Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1881 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (7 years 20 hours ago) and read 7440 times:
Or maybe is it like the satelittes around CDG1.
those satellitees are litttle squares, around the circle made by CDG1.
Between 2 satellites, you have only space to park the aircraft parallel to the building.
you can have 2 aircraft parked like this (3 if turboprops)
On your picture, you can see the first aircraft (N853TW) is parked at almost a 90° angle with the other. Probably beacause it is the corner of the building.
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3138 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 20 hours ago) and read 7375 times:
There are 4 aircraft at the gates, three poarked parallel.. The photo is taken so you can't see how much room is between aircraft. You would think the aircraft would be able to taxi in and taxi out, but that takes more gate space. If you look closely, there's a pushback tug at the nose of the middle aircraft - that aircraft would look like the easiest to power off the gate, but the tug might indicate that it will be pushed.
I guess there could be other reasons for that type of parking.
- Maybe the gates are set for widebodies and the fuel pits work better with 727s parallel
- Maybe the jetways are such that they wouldn't rotate with a straight in park job or the jetways may have extension issues with normal straight in parking. The rotating portions look like they can't rotate like today's more modern ones.
- If you have to space to park them parallel, then the servicing trucks/baggage/cargo vehicles have a straight in approach to the aircraft, but they have to move out of the way when the aircraft arrives.departs.
- Maybe TWA PR wanted passengers to see the aircraft from the side instead of the front.
There are many A.net photos of what appear to be the same TW gates at LGA over the years. In older photos around 1968-70, they do mostly seem to be parked parallel except at the gate closest to the terminal. However in later photos below they are generally at more of an angle. Photos from oldest to newest, dated 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1983.
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2257 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 12 hours ago) and read 6940 times:
I don't think anyone here had the accepted rules and procedures for powerbacks back then. I know the west coast carriers I worked for didn't for a long time That would could also be airport specific. The later photos, after the DC9-14 were being phased out and replaced at the gates with longer 727-100s, may take into account the extra space needed. Of course that front gate never does seem to get a jetway and space may have dictated nose in parking as the only option. My best guess is that the parallel parking was simply a holdover from the prop days with no jetways until the new system was settled on system/industry wide.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 hours ago) and read 6665 times:
I am suspicious that early jetways were able to handle nose in parking which requires the cab to move to right angles to the jetway itself. Angling both the jetway and the aircraft allowed more aircraft with the same jetways...when right angle jetway cabs came in and nose in was adopted even more could squeeze into the same space. Additionally it looks like angling the aircraft reduces how far the aircraft intrudes into the common taxiway between fingers. Lastly, angling the aircraft like that made it far easier to approach ahead of the wing on the right side than it would on a straight nose in having to squeeze between wingtips and far more limited ramp space....fuel tanker trucks and catering trucks especially.
SWABrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 hours ago) and read 6452 times:
to me two separate factors are in play here. When the first 707s and DC-8s were delivered, airport gates were constructed with two jetbridges. The aircraft would park parallel with the concourse, and a jetbridge would attach to the forward First Class entry door, and in the back, a jetbridge would be at the aft door for coach passengers.
My guess on some of the later photos is that by parking at a shallow angle, the flights could power out of the gates with a pushback tug. In the late 70s I worked at the OAK airport and TWA had a daily 707-300 flight. At the time the airport didn't have jetbridges, but airlines still parked nose in for the most part and then pushed back. TW on the other hand, parked the 707 nose in but out from the terminal, and they powered the 707 out of the gate every night.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16693 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 hours ago) and read 6387 times:
Early jetways used the standard sideways parking of the day. Without jetways, many plane taxi forward into the stand, and then make a sharp turn to face sideways or outward. My guess is that early jetways were positioned to accomodate that. Then someone realized that you could park more planes in a give space if they were parked nose in.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3218 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 hours ago) and read 6373 times:
One possible answer is that it makes it easier to use the back door of the aircraft for boarding/deplaning if required, as the passengers have a shorter walk to the terminal....due to the smaller wingspans of those days, it was quite okay.....things changed after the widebodies came on the scene soon thereafter......
LVHGEL From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2007, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10): Early jet-ways used the standard sideways parking of the day. Without jet-ways, many plane taxi forward into the stand, and then make a sharp turn to face sideways or outward. My guess is that early jet-ways were positioned to accommodate that. Then someone realized that you could park more planes in a give space if they were parked nose in.
Well I do remember SJU, EZE and AEP in the late 60's, none of them had Jet-ways, and planes would park parallel to the terminal, port side toward the building. This was SOP in those days, allowing two stairs for deplaning and boarding, minimizing the walk from the airplane to the gate and vice-verse. One clear memory from those days, specifically at EZE, was the lack of boundary between the check in counter area and the boarding gates. Many times I said good-by to my mother almost at the gate then going up to the terrace to see her plane depart, always a PA 707. Also when arriving, almost always the jet wold be taxiing starboard side to the terminal then doing a sharp 180 turn to stop at the parking position, I loved to see those early jets making that turn.
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4672 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 hours ago) and read 6070 times:
Some airports still do this. I know at TOL they always had the aircraft parked in either parallel or at a 30-45 degree angle to allow them to pull out under their own power. In the mid 1990s it was change, I believe at the request of DL, and both them and USAir switched to nose-in with pushbacks being the common theme. Recently though, since there isn't much mainline service left (if you wanna consider G4 that), they have gone back to parallel parking for most of the gates. I believe Gate 2 (which is part of the terminal currently unused) is the only jetbridge equipped gate that still requires a pushback.
TOL Today...G4 at Gate 5.
TOL in like 2000 or 2001. US probably could have still powered out from their gate, but was made to pushback anyway.
Ramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1638 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years ago) and read 4629 times:
This is how props use to park at the terminals. So when the jets came, they parked the same way at every airport. Then airports started to use Jetways. So they still parked the planes parallelI and used Jetways. I would believe airports weren't as crowded as they are today. Then when airports needed more gate space, then re painted the In -Lines to nose in the planes.
I know United used two Jetways to board DC-8's at LAX in the 60's.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3202 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4084 times:
Quoting LVHGEL (Reply 12): This was SOP in those days, allowing two stairs for deplaning and boarding, minimizing the walk from the airplane to the gate and vice-verse
Quoting Ramprat74 (Reply 14): This is how props use to park at the terminals. So when the jets came, they parked the same way at every airport. Then airports started to use Jetways. So they still parked the planes parallelI and used Jetways. I would believe airports weren't as crowded as they are today. Then when airports needed more gate space, then re painted the In -Lines to nose in the planes.
I figure it concerned a safety issue. If they used 2 stairs, parking parallel would provide the shortest distance to the terminal, particularly the aft stairs, and passengers would not cross under the wing or anywhere near the props or jets.
That said, I distinctly remember how LOUD it was to exit the rear intergral stairs on the 727, and that had nothing to do with parking position. Though these engines were located a bit higher than wing engines, jet blast even on idle or from an APU must have been some sort of concern.
Fghtngsiouxatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Gate 2 at GFK is positioned like that. The Saab's don't actually pull up to the gate (they use built-in airstairs), but the CRJ's and DC-9's do a 180 on the ramp and swing around to park parallel to the "terminal" if you can call it that.