Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1424 posts, RR: 8 Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
I've always wondered about this:
How long ago did the airport planners anticipate Mitchell Airport having so many gates? Obviously times have changed enough to justify perhaps revisiting the topic and making things a bit easier on the MKE traveler.
Are there other airports that have relatively archaic numbering schemes?
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
From the airport planning point of view, two things come to mind:
1) MKE has a concourse to the left of concourse B on their design boards (though it's likely been that way for many, many years). Those gates would likely have the gate 1-19 designations on them.
2) they didn't want to duplicate gate numbers, even though the concourses have different labels. When I first flew into MKE back in '79, the gate designations were the same as they are now.
Also, I believe LAX similarly numbers their gates, but the first number on their gate designations is the terminal number that it's on. EG: gate 36 is in terminal 3.
Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
Mizzou65201 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
Yea, the "hammerhead" at the end of C is the only plan I know of. They're busy remodeling the existing Concourse C right now.
Somehow I don't see GMIA messing with the numbering scheme much. As Tom points out, it's been in the current format for at least 25 years now. The regulars are familiar with it, and I can't imagine it being all that confusing to visitors. It's a well signed, relatively easy to get around terminal, and there has been very little movement of airline gate locations.
I guess for the C gate extension they will have to renumber C, or maybe they will try to "fudge" with an LAX style use of "A" as an appendix (ie gate 28, 28A, 29, 29A, etc)