Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Gates Assigned To Specific Airlines In The US?  
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 10989 times:

Hi everyone,

when doing quite some frequent travelling in the US in the last year or so it striked me that all gates (except for the ones at international terminals) seem to be assigned to a specific airline. As opposed to that, in Europe we tend to have the airport company (or a contract carrier) operating the gates so that within a certain terminal a flight can be assigned to pretty much any gate. Any reasons for that? I'd think that "our" system in Europe seems to be much more flexible, for instance in case of delays or when it comes to a carrier only having one or two flights a day from a certain airport...


300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10926 times:

As far as I know at most airports in the US airlines have a leasehold interest in "their" gates -- not infrequently a long-term lease -- meaning that that space is theirs and within reason (and the terms of their lease) they can do what they want to it-- put in their own podiums, arrange furniture apply the corporate branding, etc. In some cases they may also be responsible for the maintenance/renovations to the space as well -- and at some airports the airline actually owns the physical jetway, so when they move, so do the jetways. Just like a lease on an appartment, all sorts of things happen -- some airlines take great pride in their gate areas, some pay no attention. Some keep the same lease for 30 years, some have a 10 year lease and then sublease their gates after 5... I still don't completely understand all of the "ins" and "outs"

I also think that the US system is, to an extent, a remanant of regulation, but that's a different subject entirely.

I see advantages and disadvantages to both systems. I personally prefer the US system because every airline (and therfore every gate) has its own 'feel' and 'personality' rather than one giant sterile airport. I also feel that when the airlines are handling their own flights (as opposed to a ground handling company or another airline) the employees have a vested interest in keeping people happy and making sure things go smoothly. Maybe, though, that's just a symptom of the US implementation of the system.


Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3218 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

One advantage of the US system is that it allows airlines to customize the gates to their needs. At many US airports, Delta has installed plasma TVs that display information about the departing flight. I remember it came up as an issue in Honolulu, because Delta wanted to install them but couldn't because HNL actually has common use gates (though airlines tend to stick to the same general areas), so no plasma screens in HNL.

User currently offlineAcidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Haggis79 (Thread starter):
s opposed to that, in Europe we tend to have the airport company (or a contract carrier) operating the gates so that within a certain terminal a flight can be assigned to pretty much any gate.

Often in the US, ground handling is handled in-house by an airline, rather than contracted out to another company. To have the same gates (rather than a shared gate arrangement) is beneficial to the workers, as the breakrooms and work areas are all located nearby along with the operations people. If all of your gates are located together, rather then spread apart, it makes it easier for the ramp workers to move between flights, which makes them more efficient and makes it easier to share ground equipment. In the event of a rebooking or aircraft swap, passengers only have to walk a short distance, not across the whole airport.



Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
User currently offlineFlyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 999 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

Are there any other airports in the us, which like HNL do have a gate share system?


"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10661 times:

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 4):
Are there any other airports in the us, which like HNL do have a gate share system?

LAS at least concourse D is set up that way -- airlines seem to pretty much use the same gates but all of the gate equipment is owned by the airport, and in therory, at least any airline could log on to any gate. Note though that unlike the European system although the -equipment- is common, most airlines have their own employees working the gates.

ONT seems like it was built with the intention of being common use at some point, but every airline definately has their own gates -- they just all look identical.

Also many airports have "charter gates" -- one or two gates (and ticket counter positions) that are held for airlines that only operate into that airport infrequently enough that it doesn't make sense for them to sign an exclusive lease or place their own employees at the airport.

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10626 times:

Most US airports have Exclusive or Preferential gate agreements with their carriers. This happened because in most cases the carriers particularly at hub airports have financial stakes in the terminals that they use.

For example, at Chicago ORD when United's Terminal 1 was build for approximately 1 Billion dollars in the mid 1980s the bonds that were used to construct the terminal were back by United. These bond are normally paid off using PFCs, landing fee, concession or other revenue streams that are dependent on consistent passenger levels. If these bonds go into default because UA "co-signed " on the bonds they are responsible. Their asset could be seized by the financing institution to cover the defaulted bonds. In return for UA taking the financial risk they get exclusive use of the gates. Most new US gate agreements are not exclusive but preferential. That mean the airline is the primary user of the gate but the airport has rights to put another carrier of the gate if they are not using it effectively.

Most US airport directors would like to have common use agreements as are common in Asia and Europe. But it would be very difficult to finance terminals particularly at hub airports where the main carrier requires a large number of gates.


User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10552 times:

Guam is common Use..like HNL another expense is the common use computers and boarding pass printers...

User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10542 times:

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 2):
One advantage of the US system is that it allows airlines to customize the gates to their needs.

Exactly. That's important, especially at hub airports. For example, in SLC, before the olympics, DL decorated up their gate areas with olympic signage and commemorative decorations. Under a common-gate agreement, that would have been much more difficult to do.

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 4):
Are there any other airports in the us, which like HNL do have a gate share system?

I think SNA is, to some extent, isn't it? When I was there a few years ago, I remember we came into one certain gate on United, and then wehen we flew back out, there was a Southwest 737 parked at the same gate we had come into. Could someone elaborate on how SNA works?



Good goes around!
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

Miami International Airport, believe it or not, is entirely common-use.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10493 times:

It's just one more difference between the USA "private enterprise as much as possible" vs. the EU and elsewhere "the state should be in charge of everything" mindset. At some airports, the airlines own the terminals, elsewhere, they have long term leases. There are some airports and terminals which have shared use gates out of necessity, but when possible, it's not that way.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good thing in some cases. But I also know that in the USA, if the government owns/runs it, it will usually be rundown or at least 15 years out of date. (HNL is a good example, T6 at LAX, etc.) When private companies are in full charge, you get modern and beautiful (CO at EWR C and IAH E, AA at LAX, DL at SLC, etc.) It's a long time ago in the USA where a government building or facility was built as a showcase. I can only assume that if Washington D.C. were built today, it would consists of concrete block buildings and portable trailers...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6120 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10481 times:

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 8):
I think SNA is, to some extent, isn't it? When I was there a few years ago, I remember we came into one certain gate on United, and then wehen we flew back out, there was a Southwest 737 parked at the same gate we had come into. Could someone elaborate on how SNA works?

SNA is split into a "north" and "south," and except for the turboprop gates at the south end of the terminal, the rest are common use, but assigned based on that split. Back when I was there for training back in 2000, AA was the one doing the gate assignments, and from what I hear, they still do.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 5):
ONT seems like it was built with the intention of being common use at some point, but every airline definately has their own gates -- they just all look identical.

I'm sure that was LAWA's ultimate goal, but floundered and ultimately let the airlines do their own thing. There IS at least one joint-use gate, though, which is 409, used by both SWA and AA, with AA as the main user. 413 and 414 are empty, but could be used on demand.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10452 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
It's a long time ago in the USA where a government building or facility was built as a showcase. I can only assume that if Washington D.C. were built today, it would consists of concrete block buildings and portable trailers...

Slightly off topic, but I read in the Wall Street Journal a few months (years?) ago that the GSA is trying to break the "government building" stigma and introduce some, er, better looking architecture -- the Federal Courthouse in Cleveland is an example of this -- it is a beautiful building [on the outside at least, never been inside] and certainly doesn't look like what you or I first think of when you hear the word "Federal" or "Post Office" in conjunction with a building.

Add DTW's McNamera terminal as another example of a largely privately controlled terminal that's in beautiful condition...

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10441 times:

I'd like to pose this question, wouldn't you rather know what gates an airline uses? Not show up at an airport and it's always a different gate. People get lost going to gates as it is, we don't to be changing the gates every hour. From a ramper side of things, I'd hate to be on one end of the airport and then have to go all the way down to the other end to work the next flight. Keep airline operations condensed and things are easier to manage.

User currently offlineOakjam From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10427 times:

When I was in Europe I did not like the way gates are assigned; at MUC we landed on on A340 and that had an assigned gate. I was connecting to FCO and when reaching that gate we had to travel a long walk through the terminal; aside from that our Lufthansa flight was out on a parking spot far from the airport. I found this highly inefficient and people really don't like boarding planes not connected to a gate to the actual terminal. We had to ride a bus which was cramped and outside it was cold to board. This system may help reduce delays, but is uncomfortable for passengers. Also the Lufthansa gate at Rome was awful, old terminal, you could hardly read the monitor announcing your flight. For being Europe I found it very third world at FCO. At other US Airport like ATL there are plasma TV's with your announced flight and weather conditions to your travel destinations.

User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10355 times:

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 14):
When I was in Europe I did not like the way gates are assigned; at MUC we landed on on A340 and that had an assigned gate. I was connecting to FCO and when reaching that gate we had to travel a long walk through the terminal; aside from that our Lufthansa flight was out on a parking spot far from the airport. I found this highly inefficient and people really don't like boarding planes not connected to a gate to the actual terminal. We had to ride a bus which was cramped and outside it was cold to board. This system may help reduce delays, but is uncomfortable for passengers. Also the Lufthansa gate at Rome was awful, old terminal, you could hardly read the monitor announcing your flight. For being Europe I found it very third world at FCO. At other US Airport like ATL there are plasma TV's with your announced flight and weather conditions to your travel destinations.

The terminal you landed at is LH/* Alliance exclusive. So your long walk and the position of your plane did not have anything to do with the system difference.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
It's just one more difference between the USA "private enterprise as much as possible" vs. the EU and elsewhere "the state should be in charge of everything" mindset. At some airports, the airlines own the terminals, elsewhere, they have long term leases. There are some airports and terminals which have shared use gates out of necessity, but when possible, it's not that way.

Being owned by the airport companies does not necessarily mean state owned. Especially the huge european airports are mostly run by private companies. The system difference has nothing to do with a different mindeset, but imho the european system is more effective for european needs because there are a lot more airlines serving even smaller airports here.

Regards,
Daniel


User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1881 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10335 times:

I feel stupid for asking this, but say in Europe for instance. Doesn't UA have their own UA CS agents working the flights. Just as British, and many other international carriers do in the US? At LHR for instance, I would assume BA has its own CS agents? Is it quite common over there for the ground to be contracted out entirely including the CS?

User currently offlineJunction From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10302 times:

Are all the gates at LHR, CDG and AMS common use? It would seem some would be exclusively for BA, AF and KL at those airports.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10276 times:

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 15):
Especially the huge european airports are mostly run by private companies.

Yes, but they were privatized only recently, and are built on the state run mindset.

I'm not trying to paint a huge difference here, as both sides of the pond have similarities in how they operate, but the underlying mindset of how they are run is different.

Then of course you have a place like LAX or NY where they do everything they can to seize control back to the government, as both of these cities are turning back to their earlier days of state run everything...

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 15):
the european system is more effective for european needs because there are a lot more airlines serving even smaller airports here.

It's not different. Small airports in the USA are run the same way, with common use gates, though even then they do lease out gate space to customers that can justify it. And larger airports with "common use" terminals work that way too, like TBIT at LAX.

The comments above are about large airports where the airport still assigns gates rather than the airline owning their gate space.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10151 times:

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 8):
For example, in SLC, before the olympics, DL decorated up their gate areas with olympic signage and commemorative decorations. Under a common-gate agreement, that would have been much more difficult to do.

well, in Europe the airport company would have done the decoration.... where's the difference (from a decorative point of view)?

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 13):
I'd like to pose this question, wouldn't you rather know what gates an airline uses? Not show up at an airport and it's always a different gate. People get lost going to gates as it is, we don't to be changing the gates every hour.

well, usually airlines operate out of a certain terminal/concourse, so it's not completely random... and you get your gate information printed onto your boarding pass, along with big screens repeating that information... last-minute gate-changes are rare... so most people seem to find their gate just fine....

Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 16):
I feel stupid for asking this, but say in Europe for instance. Doesn't UA have their own UA CS agents working the flights. Just as British, and many other international carriers do in the US? At LHR for instance, I would assume BA has its own CS agents? Is it quite common over there for the ground to be contracted out entirely including the CS?

it depends... on the big hubs, airline have their own personnel, on airports with only a few flights a day they usually contract that work out. So in NUE (mid-sized airport in Germany) we have two CS pools: Lufthansa and AirPart... LH does all of it's own flights, of course, as well as some other carriers, which they have a contract with... (DE and SK, for instance). All the rest is done by AirPart, which happens to be a subsidiary of the airport company...

Quoting Junction (Reply 17):
Are all the gates at LHR, CDG and AMS common use? It would seem some would be exclusively for BA, AF and KL at those airports.

I can only speak of CDG: AF operates out of 2A through 2F, but other carriers (mostly Skyteam carriers) use these gates as well (DL 2E, CO 2A, AZ 2F, NW 2C if I'm not mistaken and so on)... so technically, the gates are not exclusively AF...


I think a good point stated above is that in Europe, we just have much more airlines operating into a single airport (independent if it's a large or small mid-sized airport), and many of them only one or two flights a day... plus all those charter carriers, which often operate only a few flights a week into the same airport (Sun Express, Pegasus, Atlas, Onur Air come to mind). So gate-sharing on a large scale may be just a more efficient use of the gates, as you would have many gates empty most of the time otherwise...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineSkyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10097 times:

Also don't forget that there are still US airports that have seperate concourses that have their own security checkpoints, so if you land and had to connect to a gate that you found was in another concourse, you'd have to go through security again.

User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10010 times:

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 2):
One advantage of the US system is that it allows airlines to customize the gates to their needs. At many US airports, Delta has installed plasma TVs that display information about the departing flight. I remember it came up as an issue in Honolulu, because Delta wanted to install them but couldn't because HNL actually has common use gates (though airlines tend to stick to the same general areas), so no plasma screens in HNL.

I am not a big fan of this at all. This is nothing more than a big waste of money by DL. This airline is bleeding money, and they just posted another loss, yet they waste money on this, and new uniforms, and those annoying automated boarding announcements. If they want to cut costs, they can start here in my opinion. Airports can create a cute system that can do all these things. The biggest advantage to CUTE is that the airports, not the airlines are maintaining the systems and equipment, which cuts airlines costs, which is why I am surprised that airlines don't push this more in the US.

I have been a huge proponent of CUTE technology. Now one arguement I have heard on here, and it has some merit is that under the current system, the gates are much more consistent with airlines and travellers know what to expect. But you can use the system in a way where the airlines have primary gates, but they are still common use if needed. LAS has this down to perfection. All the gates are common use, but the gates themselves have one airline that is the primary user of the gate, but it could be used by others if need be. For example, A and B gates the primary user is USAirways, though Southwest does use some B gates during US down time, the C gates have a primary user of Southwest, though Aloha operates a couple of flights out there and US uses a couple of C gates for the late night push. On the D gates, United primarily uses 4 gates on the Southwest wing, Delta uses about the Same. On the Southeast wing, Northwest and American have a few gates, and I believe Allegiant has some gates there, and on the Northeast wing, you have JetBlue, Continental, Midwest, and AirTran has primary tennants. But if you didn't have the cute set up, WN wouldn't have access to the B gates, and US wouldn't have access to the C gates for extra flights, meaning they would have to build more gates, which isn't necessary with the current setup, which saves the airport authority money as well, meaning lower landing fees and PFCs. Everybody wins. And you have a pretty good idea where your flight is going out of as well. The only real screw up in my opinion is US and WN should probably be out at D, with everyone else in A, B and C.

Another argument I can make for it would be the JFK issue last week. Now it wouldn't have been a big help here with too many terminals, but lets say we were in ORD, and there had been some United airplanes that had this problem. Now if all the United gates were occupied, there could be some planes sitting in the penalty box for a long time. Assuming it was a snowstorm, there is a good chance that non hub airlines, (CO, NW, US, AC) would have cancelled their ORD ops for the day. Now if these gates in Terminal 2, where UA operates the express flights out of, were common use, United could use those gates to deplane passengers in such an occasion. However, when they are contolled by other airlines, they don't have access to these gates, meaning pax remain stranded on the tarmac for a while with no where to put the passengers.

Another issue is these long term leases that airports sign, which I believe are anti competitive. Lets face it, when you are in an exclusive use agreement, that takes away all the gate space that you can use to attract either new customers or expand. Look at the PHL gate space issue with US and WN that recently happened. It would have been a lot easier had DL and WN been able to share the gate, or if the A east gate that DL is moving into was common use, so that US can run one european flight out of it. Unfortunately thats not the way it works in PHL.

Now obviously this is harder in hub airports to pull off. If DEN had been cute, there would be no debate at all about the gate space that F9 and UA have been fighting over for too long. Places like DTW and MSP are hard by their nature to pull off, and keeping non sky team airlines in a separate terminal from Sky Team seems to be the way to go here, but I still like the idea of cute in case something were to happen. In ATL, with all the flights I would probably designate 1 concourse common use for all airlines save DL, FL, and international carriers. I would make 1 concourse primary for FL, 3 for DL, and E would be common use International. Again, everything would be cute in case of any problems anywhere in the airport. I also like the idea keeping the O and D airlines closest to the terminal and hub airlines a little further for logistical purposes. I would keep DFW exactly as it is right now, except UA would be in E with everyone else. MDW I would go Cute and try to get FL to increase their operations, which they have been unable to do because Airport management gave all the gates to WN, creating almost a fortress hub there for WN.

In ORD what I would do is renovate terminal 2 into an international terminal, and all International Flights would operate out of there, which would work great with the current set up, and you wouldn't have to relocate any planes. I would move all non UA, AA, and international airlines to terminal 5, and run it as a domestic terminal, and would build a common use RJ terminal as well, for Eagle and UEX. Gates would still use CUTE technology, but I would like to see a little decor in there.

CVG would go all cute, all terminals but 3 would be demolished, concourse A would be expanded, transport to the remote terminal would be improved, and jetways would be installed out there. After all, if all the non Comair carriers use jetways in CVG, why can't the hometown airline?

These are just a few things I would do to start, But bottom line is the I can't stand the current system. And think about this. With common use, you can sell advertising space on the Jetway and bring in more revenue, just like BAA does at LGW and LHR.


User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9861 times:

Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 19):
well, in Europe the airport company would have done the decoration.... where's the difference (from a decorative point of view)?

Because here, it was Delta, not the airport that was sponsoring the Olympics, and therefore, it was only to be the Delta area decorated in DL's specific olympic decorations. That's just one example of why it works here, there are many others.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9564 times:

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 22):
Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 19):well, in Europe the airport company would have done the decoration.... where's the difference (from a decorative point of view)?
Because here, it was Delta, not the airport that was sponsoring the Olympics, and therefore, it was only to be the Delta area decorated in DL's specific olympic decorations. That's just one example of why it works here, there are many others.

well of course, if you look at it in a "only sponsor is allowed to make specific decorations" way, then yes.... but still, the airport is owned by the City of Salt Lake City, if I'm not mistaken, so I guess they could have decorated the airport (if gates were not to be leased out and therefore it were up to the airport to decide about decorations) as well...

that's at least how it worked in Germany during the recent soccer world cup...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 23):
well of course, if you look at it in a "only sponsor is allowed to make specific decorations" way, then yes.... but still, the airport is owned by the City of Salt Lake City, if I'm not mistaken, so I guess they could have decorated the airport (if gates were not to be leased out and therefore it were up to the airport to decide about decorations) as well...

Yeah, that's right, and if I recall correctly, the airport did decorate other areas, but Delta wanted their own specific Delta-branded decor in their gate areas.



Good goes around!
25 Hawaiian717 : The gate upgrades with the plasma TVs was a few years ago, when plasma TVs were still pretty new and Delta was sitting on a large pile of cash (much
26 Post contains images CPH757 : As you know this is changing in Europe as well. However, I'm not sure that's the reason for the allocation scheme in Europe. The Europe allocation is
27 Floridaflyboy : The decoration thing is just ONE example of why it's nice to have assigned gates. I know there are arguments for both. However, the individual airlin
28 Burnsie28 : When they have Delta logos all over it. NW is at 2E. CUTE gates are worthless in the US, many airlines have their own people, and own gate ticket cou
29 MCOflyer : US has thier own set of gates at MCO in Terminal B west side. I've never seen another airlines a/c parked there unless we codeshared/ or had an allian
30 Haggis79 : well I wouldn't say it's worthless, its just different... well, in Europe the equipment is owned by the handlers, not the airlines... works perfectly
31 Post contains images HikesWithEyes : It's called branding.
32 Apodino : As Mr. Spock would say your argument is totally Illogical and you are using scare tactics based on extreme situations that will never happen. You did
33 YLWbased : Gate 1-5 belongs to CX @ HKG, but i dunno about the rest.
34 CPH757 : I would think that these are still owned by HKIA, but they seem to allocate very efficient. For instance, KL always seemed to use gate 33 when I stay
35 Floridaflyboy : Just because something works well in Europe does NOT mean it will work well in the United States. Our system is set up where the airlines own their o
36 RichPhitzwell : If in Europe gates are common use...how does the devi, err i meen Ryanair not have bridges?
37 Haggis79 : tell me where I said that this system is gonna work well in the US? I asked for why it is set up the way it is and I objected against Burnsie28 stati
38 Post contains links Deltadude : Have you ever seen the CDC in Atlanta? The campus is beautiful with the newest building built in the last two years. http://www.cdc.gov/about/facilit
39 YULWinterSkies : Although they may not be called "concourse" but rather terminal, if you connect at CDG or ZRH and change terminal you have to go through security aga
40 Teneriffe77 : I know here in SYR CUTE would be a problem because there are 2 different security checkpoints each oen servinga different concoruse (the concourses ar
41 Apodino : Truthfully, I am not convinced that the current system is working well in the US. Let me cite some examples of where I think they system has broken do
42 Post contains images Commavia : The two systems (exclusive use/preferential use vs. common use) both have their pros and cons ... Certainly, I don't think anyone could reasonably arg
43 Hiflyer : CUTE...by SITA...and MUSE by Arinc charges the carriers by use....generally for a mid to large operation it is far more expensive to run CUTE or MUSE
44 CXfirst : 1. So they can have ad space by the gate. 2. If their flight is delayed, and takes up a gate position for their incoming flights, they cannot blame it
45 Post contains images HawaiianHobo : Was this just for Delta? Doesn't Hawaiian have plasmas at their gates or am I just dreaming (I 'm probably thinking of Lihue)? I know you can find WA
46 Ha763 : HNL uses CUTE, but not all airlines can use every single gate. It can be set up to allow an airline to use only certain gates. For example, the airlin
47 Post contains images Jbernie : SYD domestic has two "terminals", one for Qantas and I guess JetStar/QantasLink and another for Virgin Blue that used to be Ansett. It has been a long
48 AirportPlan : I think that Commavia gave the best most detailed explanation above of why most US airports use exclusive use/preferential use vs. common use. Its all
49 Jbernie : Well it isn't something that can be answered in 20 words or less and you provided a well rounded summary for both options. Well worth the read.
50 Post contains images Zippyjet : This has probably been answered earlier in this thread. (I',m guilty of not reading all the replys) but, at least here in the USA we lease certain gat
51 Newkai : Well, it would work on a per-concourse level. US, B6, and NW would share in A and DL, CO, AA, UA in B. That's how it works in many airports around th
52 N1120A : MIA is a major one. I think that is more along the lines of ONT being a pre-fab mess of "modernist" architecture that was built for the ability to ex
53 SJCRRPAX : FWIW, I believe that OAK and BWI have CUTE systems. I have heard SJC might use a CUTE system while tearing down terminal C for Airport Expansion becau
54 SJCRRPAX : Because they go to stupid small out of the way airports that don't have bridges. Like the time I flew to Paris, except it wasn't Paris it seemed to b
55 Aloha73G : As previously stated, HNL uses the CUTE system very well, and each airline has their gate areas which they use pretty much every day. One advantage, t
56 Cactus742 : Does DCA have a CUTE system? I know that all the gates in the B/C concourses have the same look, no permanent airline markings, and each gate has iden
57 Cairo : That is certainly part of it, especially from an historical standpoint. It wasn't so long ago that all the major airports in Europe were completely d
58 Floridaflyboy : When I was through BWI last, they didn't (at least as far as I could tell). I flew NWA, and their gate backsplashes and signs on the jetway looked qu
59 Post contains links SJCRRPAX : It's in the international Concourse E. I dug up a PDF file you can read if interested.... Just because an airport has the system does not mean that t
60 Floridaflyboy : Cool. Thanks for the link. I bet it is more common for international ops to be common use.
61 USADreamliner : Damn Lufthansa, they should review all gate assignements or hire a elephant to carry you to the connecting gate , so you don't get too tired walking
62 B52murph : The BWI international concourse (E?) may be setup that way. Not sure if that is due to the large % of international flights going from there are AMC
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Quick Question, How Many Airlines In The US? posted Mon May 15 2006 02:49:30 by Cadet57
Status For The Top Airlines In The US posted Fri Sep 16 2005 02:12:17 by UAcosCS
Why Was This SQ Plane Registered In The US? posted Sun Jun 19 2005 21:02:49 by Newark777
Who Are The Top 10 Airlines In The US? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:27:00 by Future757
How To Identify Airlines In The Sky? posted Wed Apr 14 2004 19:36:38 by Airtrainer
Regional Airlines In The US posted Wed Mar 24 2004 00:08:41 by Saab2000
What Happend To Now Airlines In The UK? posted Sun Mar 14 2004 18:04:36 by GMIDT
POLL.. Which Airlines In The US Will Exist In 5yrs posted Wed Feb 11 2004 02:33:58 by Jayspilot
What Major Orders Do Airlines In The US Have? posted Wed Dec 31 2003 06:42:08 by Flyf15
Foreign Airlines In The US posted Fri Nov 21 2003 22:03:21 by KaiGywer
Who Are The Top 10 Airlines In The US? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:27:00 by Future757
How To Identify Airlines In The Sky? posted Wed Apr 14 2004 19:36:38 by Airtrainer
Regional Airlines In The US posted Wed Mar 24 2004 00:08:41 by Saab2000
What Happend To Now Airlines In The UK? posted Sun Mar 14 2004 18:04:36 by GMIDT