 2.5) for landings. However, if traffic allows these still could be used for takeoffs.

This may not be a perfect solution, but taking the terrain into account a possible one.

P.S. Still I think, its will be easier to build rwy´s #4 and #5 at FRA than building a thrid rwy at LHR ...

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2005-06-01 14:33:43 and read 3720 times.

To add to this, the first railway tunnel was built in stages. The first stretch (about 500m) had in fact already been built in the 1960s. This is the part under runway 09-27. As the main structure of today's Schiphol was built then (moving away from the old area east of the small runway) a railway connection was anticipated, so in order not to open up the runway for tunnel construction, a tunnel was already installed.

The tunnel was built using the cut&cover method, and the tunnel floor was injected from the surface (after building the diafragm walls). It had a lot of soil on it to provide vertical equilibrium against groundwater pressure (freatic level is half a meter under the surface). This is different from using underwater concrete, as that would require tension piles. (This latter method was used for the station though). Problem with this injection method is that it didn't result in the required impermeability, and "sand fountains" occured. I am not sure how the problem was solved in the end, but it could have to do with the strange piles inside the tunnel that you see on the following picture:



In the late eighties it already became clear that a double-track line was not enough. So a second tunnel was built, and it had to be built quickly because the new terminal would be built right on top of it. It was constructed mostly using cut&cover and underwater concrete plus tension piles. But obviously, runway 09-27 would now have to be opened. (TBM-driven tunnels would have been unpractical because the groundwater upward pressure requires at least one times the tunnel diameter of overburden, which would place it much lower than the existing tunnel, which has no overburden at all). So how to deal with this? The answer was a very Dutch solution: submerged tunnels.

A dock was built right next to the existing tunnel, North of 09-27. Tunnel segments (of about 100m length, could be less though) were built in that dock, with a total length of 500m. They were placed one after the other (not side-by-side). Then, 09-27 was closed and a trench was dug right through the runway with a length of 500m and the entire 1000m trench filled with water:





The segments, that had been made waterproof by adding pressure bulkheads to use an aviation term, would then float, and be pulled into the runway section of the trench and then be sunk. Sand plus runway would be placed on top, and the now empty 500m construction trench would be pumped dry again and the remainder of the tunnel would be built.

Why make it so complicated? Because this would ensure the shortest downtime of 09-27, with a minimum of high obstacles at airside.

On a sidenote, advantage was take of 09-27 by building two road tunnels under 09-27 as well, on eitgher side of the existing A4 tunnel. These were built with cut&cover, in a longer period than the railway tunnel, as the motorway is at the western end of 09-27 and would enable the runway to stay open while the remainder of the road tunnels (not directly under 09-27) were built:



Another interesting factoid: when you travel in the old tunnel (from Leiden to Schiphol), immediately after the train enters the tunnel you'll see a wider part of the tunnel, narrowing after about200m. The reason for this was that at the time of designing the tunnel, there were plans of extending the tunnel further towards Hoofddorp in a later stage. This extension would then be connected to this wider section. I heard the reason for the tunnel extension option was a planned extension of the Zwanenburgbaan (today's 18C-36C) towards the South. That never happened though. It's close to this ramp:



Quoting Joost (Reply 42):
The first phase being the connection from Schiphol to Amsterdam Zuid WTC (eastbound), a metro/sneltram (lightrail)-station at the time. This was finished in 1978.

Slight correction: in 1978 there was just vast emptiness there, just the motorway that ended at the RAI exit, the (then) NMB building and Tram 5 (at the square in front of the station.) The WTC hadn't been built yet, nor any of the other office towers.

[Edited 2005-06-01 14:35:39]

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: JCS
Posted 2005-06-01 14:34:57 and read 3715 times.

Some more facts about AMS:
- In 1573 there was a seebattle between ships of Spain and Holland
- In 1852 the land of AMS was gained from the see
- First (Military) flight: 19th September 1916
- First flight KLM: 17th May 1920

Reasons for 5 big runways:
1) to come over the strong wind which may come from different directions
2) some runways are only to be used from & to 'one side' because of noise regulations.
3) because of many transfers AMS needs high capacity on 'peak hours'. Those 'peak hours' were invented by KLM many years ago.

The 6km underground railway consists of 4 tracks of which 2 tracks belong to the extension in the '90s. The station under the terminal has 3 platforms of 2 tracks = 6 tracks. Most trainservices go 2 times every hour, but because of direct services to different destinations they have for example like 8 trains every hour to The Hague.

Whoops; someone was first with that photo!

[Edited 2005-06-01 14:37:44]

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Intothinair
Posted 2005-06-01 15:01:42 and read 3679 times.

Thanks for that additional information HT.
The question is though, if they build a runway 18R for landings, where would the next one for landing be built, okay maybe I'm going to far into the future, here, any thoughts?
mmmm, let's just hope that runway north west will be completed by 2009.
That's the first thing to worry about!

Cheers, Konstantin G.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FraT
Posted 2005-06-01 15:30:20 and read 3651 times.

FRA won't get a 5th runway in the next 15 years. The current discussion about the 4th runway shows that it is extremely difficult to get an approval because the area around FRA is heavily populated. So if FRAPORT, the airport operator will ask for another runway to cover future demand, the discussions will be renewed but this time a lot more intense. FRA is at the maximum capacity for many years, that is the only reason the new runway will be approved.
So even if they will reach the maximum capacity with 4 runways soon, a 5th one is not realistic.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Iberiadc852
Posted 2005-06-01 16:25:23 and read 3602 times.

Quoting Joost (Reply 45):
This old books are very interesting. Nice old aerial photo's from the old Schiphol. Love to look at it in lunch break. If you have any specific questions, just ask.

Thank you very much for your offering. As I suppose it's not easy to post any old photo to this forum, one of the things I'd like to know is which ones where the runways present when Schiphol was built, and which ones were added in the seventies.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Joost
Posted 2005-06-01 16:31:51 and read 3591 times.

Iberiadc852: contact me by the mail-form and I'll see what I can do for you

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Vunz
Posted 2005-06-01 17:00:07 and read 3566 times.

Prior to the opening of the new Schiphol in 1967, the airport had only two runways. The current Oostbaan, 04-22, which is still in use for small traffic and the 13-31, which has now become a taxiway.

With the opening of the new airport 1967 the Kaagbaan, 06-24, the Aalsmeerbaan, back then 01R-19L and currently called 18L-36R were opened. In 1968 the Buitenveldertbaan 09-27 and the Zwanenburgbaan, back then 01L-19R, and currently called 18C-36C, were added.

[Edited 2005-06-01 17:01:39]

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Vunz
Posted 2005-06-01 17:03:46 and read 3554 times.

I have a book on the history of Schiphol, I'll will look it up tonight.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2005-06-01 17:32:15 and read 3533 times.

As far as I know, 04-22 is the only runway left of the old (i.e. pre-1967) layout. Another remainder is (closed) 14-32 (starting from the intersection of 09-27 and 18L-36R) that is still a taxiway now.

In the 1967 plan, four new runways were built (although they didn't all open at exactly the same time):

06-24 (Kaagbaan)
09-27 (Buitenveldertbaan)
01R-19L (now renamed 18L-36R) (Aalsmeerbaan)
01L-19R (now renamed 18C-36C) (Zwanenburgbaan)

The Polderbaan 18R-36L was added in 2003.

Possible options are 06R-24L (some spatial arrangements have already been made to leave this option possible) and a new runway between 18R-36L and 18C-36C. The distnce between the latter two is just over 1600m, with 800m being the minimum for independent operations.

Actually, I have a book at home, published in the late 1940s, that has the first draft of Schiphol as it was built in 1967. It has 6 runways in a hexagonal shape. Two of those were abandoned, but the final plan "tangential runways" is still based on that hexagon:

06-24, 01L-19R and 01R-19L have the same size and location as the original plan, another 06-24 and 14-32 were replaced by 09-27 and there would have been another 14-32 where there is now the taxiway over the A4.

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/archeologie/bijvak/gap/images/schiphol_web.jpg

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: MauriceB
Posted 2005-06-01 17:34:04 and read 3530 times.

the polderbaan isn't on this map..... don't you have newer map?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2005-06-01 17:41:18 and read 3521 times.

Well this is essentially the layout between 1967 and 2003. Some taxiways were added (most notably those at the northern half of the Zwanenburgbaan.

I'll get a more recent one, hold on.

Airport Diagram

This is still not 100% up to date, as it doesn't show the new taxiways around 18C-36C.

[Edited 2005-06-01 17:50:13]

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: N774UA
Posted 2005-06-01 17:42:31 and read 3519 times.

Just a little update. The old 14-32 (G3) is no longer being used as a taxiway, except for the crossing with 18L-36R. They stored the European 742 at the other end of the taxiway.

N774UA

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BHMNONREV
Posted 2005-06-01 20:20:58 and read 3446 times.

Quoting HT (Reply 46):
Next to the proposed T3 is already Cargo-City Sued (South)

Is this proposed T3 to be built at what is now Rhein-Main Air Base?? Are there any plans/drawings available for viewing, and who are the planned occupants of this new terminal?? Lufthansa?

Thanks for the info..

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: AMSSFO
Posted 2005-06-01 20:23:18 and read 3443 times.

Quoting Joost (Reply 45):
The 'new' (current) Schiphol opened in may 67, back at the time with Pier A, B and C. Currect me if I'm wrong, AFAIK the old B is what now is D (it already had the snake tongue at the end, but not as big as it's now), A is what now is E; C is still the same. The current B is new. (this is why their is no A-pier).

This would mean that at some point in time (when?), when pier D (now F) was constructed, they switched A and C. Before the construction of the fifth and sixth piers, the piers were named counterclockwise A,B,C,D. When they added 5 and 6 they renamed the old ones to C,D,E,F and added G and later B. One of the reason for not having a A pier was IIRC that A and E might be misunderstood (in Dutch the E sounds very much like the English A), although I think there are plans to add a A-pier in the future.
Another pier will be added next to the G-pier at the other side of the Highway (you can see the construction site in the picture shown by the thread starter). I think this one is meant for LCC carriers.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-01 23:04:13 and read 3375 times.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 59):
Is this proposed T3 to be built at what is now Rhein-Main Air Base?? Are there any plans/drawings available for viewing, and who are the planned occupants of this new terminal?? Lufthansa?

Yes, at FRA T3 is supposed to be built at the site of the current USAF Rhein-Main Airbase. While the space currently is extraterritorial (just like the U.N. building in NY), IIRC the lease (or whatever form of letting was used) will expire in the rather near future. It appears that USAF will let go its base at FRA and relocate its traffic to Ramstein AFB, which is about 100km (60 miles) SW of FRA.
(Side note: In case somebody forgot and/or cares: Ramstein AFB is the place where the Frecce Tricolori from Italy had their catastrophic accident back in 1988; also the big Military Hospital Landstuhl is located next to Ramstein AFB - this is the place where a lot of casualties from the Iraq were and are treated.)

I have to recall from mind an article I read a while ago for the next
items:
- T3 is supposed to get its own access to motorway A5, but will be connected to existing structures by internal roads.
- For connecting pax T3 will be connected to T2 & T1 via an extension of the "Skytrain". Skytrain would also be the standard transport to the existing (local and long distance) railway stations outside and below T1. This woul dmake for a rather long journey from both railway stations to T3 !
- I cannot recall for sure who is supposed to use T3, but I think it was "Charter Operators" and other carriers not linked to any Alliance (or similar). IIRC LH is supposed remain at T1, although personally I have doubts that it will have enough gates to cater for all StarAlliance operations. But then, once T3 is built and operational, some carriers ( HF comes to my mind) will free up some gate space at T1 (For A.netters from the U.S. Unlike at most US-airports, in Germany a gate does not belong to an Airline but to the airport. So it can be used during the day by different and competing airlines.)

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BHMNONREV
Posted 2005-06-01 23:32:46 and read 3363 times.

Quoting HT (Reply 61):
Yes, at FRA T3 is supposed to be built at the site of the current USAF Rhein-Main Airbase. While the space currently is extraterritorial (just like the U.N. building in NY), IIRC the lease (or whatever form of letting was used) will expire in the rather near future. It appears that USAF will let go its base at FRA and relocate its traffic to Ramstein AFB, which is about 100km (60 miles) SW of FRA.

I believe the American government will turn over the base on Dec 31 of this year. Not sure if any American military presence will remain or not. But most of the Air Mobility Command cargo operations will actually move over to Spangdahlem AB, near Trier. I believe the AMC Contract passenger flights will end up at Ramstein as you mentioned.

Quoting HT (Reply 61):
- I cannot recall for sure who is supposed to use T3, but I think it was "Charter Operators" and other carriers not linked to any Alliance (or similar). IIRC LH is supposed remain at T1, although personally I have doubts that it will have enough gates to cater for all StarAlliance operations. But then, once T3 is built and operational, some carriers ( HF comes to my mind) will free up some gate space at T1 (For A.netters from the U.S. Unlike at most US-airports, in Germany a gate does not belong to an Airline but to the airport. So it can be used during the day by different and competing airlines.)

Certainly makes sense to keep all non-alliance and charter carriers in the new terminal, with Star remaining at T1, with OneWorld and Skyteam at T2. But I agree with your comment about T1 bursting at the seams for Star operations, this is a 70's designed terminal and the only additions have been on the "A" side, with the extension and wide-body gate parking/waiting area expansion.

Thanks for the info sir...

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-01 23:36:59 and read 3361 times.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 62):
Thanks for the info sir...

You´re very welcomed !
-HT

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-03 22:24:49 and read 3260 times.

There have been questions about AMS´s rwy names and maps of it.
The link in reply #3 to thread Spotting At AMS (by Ncfc99 Jun 3 2005 in Civil Aviation) offers download of a map with spotting points around AMS including the names of rwys. I find it very helpful ...
-HT

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: AMSSFO
Posted 2005-06-03 22:35:38 and read 3249 times.

Quoting Vunz (Reply 54):
I have a book on the history of Schiphol, I'll will look it up tonight.

Vunz, does your book tell when they constructed pier D (now F) at AMS?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: A388
Posted 2005-06-04 01:18:58 and read 3219 times.

When looking at the areal photo of FRA I showed in this post, you can see a very large wood/a lot of trees (it borders at the US AMC). Can't FRA use this area to expand? Or isn't this part owned by FRA?

A388

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-04 13:35:08 and read 3159 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 66):
When looking at the areal photo of FRA I showed in this post, you can see a very large wood/a lot of trees (it borders at the US AMC). Can't FRA use this area to expand?

Cutting a lot of tree around FRA has some negative history. Maybe you can recall, there were quite some battles (litterarily !) fought when rwy 18 was proposed and constructed.
Right now, a big opening has to be cut into a wood northwest of the complex in order to build the 4th rwy (I don´t know its proposed name).
So, in order to keep the NIMBYs somewhat happy, it will be much easier to use a former military aera for expansion than knocking down sqauremile or so of trees. Any trees to cut "in conjuction with the use of the (soon to be) former military area" will be much easier to sell to people ...
-HT

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-08 13:33:32 and read 3055 times.

In reference to my own reply #46:

Recently Mario Nonaka posted a superb aerial view of FRA taken from the North:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mario Nonaka



  • The 4th rwy currently in planning stages will be in the woods in the lower right corner of this pic, partially outside the shot.
  • Terminal 3 will be constructed in the left-mid of the picture on the area currently occupied by USAF Rhine-Main AB. There are about 10 C-xx on the military apron visible (usually C-5´s or C-17s).
  • In think, the options of a possible 5th "South runway" in parallel to to the 2 existing parallels (which I discussed in reply #46), can be better judgded using this pic.

-HT

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BHMNONREV
Posted 2005-06-08 19:05:26 and read 2983 times.

Good overhead photo of the FRA/FRF complex..

Looking at this shot, it appears to me that there would be an ample amount of room to build another set of parallels and a midfield terminal complex on the Rhein-Main AB side. I realize the southern most runway would start to encroach on the Walldorf/Moerfelden area, but some noise-abatement construction could take care of most of the concerns of the local residents.

When the new runway on the north side of the A3 autobahn is complete, I would decommission runway 7R/25L to make room for the midfield terminal with two additional 4000m runways to the south of the terminal, between the A5 autobahn and runway 18.

I realize this is a pipedream, but IMHO a realistic one which is certainly workable. But I know getting it past the local environmentalists is another issue entirely..

Comments??

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: HT
Posted 2005-06-08 22:58:25 and read 2937 times.

Apart from that I´m not sure what the other buildings on the far side of the Rhein-Main AB are (some of them should be civil cargo; at least one hotel around there) and what implications might come from this, your plan sounds really good !

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Vunz
Posted 2005-06-09 09:39:39 and read 2871 times.

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 65):
Vunz, does your book tell when they constructed pier D (now F) at AMS?

I'll check. Am I correct that C was renamed E and B was rename D?

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: FraT
Posted 2005-06-09 10:24:12 and read 2838 times.

Quoting HT (Reply 70):
Apart from that I´m not sure what the other buildings on the far side of the Rhein-Main AB are (some of them should be civil cargo; at least one hotel around there) and what implications might come from this, your plan sounds really good !

On the south side of FRA airport are Cargo City Sued as well as the InterCity Hotel.
In the discussion phase for the 4th runway there was also an idea of two more parallel runways south of the airbase/Cargo City Sued. That plan would have included to transform runway 18 to a taxiway as it couldn't be used for take offs any more as it would interfere with the other runways.
As I said before, I highly doubt that there will be a 5th runway in the next 15 to 20 years.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2005-06-09 12:46:02 and read 2791 times.

Quoting Vunz (Reply 71):
I'll check. Am I correct that C was renamed E and B was rename D?

Yes, the original sequence was ABC (with D added in the 70s). Then, a new councourse was to be added before A; as this created some alfabetic problems, they decided to shift everything two letters, so the old ABCD now became CDEF. This allowed the new B gates to be added and, as mentioned before, to avoid confusion between "A" and "E" in English/Dutch pronounciation. Of course, it also makes it possible to add another one later. Besides this, a new G concourse was added with the H being under construction now.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: Vunz
Posted 2005-06-09 13:03:29 and read 2779 times.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 73):
Yes, the original sequence was ABC (with D added in the 70s). Then, a new councourse was to be added before A; as this created some alfabetic problems, they decided to shift everything two letters, so the old ABCD now became CDEF. This allowed the new B gates to be added and, as mentioned before, to avoid confusion between "A" and "E" in English/Dutch pronounciation. Of course, it also makes it possible to add another one later. Besides this, a new G concourse was added with the H being under construction now.

Alright, that was my impression too, so it is not like Joost mentioned in reply 45.

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: A388
Posted 2005-06-09 14:45:10 and read 2738 times.

The second areal photo looks great. It looks as if FRA is situated 'in the middle of the woods'. If FRA could use the areas in the woods they could even expand their capacity twice but this appears to be very difficult to cut down the wood, as HT explained.

A388

Topic: RE: AMS Bigger Than FRA?
Username: AMSSFO
Posted 2005-06-09 20:02:12 and read 2700 times.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 73):
Yes, the original sequence was ABC (with D added in the 70s). Then, a new councourse was to be added before A; as this created some alfabetic problems, they decided to shift everything two letters, so the old ABCD now became CDEF.

Thanks this makes more sense, although I think they renamed it when adding G and planning the addition of B. Or did they add the first part of B at the same time as G? I am sure that the second half of B (with the actual gates) was added later. You can confirm it when comparing the pictures above.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/