Just found this article (sorry only in Norwegian), which says that airlines just don't want to use the new low cost pier at CPH otherwise known as "CPH Swift".
The pier is set to be finished later this year and so far only EasyJet, Germanwings and Transavia have said they want to use the pier. Other airlines such as Norwegian and Cimber-Sterling have point blank dismissed the new terminal due to the lack of connection possibilities and the incredibly long walking distances. Also the fact that airlines using this facility will incur lower landing fees has angered a number of airlines such as SAS. Ryanair and Air Berlin are also in doubt about committing to this facility.
Anyone who has been to Kastrup will know that the security check point (which this new pier will also share) is located near piers A and B, meaning that walking to Copenhagen Swift will take in excess of 20-25 minutes. It is built as an extension to Pier D, which is already quite a trek in itself from security.
Surely the best idea for Copenhagen would have been to extend Pier D, adding normal bridge-loading gates in order to increase capacity for all carriers, with a possible dedicated low cost terminal located at another airport such as Roskilde, which in terms of Low Cost airports isn't that far away from Copenhagen (not if you compare it with Torp and Hahn for example).
Next flights: ARN-LHR (763), LGW-IST (738), IST-GYD (738), GYD-IST (738), IST-LGW (738), LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (319), L
Oby From Denmark, joined Aug 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4098 times:
I 100% agree with you n that one.
Also, the Swift terminal will use all the existing services so this isnt where the money will be saved... where is it then??
They shouldve either located it in Roskilde or bought majority stakes in Malmo and take it from there. Or if it had to be at CPH, then locate it on the south side of the runways, like the Terminal A idea.
The planning of Swift doesnt even take into accont if the airport is to expand in the future. It would be blocking an eventual new finger D/E. Not the best form of planning Ive seen.
Larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1039 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 2): I don't think Easyjet would look towards any secondary facility. They are very much committed to flying into the main airports these days.
The only difference for the passenger is a longer walk. Checkin, security, shops, restaurants is the same
Oby From Denmark, joined Aug 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Naaahhh. easyjet wont go out of CPH, theres too much prestige in flying there an theres enough pax to justify the extra charges with the airport. Plus, danes actually dont view easyjet as terribly as they do ryanair for example. Theres just been too many horror stories about O'Leary's airline.
Anyway, any thoughts on why they chose to build it where a possible new finger/concourse would be located and therefore restraining the airport for growth in that direction
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 908 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Thread starter): Ryanair and Air Berlin are also in doubt about committing to this facility.
Since when is FR caring about long walking distances for pax, especially when costs like landing fees can be lower?
No cynism intended here, but are there other reasons for FR to reject this terminal?
Am I missing something?
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
shamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 3756 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3272 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 6): Since when is FR caring about long walking distances for pax, especially when costs like landing fees can be lower?
No cynism intended here, but are there other reasons for FR to reject this terminal?
Am I missing something?
I'd expect the invasion of low cost airlines who have set up shop at CPH before they did. Ryanair arent scared of competition (in the sense that the usually try - and succeed - in driving it out), but to do so against so many LCC's would be a long and costly process, as they absorb losses associated with dropping fares to kill off some of the competition.
I expect that FR have now deduced that there is "lower hanging fruit" elsewhere, at airports with far less LCC competition.
Also, note that FR and EZY tend to stay away from each other in terms of bases in Continental Europe. Only at MAD, and some UK bases, do you see the two going head to head. When EZY entered the Republic Of Ireland, FR went to extensive lengths to drive them out, and EZY's fingers were badly burned. Since then, neither seem to cross each other too much except in the UK.
Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5581 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3203 times:
Quoting Oby (Reply 1): They shouldve either located it in Roskilde
What happened to those plans anyway? A few years ago, there were some plans drawn up for offering RKE as an LCC alternative, and apart from the mutterings from the locals in Tune and Gadstrup, I don't recall any major opposition to the idea.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5810 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 6): Quoting SKAirbus (Thread starter):
Ryanair and Air Berlin are also in doubt about committing to this facility.
Since when is FR caring about long walking distances for pax, especially when costs like landing fees can be lower?
No cynism intended here, but are there other reasons for FR to reject this terminal?
Am I missing something?
I Guess that you are missing that FR does not operate from CPH and has never done so. They onece operated MMO - STN with bus connection to Copenhagen central railway station, but EasyJet made that route redundant overnight.
CPH may have imagined that the new Swift terminal would attract FR, but probably not since they would put their nose into strong competition from EasyJet, Air Berlin, Norwegian and others.
But the Swift terminal will live a fine life even without some of the LCCs since it will serve a high volume charter market.
Quoting Oby (Reply 1): The planning of Swift doesnt even take into accont if the airport is to expand in the future. It would be blocking an eventual new finger D/E. Not the best form of planning Ive seen.
It doesn't matter since CPH tarffic will shrink in the future. Not too many years ago no Dane could go anywhere without passing CPH. In a couple of years the western half of Denmark will mostly have forgotten that there is an airport in Copenhagen. Even when Copenhagen is their destination they will often take the train because it is usually faster and a lot more comfortable.
The planes are of course comfortable enough. The CPH queue lines are not.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
SKAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 1075 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2235 times:
I see it this way.
- Allow carriers such as Easyjet and Air Berlin to continue using CPH on the same terms as they do now as they are obviously fine with it. Their business plans also go more towards using major city airports as opposed to sheds in the middle of nowhere (a la Ryanair). Then Pier D could be extended as a multi-purpose Schengen/Non-Schengen are similar to Pier F at Arlanda (ARN).
- Carriers who are more interested in keeping their costs low and carry mainly O&D passengers could relocate to a new facility in Roskilde (which is owned by the same company as Kastrup), which is easy to reach from the centre of Copenhagen by train or bus and is closer than other Ryanair airports such as Hahn, Skavsta, Bergamo, Torp etc.
Unless passengers are wanting to transfer and put the convenience of a large, well-connected airport over lower ticket prices then I think it is a good solution but as is common in Denmark when it comes to infrastructure, costs generally outweigh sensibility...
Next flights: ARN-LHR (763), LGW-IST (738), IST-GYD (738), GYD-IST (738), IST-LGW (738), LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (319), L
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 1075 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2008, 96 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 908 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 3756 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
