Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Parking Parallel To The Concourse: Why?  
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6796 posts, RR: 7
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6891 times:

What was the point of this? (Says LGA 1969)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/denon/3106647798/sizes/l/

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Judging from the picture there is enough space for the a/c to move forward then make a sharp right turn either under minimum power or under tow with out the wings touching the aircraft in front.

User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6836 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.

Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineF35 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

Maybe the Jetways didn't turn, just went in and out?

User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2587 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6771 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.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24886 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6688 times:



Quoting Timz (Thread starter):
What was the point of this? (Says LGA 1969)

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.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ger Buskermolen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Vandervord



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell Nilsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mick Bajcar



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard Chaloner
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George W. Hamlin



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Armstrong



User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2224 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6336 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineKL5147 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

Around 1985 AMS-EHAM changed most parking positions from parallel to "nose-in".
AFAIK this was done to create more Jetway positions.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ed Groenendijk
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages




"The world is just a click away!"
User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2167 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6061 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.

User currently offlineSWABrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5848 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.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5783 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?
User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3097 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5769 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......

User currently offlineLVHGEL From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5713 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.

 checkmark 

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.


User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4567 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5466 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.


TOL back in the early 90s before the changes.


User currently offlineRamprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4025 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.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3480 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.

-Rampart


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24886 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3216 times:



Quoting Ramprat74 (Reply 14):
I know United used two Jetways to board DC-8's at LAX in the 60's

Also SFO and ORD and possibly a few others. Photo below of a TWA 707 parked parallel to the terminal at ORD in 1967 with jetways connected to both the front and rear doors.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matt Kluck



As already mentioned by others, when airports got short of space as traffic and frequencies increased, they couldn't afford to waste so much space.


User currently offlineFghtngsiouxatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2744 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.

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...
Why Is LH That Expensive To The US posted Wed Oct 3 2007 04:31:43 by LH748i
Why Did Cathay Pacific Switch From A330 To The B777-300 posted Tue Jun 26 2007 07:46:46 by PIAflyer
Why So Long To Clear Us To The Assigned Altitude? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 18:48:32 by Golftango
Why WN Will Fight To The Death At DAL posted Tue Apr 25 2006 01:53:48 by Iluv2pilot
Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue? posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:36:46 by ACAfan
Why Does Canada Get The Scum Of Flights To The US? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 20:06:04 by ETStar
Why Do IB Use The 747 To The Canaries? posted Tue Jun 15 2004 22:04:34 by CKT523
Is CAK The Reason Why AirTran Doesnt Fly To CLE? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 04:48:11 by TriJetFan1
Why No Taxiway To The End Of Some Runways... posted Thu Feb 19 2004 00:40:06 by Maiznblu_757
Why Doesn't UA Fly To The Mexican Resort Areas? posted Mon Jan 12 2004 23:55:55 by ElectraBob