PanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2601 posts, RR: 10 Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
This past February, I flew into CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO on CO, and as I stepped off of the aircraft at Gate 5, I looked around, at the crowded, quirky, and generally 70's-looking terminal that is Gates 1-29. I haven't flown into CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO on CO in years- it's been all B6. In comparison to B6's area (Gates 100-129), CO's terminal is quite shabby. The odd windows with those "slats" that make it inconvenient to appreciate the movements of aircraft outside, unless you're sitting down. Also, it seems quite tiny in comparison to the rest of CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO's terminals, but perhaps it was because almost every single gate had an aircraft awaiting passengers- including 1x CO B752, 1x CO B753, 1x CO B738 (mine), 1x AT B753, and 1x AT L1011 (first time ever seeing the beautiful bird, and I wish she wasn't going to be retired ). Quite jam-packed, but I suppose, you don't fix what isn't broken. I guess it's suitable for the said airlines' needs, but as a passenger's point of view, it's just tiny and seems that it's fairly behind the times.
This leads me to my point- Is it time for an upgrade, or possible re-build of Gates 1-29? I understand that the loss of 25% of the airports gates will result in a severe scheduling crunch, not to mention an inconvenience for passengers, would the upgrade/rebuild be worth all of the hassle?
Delta767300ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2559 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
Airside 1 (Gates 1-29): This was the terminal that you were in. It is on the west side of the airport. I agree that it looks like something from the 1970's. Hopefully they will do some renovating sometime soon. I agree that the newest terminal where B6 and all the other LCC's fly out of is extremely nice. Airside 4 which is mostly Delta is very nice also.
IndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
I’m surprised by the comments made within this thread. While CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO’s terminal A may not be new, it’s clearly a modern facility (in better condition than the vast majority of airports within this country); I’d hardly say it’s “1970’s-style.” Not to mention it continually receives upgrades (new bathrooms, carpeting, etc.)... the NW/USX and UA/US wings are in excellent shape; the former TW gates in the AA and (especially!) the entire CO/TZ wing could use new signage, but that’s not the airport’s responsibility. Terminal B is many years newer (one wing opened within the past couple years) and thus looks nice than Terminal A -- but that doesn’t mean Terminal A should be torn down & rebuilt (the cost would likely exceed $1 billion – and guess who gets to pay it), especially when it’s a modern, viable & underutilized (except at a peak time of the day) facility.
Like I said, if one were to replace the vintage green/white signs in front of CO/TZ’s gates, it’d look much nicer...
Flyguyclt From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 537 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
I respect everyone's right to post whatever they wish on Anet. But where is the money for all this going to come from? Airlines have no extra money, cities in the U.S. have no extra money. The last time I talked with neighbors, they have no extra money as NO ONES job is secure. Finally, no one wants to pay more then the Jet Blue fare for any type of air travel? So again, whom is going to pay for this. It may be an outstanding idea, but show me the money?
Safe Flying
Not trying to flame anyone. But, all of today's aviation money is basically going to added security, maintenance , and just plain suvival. Plus the MCO market has one of the lowest yeilds in the U.S. Tourism in the MCO market is way down as well.
Akjetblue From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 790 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
Alrighty ! Time for my two cents....
I love the Orlando Airport, I think it's one of the nicest. However, after non-reving on US Airways last week and picking up a friend from AA the week before; I truely believe that the terminals for gates 1-59 (which is both A and B side) are up for some major reconstruction. For the number of travelers that are flying in and out of those terminals and to have them in such low shape...It's kinda a shame, and doesn't make Orlando look so great.
The way the airport was setup was pretty smart. There is one Main terminal building with two sides, A and B. At each end of each terminal side there is set of trams that takes you to an airside terminal. For anyone on A.net it would be easy to understand yet it often times confuses passengers. I can't begin to count the times I've been asked where Terminal A or B is when they are standing on that side of the building.
*sigh* What I think is a little sad is I know what large amounts of money the airport actually makes from the airlines operating into the airport. It's sad to see they are not placing it back into the terminals but into "other projects." Recently, the new Airside Terminal 2 was built (A side) which is beautiful. There was talk after 9/11 that they would move all the airlines from one airside into another to reconstruct a terminal (gates 1-29 or 30-59). There seems however, to be a small upswing in traffic here and so I believe the plan is on hold until the new south Terminals are constructed.
I can tell you that for an airline to rent one gate (1), boarding area space (terminal rent), landing rights, for say 5-10 flights a day costs over 1.8 Million dollars a MONTH. After working here for a few years I also found out that MCO is one of the most expensive airports in the US to operate into and out of. No wonder Delta doesn't use their Beautiful terminal for a hub!
Does anyone know about the new south terminals that are to be constructed? I've only been able to get small amounts of gossip. What I've heard is that there will be two 70 gate international terminals (C and D I'm guessing?) to be finished by 2010. They've all but finsished the tram tracks leading out of the old main terminal which will connect the north and south main terminal buildings (by and near Delta). Any info? Guess only time can tell what GOAA will build...
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
Is this the NW area? Indeed, in need of an upgrade. I was there in late August 2003, I noticed that the ceiling was uncovered, and you could see the ductwork, insulation, and the wires. I'm assuming they're doing a little reconstruction in this area! I also noticed that there were like 3-5 NW gates that were being used, and that there were a ton of USAirways Express gates that looked like they weren't used in months. I have heard they are used occasionally, but when I was there, not one was used! I'll have to see what it looks like when I fly in July to MCO.
IndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
Yes, it’s where the NW gates are… however, what you saw were the ongoing renovations – not the terminal in despair.
- - -
I’m still amazed at these comments. The terminal structure is in excellent shape and the passenger amenities (e.g. bathrooms, chairs, etc.) have continually been upgraded. No, it’s not as nice as the newer terminal but that’s to be expected when it was constructed years earlier. You don’t tear down a viable, underutilized structure just because some aviation enthusiasts aren’t happy with the vantage points of the aircraft from the windows or are obsessed with having everything new. The cost to tear down/rebuild would be near $1 billion and totally unnecessary.
I’ll be via MCO later this week… I’ll upload some pictures to illustrate my point.
- - -
No wonder Delta doesn't use their Beautiful terminal for a hub!
DL did use their terminal as a hub (until early 1995 or so). It wasn’t the costs of operating at MCO that forced the hub’s closure (in fact, I’ve heard MCO is an inexpensive airport to operate from), it was the fact that O/D traffic was too low yield / decision to force feed into ATL & DFW, higher yielding airports…
Phatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1322 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1658 times:
I have flown out of Airside 1 multiple times, and through the years I have noticed improvements. I was in Airside 3 in November 2003 and I too noticed the ceilings panels removed for renovations. To double what IndustrialPate said, I don't think both Airsides are in bad shape.
No wonder Delta doesn't use their Beautiful terminal for a hub!
I believe the dramatic abridging of MCO operations was also part of Leadership 7.5.
PanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2601 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
I do realize the possible $1billion+ costs. I never said that the facilities were crap, I said that they were below that of the other 3 airsides. When I was there, it was February break, also known as a peak traveling time, especially to Florida. Therefore, the terminal was packed. I've never flown into CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO during an off-peak travel period, so I don't know what it "normally" looks like. The terminal just seemed tiny with all of those people.I did not mean to imply that it sucked because I "couldn't see out the window".
IP
Contrary to what you may think, I'm not the average hyped-up teenager "who only flies CO because they have new 777s with PTVs from IAH-CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO. Only CO because I'm platinum, blah blah blah." Not everything needs to be new. I was simply stating the airside looks out of date. Simple as that. I didn't see the 'renovation' work in the NW airside- I was at the CO gates, so I wasn't aware there were ongoing renovations.
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1633 times:
Yes! Maybe they can renovate that airside and add some batting cages and a "swim-with-the-dolphins" type attraction. That way they can justify their 2005 budget just like the new runway did for 2002.
With those generating revenue, that's more income for that jackass who's in charge of MCO security. Now he can live out his fantasy of a true hard core communist atmosphere, and shoot spotters on site.
Not like it's worth spotting there anyway. With the new runway, you now get arrivals every 15 minutes as opposed to 10.
I kinda went off on a rant there, but my point is, I'd look for a renovation soon. GOAA keeps forking over public money to give MCO whatever it wants. (Can someone explain why MCO, a non rub airport, has as many runways as JFK, MIA, LAX, and ATL?) MCO used to be one of the best airports in the country, but the managers, IMHO, are making it a joke, and wasting taxpayer money in the process.
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Akjetblue,
I know just what you mean by the confusion caused by Terminal A and B being one building. Last year I was supposed to pick somebody up who was returning a rental car to Alamo. He had picked the car up in Palm Beach and neither he nor I knew that Alamo has rental return facilities at both the A and B ends of the building. You can guess what happened - we spent 45 minutes patiently waiting for each other in 2 different spots.
TLHFLA From United States of America, joined May 2003, 584 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
As far as the A and B terminal confusion, maybe MCO should adopt a system similar to TPA's, which also has one main terminal building with two sides. One side is the red side and one side is the blue side. When passengers arrive on the trams they are instructed to follow the red or blue signs to baggage claim based on their airline.
As far as MCO's older Airside buildings, they may not be as nice as the new ones, but they certainly aren't 70's like. In fact, I travelled out of American's airside (gates 1-29) last year and I thought it appeared to be in pretty good shape. It didn't appear brand new, but it was in pretty good shape for being 23 years old.
SR 103 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1702 posts, RR: 42 Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
I travel extensively on NW and CO from Orlando, it being the closest major airport to where I live. As a matter of fact, I was just at the CO area last week and can honestly say what's the fuss about?
The airport is far better than some of the "dumps" I have traveled across in this country. Sure it is no Detroit or Denver, but good god, have you ever traveled outside the country to actually see what an airport in need of an update actually looks like?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but how "spoilt" are some people? How do you even know what the 70's looked like? You were not alive, nor was I. You want to see what the 70's are, travel through T3 at LAX or try Dallas Love Field or even Miami (Concourse G where CO/NW operate out of). Orlando's old sections are clean, and very modern in my opinion and considering I travel through it almost every two months you would think I would be sick and tired of them, but I am not.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 5966 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
I would say gates 30-59 are the worst of them all, everything from the food court to the satellites they just look horrible. I've also noticed that a great deal of the gates are unused especially the UA gate area which usually is empty.
Chepos
MontanaFL From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1465 times:
You must remember that terminals A and B were built in the late 70's. C & D, Late 90's. Where does the aviation authority in MCO get their money. Is it like TPA (my home airport) where the airlines pay for all. NO TAX DOLLARS ARE USED AT TPA and I might add always being upgraded. Even had a great idea for not having TSA there but shot down by the feds. Anyway, the Orlando area is more interested in keeping everyone happy in and around the Disney/Universal/Sea world areas than anywhere else. Ask anyone that leaves in the Orlando area. Of course, this is where A LOT of tax revenue comes from for the area and jobs. Maybe the airport just isn't a priority for the county government there. I remember working at MCO in the mid 80's and was nice but that was 20 years ago.
PS - Is the manatee painting still at airside A? When working at MCO in 86 I watched Wyland take it from a blank canvas to the final painting of a mother manatee and her calf.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2601 posts, 
). Quite jam-packed, but I suppose, you don't fix what isn't broken. I guess it's suitable for the said airlines' needs, but as a passenger's point of view, it's just tiny and seems that it's fairly behind the times.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 5966 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
