cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9334 times:
The problem is you have two competing self interests and passengers (and thus the local community) stuck in the middle without much recourse.
MCO is a bit of a hassle of an airport to get through. Problem is it is as much a problem with design as with space - all passengers are funneled through bottlenecks at security and the trams, and they tried to consolidate shuttles and parking and such so much that they made that a problem area, too. Plus, the security measures for international arrivals (which is probably going to become a heavier part of the mix) make even more hassles passengers.
There is plenty of "room" to expand without an additional terminal. BUT, that is going to require some significant concessions on the airlines parts, which brings about the second part of the problem - the current airlines, in particular Southwest, don't want expansion or change because they have a valuable tourist destination locked up. Expansion means more room and lower rates for newcomers. The consolidation of the industry is bound to create new low cost entrants, and Orlando is destination number one for them.
It is a no win situation. Not so much because nothing can be done, but because no one will be willing to make a concession.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
toltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9308 times:
After reading the article, it appears the problem is the landside terminal, and getting passengers screened before heading to airside. Remember that it was designed pre-9/11, and doesn't have the room needed today. There's no need for new gates. The underused gates could be better utilized, plus the unbuilt portion of airside 2 could be built if needed. How do you get more volume through the current landside? The landside building itself is boxed in, oriented east-west between a north-south runway configuration.
C010T3 From Brazil, joined Jul 2006, 3513 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9275 times:
If only UA would see that they have a gap in the Southeast and that they could rebuild their South American presence from MCO, that terminal would be perfect.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9001 times:
They should take a page out of TPA's book, and have the security checkpoints at the airside terminals. The people mover stations would need to be redesigned and rebuilt into proper post 9-11 checkpoints, but it would be much cheaper than $2 billion. There's plenty of space to do it, and It would free up a lot of space in the landside building.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7951 times:
It's not just people departing, it's people arriving. Because of the setup, they have to hold back domestic passengers from going between the terminal and the gate buildings. And I am not sure that extra area on air side 2 is capable of being built to handle larger international jets.
Personally, I think tourist growth is not going to happen. While as Disney works to keep their guests on property, they are spending less and less time there as they get tired of the parks. And the "growth" at other parks is more last ditch attempts to draw in guests - we are already seeing lots of the small attractions die. Big conventions are dying out as companies no longer want to spend money on travel. Barring some big economic change or new business growth in Orlando (quite possible) I don't see travel growing very fast. But, if something were to happen...
I think the best option would be to force the airlines to consolidate into three airsides, and leave the 4th for international. But that would mean airlines would have to use larger planes, which they are loathe to do.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2656 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7775 times:
What a joke. Along with the train tracks to nowhere that are leading to this yet to be built terminal.
A lot of dynamics have changed in the industry that have affected MCO:
1. The major airlines have consolidated
2. The major airlines have ceded leisure routes to LCC carriers
3. Flying has become more expensive
4. Going through security with kids and large families in a pain in the neck
How does this specifically affect MCO:
1. Hub/focus city airline Delta has shrunk drastically. The days of widebodies from across the US (and even one point Europe) coming into MCO alongside a large regional operation are over. Nobody has replaced this and no one will
2. While JetBlue and Southwest and AirTran have grown, this has been at the expense of legacy airlines shrinking at MCO. JetBlue today looks a lot like the Delta Express route map from 12 years ago.
3. MCO is home to the leisure traveller...and they are most affected by the increase in airfares associated with high fuel and consolidation
4. As someone said above, more people are driving and less are flying. Disney/Universal is usually a week long trip. If you are in the eastern half of the country, many people are just finding it easier to drive with 2 or 3 kids in tow.
As for future growth, there are plenty of gates.
Even if an unknown regional wanted to start a 50 flight focus city tomorrow (which would be the most likely expansion MCO gets), there are gates to support this.
MCO should focus on building:
1. Better/bigger security checkpoints
2. Better/bigger customs facilites
Both of these could be done within existing facilities.
That whole area between A side and B side is filled with food courts, moving walkways, stores, restaurant, and retail.
AA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6966 times:
My personal opinion is that MCO is one of the worst security checkpoints in the entire country.
There's a volatile mix of poor design (pre-9/11, as others have stated), and a generally less-efficient/experienced traveling segment (lots of leisure, families with kids, large groups, etc. etc.). These two factors come together and create the colossal hassle that is MCO.
I'm afraid I can't visualize something in my head, but it seems that there must be a way to streamline the screening process, as well as the transfer from screening to individual concourses without building an entirely new terminal. If the goal of said terminal is solely to alleviate the headaches at security (seeing as gate utilization/access doesn't seem to be a problem), then something is seriously wrong with the picture.
It seems highly implausible to me that a solution that (a) generally makes use of the existing facilities and (b) requires less than $2.1 billion in spend is impossible to conceive.
Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
MEACEDAR From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6919 times:
I've lived in Orlando for my entire life and I fly in and out of MCO at least once a month, if not more, and I can tell you that the last thing we need is a new terminal. There is absolutely no reason for it. I pass by gates that just collect dust day in and day out. Unless an airline is looking to expand, especially in making it a hub like someone suggested above, then a new terminal would be meaningless.
DL pulled out of a huge part of its services to MCO a long time ago...what happened to the 763/764 and occasional 777 that use to be used for MCO-ATL???
What annoys me though is that airlines like LH, BA, and VS are using DL's gates at MCO...idk why it bothers me so much...wouldn't it make sense for LH to use one of UA's gates, BA to use AA's...VS, I guess I can cope with.
I know that it has to do with the plane size,etc...but it just bugs me LOL
Unless some Euro or Asian airlines are looking at MCO, which is probably not the case since AF tossed MCO earlier last year, then the terminal is useless. It feels like this airport has been under construction/renovations forever, let it rest jeez.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
Screening is not a huge problem. It looks bad, and can be frustrating because there are so many inexperienced travelers, but outside of a few rush periods when you have just too many small plane fights, getting through is fairly fast as they have a lot of lanes. The problem is that right AFTER security, you sometimes get hung up waiting while swarms of international arrival passengers come through, and they have to close off access to the shuttles. And as far as the gates go, those gates are not really able to handle the larger planes.
Agreed the domestic big airlines have really changed. Delta gave up on MCO as they were not as profitable for the larger planes. They focus now on smaller planes to more places - not everyone funnels through Atlanta anymore. That's the real solution, though - airlines have to stop trying to fly a gazillion flights with small planes and start consolidating.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
Boeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
There were multiple airport terminals built right before and during deregulation that suffer from incredibly poor designs that simply can't support modern air travel. Many of these facilities are also reaching the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Fixing these problem children will come at a significant cost.
Sometimes its best to start with a clean sheet of paper if you have the space.
Quoting PITrules (Reply 5): They should take a page out of TPA's book, and have the security checkpoints at the airside terminals. The people mover stations would need to be redesigned and rebuilt into proper post 9-11 checkpoints, but it would be much cheaper than $2 billion. There's plenty of space to do it, and It would free up a lot of space in the landside building.
Not a bad idea. Given the amount of useable space airfield, maybe the solution is to demo each concourse one at a time and build new ones that meet the needs of todays traveling public. Maybe even do away with APMs to the concourses. I don't think this proposal is as much about capacity as it is about modernization.
I think building a new southeastern hub for United, would be a brilliant idea. UA could now compete more effectively against American in Miami and Charlotte, and Delta Airlines in Atlanta. UA could build up Orlando into a Latin American Hub with flights into Europe's main gateway airports.
UA could draw aircraft from CLE and IAH. MCO could be part of UA's long term plans.
A MCO hub would fit very nicely into the strong route network and be more competitive to the new AA.
Just wishful speculation here as the idea sounds very appealing.
mcogator From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
I laugh at any expansion talks. Just because the security lines are long, doesn't mean we need to expand. The airport has tons of gates available. If any expansion is warranted, a dedicated international terminal would be the only one I can think of actually helping the situation.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): 1. Hub/focus city airline Delta has shrunk drastically. The days of widebodies from across the US (and even one point Europe) coming into MCO alongside a large regional operation are over. Nobody has replaced this and no one will
Except VS with their new linkage with DL.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): 3. MCO is home to the leisure traveller...and they are most affected by the increase in airfares associated with high fuel and consolidation
This is mostly true, but Orlando is also home to the 2nd or 3rd largest convention industry in the US. There are still a large number of business travellers that use the airport.
ItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 948 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Quoting coairman (Reply 12): A MCO hub would fit very nicely into the strong route network and be more competitive to the new AA.
We can wish....as exciting it would be (for us), the days of hub building in the USA are O V E R. The last ones standing have staked their geographic claims and will focus on what they have rather than expensive science expiraments. Sad thing is that the most likely path will be more hub drawn-downs. :/
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2344 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3872 times:
Although I would love to see UA have a hub in the SE, it will never happen because the yields at MCO are way too low!
My in-laws live near MCO and we leave an extra 1/2 hour for security there because of the backup... IMHO the problem is also the TSA, I find them to be less efficient than other airports
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2555 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
The security bottleneck is the problem here. The landslide could be altered to change this without adding another terminal. More gates will not be needed. This predicted future air traffic is not going to happen anytime soon.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1191 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
I flew to MCO many years ago and was struck at how attractive the terminal and grounds were. Those little trams cruising over the lakes and gardens was unique. Of course that was a looong time ago ...
I don't see building more gates if those existing are already under utilized. If they need more space in the main terminal, why don't they build out where one of the parking garages is located now and move the parking garage out a ways?
dlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 698 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2911 times:
Quoting MEACEDAR (Reply 9): What annoys me though is that airlines like LH, BA, and VS are using DL's gates at MCO...idk why it bothers me so much...wouldn't it make sense for LH to use one of UA's gates, BA to use AA's...VS, I guess I can cope with.
Because DL ground handles all these other airlines operations, well expect for BA now but LH and VS are DL contracts.
Worked/Planned Loads on: CRJ-2,CRJ-7,CRJ-9,737-4,737-7,737-8,757-2,757-3,767-3,A319,A320,A330,MD83,MD90
flflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2880 times:
I fly out of MCO every week and while I am not sure of the need for more gates issue, the balance of the airport works well. I know where to park in the terminal top and with my Clear Card I am from my car to gate in less than 10 min. Add to the fact the eating establishments, a very nice Hyatt ( in terminal) and overall well run terminal, I am very happy with traveling from MCO.
Logos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 768 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2690 times:
I heard a presentation on the new terminal from an official at GOAA (Greater Orlando Aviation Authority) a few weeks back. The stated rationale for the new terminal (with 16 gates planned) is expected international growth that they want to get ahead of. The $2.1 billion price tag also includes a new transportation hub that will have several different rail services (included the expected new line from Miami).
I suppose I can kind of see the rationale but I agree, with most of the ex-Airtran gates in Airside 4 laying vacant and several other parts of the airport very underutilized not to mention the overflow for charter flights (and Allegiant) at Sanford it's kind of hard to see the need for the next 20 years. Like others, it does seem to me that a fraction of that amount devoted to some redesign of the security checkpoints and other renovations would be money better spent.
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
Quoting flflyer (Reply 20): I fly out of MCO every week and while I am not sure of the need for more gates issue...
MCO's gates have among the lowest usage of any major airport in the country. Even as carriers such as DL & US began winding down their operations in the late 1990s, they continued to hoard gates in effort to prevent LCC expansion. MCO's expansion in the early 2000s nullified the situation, the legacies relinquished gates, and today MCO could shed half its gates and still have noddles of incumbent room to accommodate new flights & carriers. With AA & US merging, and WN's integrating of FL, the situation's not going to improve anytime soon. I took video of MCO during the Millennium celebration. It shows the then-constrained space, for example the addition of departure counters in the arrivals level that have long been shuttered.
While MCO may have problems accommodating security lines as well as a less-than-optimal arrivals procedure for intercontinental flights, building a new $2B airport is an excessive & inappropriate solution to the problems.
DTL From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2423 times:
I think what is often overlooked is the international arrivals into MCO. Currently, based on my understanding, international traffic has a huge potential into MCO. Not only is the traffic from Europe but Asia and the Middle East is growing in demand. The problem right now at MCO is the limited international gates that the airport can handle. With the flights arriving from the UK and Germany arriving within a short period of time immigration time has been known to be as long as four hours.
Does this mean that a whole new terminal needs to be built? Well I think that is the major question for all of us. As we all know the need for a new terminal is based on forecasts, and we all know how reliable they can be! I feel by removing international flights from the current terminal complex to a new terminal there will be a much better experience for arriving international passengers. The thing here, is it worth $2.1bn?
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
At a minimum, why not shutter A3 with US moving to A1 after the merger and move UA (with their INTL partners there anyway) to A4. A2 keeps WN/AT and remaining LCC's into open gate areas at A1/A4.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
Quoting DTL (Reply 24): I think what is often overlooked is the international arrivals into MCO. Currently, based on my understanding, international traffic has a huge potential into MCO. Not only is the traffic from Europe but Asia and the Middle East is growing in demand. The problem right now at MCO is the limited international gates that the airport can handle. With the flights arriving from the UK and Germany arriving within a short period of time immigration time has been known to be as long as four hours.
The current international arrivals procedure isn't ideal, but it's not limiting traffic into MCO; MCO's successfully handled larger banks of arriving international flights in the past. The core intercontinental traffic arrives on tour packages from Brazil & the UK; I wouldn't bet on Asian or Middle Eastern service into the distant future -- the dynamics of the market aren't going to allow it.
Yes, MCO should prioritize attempts to improve international arrivals. No, it's not going to increase traffic. No, it does not need to cost $2B.
USAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2681 posts, RR: 1 Reply 28, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
While I haven't flown to MCO in over a year, and I don't fly there as often as I do, I do agree with everyone else that one can clearly tell that MCO has a pre-9/11 design that just doesn't work. You can't have the airport's major food courts and shops in the landside terminals. It just doesn't make sense. It crowds the areas, and while I'm not entirely sure, but I am willing to bet that the restaurant business takes a hit because of it. In all the times I have gotten something to eat at MCO, I have never eaten in a landside food court. I usually just got something to eat at one of the kiosks airside.
In fact, IMHO, MCO almost reminds me of airports in the UK in a way. It's almost like the airport was designed for you to remain landside right until you actually have to be at your gate. This, of course, in today's world does not work because of security.
If MCO truly needs more gates, they could build a few more in that "secret garden" area.
mcoatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 150 posts, RR: 2 Reply 29, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 28):
If MCO truly needs more gates, they could build a few more in that "secret garden" area.
Actually, that's an issue itself. There is a conflict with building out that pier and 17R ILS. No, I'm not sure what it is but it has been mentioned many a time at the office.
I'm a bit confused by this article. Everything that I have heard about this proposed project is that only 8 gates, the first half of the terminal, are to be built. These were to be international arrival gates, which are often at a premium in the afternoon. When traffic demanded, the rest of the terminal and subsequent 8 gates would be built.
I'm not saying this is necessary, I'm just not entirely sure the version of the story that the Slantinel is reporting is entirely without bias. The gates they talk about being closed are done so to accommodate other gate size requirements, not because they are unneeded. This project is also supposed to include a lot of infrastructure along with the terminal. As some have mentioned, a new transportation hub, parking garages, etc.
Some of the international arrivals issues could be fixed by expanding immigration facilities at airside 4 and converting some of the 90's gates to accommodate widebodies.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 28): You can't have the airport's major food courts and shops in the landside terminals. It just doesn't make sense. It crowds the areas, and while I'm not entirely sure, but I am willing to bet that the restaurant business takes a hit because of it. In all the times I have gotten something to eat at MCO, I have never eaten in a landside food court. I usually just got something to eat at one of the kiosks airside.
I don't know, all four airsides have several food options in addition to the main food court, which itself isn't exactly inspiring. I understand what you're saying, but what you suggest is a full re-design of the airsides. I just don't think the space exists to do so.
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 28): I do agree with everyone else that one can clearly tell that MCO has a pre-9/11 design that just doesn't work. You can't have the airport's major food courts and shops in the landside terminals
I'm confused as to why you perceive this to be a "design that just doesn't work." It really isn't true as the major dining options (including food courts) are airside, and plenty of shopping is available both landside & airside. And shops placed landside are designed to captivate maximum traffic, since it's split as people proceed to the airside terminals. I'm not certain what impact 9/11 would have negatively on the design ... if anything, it had a positive effect since people spend more time within the airport. (Even if 9/11 did impact the design, no major airport in this country was designed post-9/11, sans a limited number of terminals, and none are proposing muli-billion replacements because of the design limitations.)
Nonetheless, with MCO handling 40% less passengers than its designed for, continued consolidation creating uncertainty & reducing necessary gates & volatility toward high airfares leading more people to drive, I simply don't see how anybody could support a $2B project. Especially since it could lead to airlines like NK moving their operations to SFB, nullifying any expansion "need."
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2395 times:
Quoting mcoatc (Reply 29): The gates they talk about being closed are done so to accommodate other gate size requirements, not because they are unneeded.
No, the article's referring to gates that have been shuttered due to lack of usage. I did a similar exercise on here last year when some posters were advocating expansion and concluded that the majority of gates at MCO were seeing limited operations each day ... a result of continued expansion, despite the fact that DL & US shuttered their former large operations & consolidation has lead to a lesser gate need.
mcogator From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
Quoting compensateme (Reply 26): I wouldn't bet on Asian or Middle Eastern service into the distant future -- the dynamics of the market aren't going to allow it.
I think (MAH)? once posted that MCO-NRT was the largest O&D market to Japan in the US currently not served. I found that quite surprising. The only way I can see our international market expanding is through an airline using MCO as a focus/hub for Caribbean, Central and South American Flights.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
How about adding extensions on the 4 airside terminals to house security checkpoints at the arrival of the people movers?
You would then still check-in at the central terminal, but clear security after the people mover. The problem of MCO is a mismatch between landside terminal capacity and gate availability, maybe this could be a solution.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 28): MCO almost reminds me of airports in the UK in a way. It's almost like the airport was designed for you to remain landside right until you actually have to be at your gate.
In a certain way yes, but at MCO at least you have facilities at the gates and you know your gate in advance. Versus the UK model were you are held captive in an airside shopping mall until your gate is announced at the last minute, then you are held captive at the gate in a gloomy tiny pre-boarding room with zero facilites, at most a vending machine if you are lucky. MCO is still a much better experience in comparison.
USAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2681 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
Quoting compensateme (Reply 30): I'm confused as to why you perceive this to be a "design that just doesn't work." It really isn't true as the major dining options (including food courts) are airside, and plenty of shopping is available both landside & airside. And shops placed landside are designed to captivate maximum traffic, since it's split as people proceed to the airside terminals. I'm not certain what impact 9/11 would have negatively on the design ... if anything, it had a positive effect since people spend more time within the airport. (Even if 9/11 did impact the design, no major airport in this country was designed post-9/11, sans a limited number of terminals, and none are proposing muli-billion replacements because of the design limitations.)
I'm just saying that the vast majority of the shops/restaurants seem to be landside, and looking at terminal maps of MCO, it appears they are. About a year and a half ago, I flew MCO-CLT on FL, which was departing from Airside 2. The only fast food restaurants open at the time (besides Starbucks) were Sbarro and Au Bon Pain. There was a McDonalds but I think it was closed or something. Regardless, that doesn't seem like a lot.
And IND and LGB were both designed and built post-9/11.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
I agree that there is a bit of a lack of concessions airside. Some concourses are worse than others. It does have a lot to do with not having much room in the fingers.
Part of the space problem isn't just room to park the planes, it's room for the passengers. Ever been stuck in MCO when there has been a ground stop at one of Delta's hubs? They have some many frequent departures that when even one flight gets delayed, that concourse gets absolutely jam packed with people. It is not a safe situation.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
readytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 3 Reply 36, posted (2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2031 times:
One of the fun things when arriving at MCO from the UK is that often the BA2037 and the VS27 can pull up at the gate within a few minutes of each other, due to weather/tec delays. I have experienced this myself a few times and am ready for it now. The BA flight is usually gate 80 and the VS gate 83, after disembarking the plane BA passengers go down the ramp and then turn left, Virgin go down the ramp and turn right, BINGO, they see each other and then the penny drops, I have to get to the line infront of them. I have seen grown men run,dragging the family behind them to get ahead of the upcoming line.Great fun
Always found that the departing security checks slow and then being held at the terminal as the arriving tram disembarks before you are allowed to board to go out to the peir. Not ideal but you work around it.
Is it worth a new Terminal? As a visitor, still probably not.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Quoting mcoatc (Reply 29):
Actually, that's an issue itself. There is a conflict with building out that pier and 17R ILS. No, I'm not sure what it is but it has been mentioned many a time at the office.
Until proven otherwise, I think this is A.net myth/urban legend. Airsides 2/4 and runway 17R were master planned at the same time in the 1980s. Why would they design a conflict? Furthermore, there are already airport service buildings to the north-northeast of Airside 2 that are actually closer to the 17R clear zone than the secret garden.
NASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3081 posts, RR: 5 Reply 38, posted (2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
The reason some of the gates are rarely used is because they are common use gates owned by GOAA, Around 2008 there were only a handful of GOAA gates, everything else was signatory. Pretty much all of Airside 1 in the "teens" wing was American Airlines signatory. GOAA took over Gate 11 and 13 in 2008, then in 2010 Allegiant Air became a signatory carrier at MCO for the year they were there and got 11 and 13. However Allegiant I believe has a 10 year long term lease on those gates - even though they moved back to SFB. If American or another carrier were to borrow Gate 11 or 13, 90% of the money would be reimbursed to Allegiant for using "their" gate, while GOAA only gets 10% or so of the money.
They mention Gate 112 barely being used in Airside 2. That is another case of it being a GOAA gate Of course Southwest is going to use their own gates multiple times of the day because they have a long term lease on the gates and get charged for their long term gates the same if they use it once or 10 times a day. However Gate 112 will charge them a certain amount per a 5-6 hour basis. The way that works is they can park a plane there for 5-6 hours and pay 1 set fee. However if they parked one plane there, it departs an hour later and then they bring a second plane in - they get charged twice. There is a different fee structure for RONs. If Southwest wants to only park the plane there without the gate hooked up, they can get charged a hardstand fee - same as if they parked the plane out on the hardstand. However if the gate is used to unboard or board passengers during that RON, they get charged a higher fee.
Do I think the new terminal should be built? Yes but for international only. They need to consolidate all customs facilities under one roof. The international gates can get extremely busy at times. Most of the day you don't see planes parked at Airside 4, because it is used mainly by the European carriers that start arriving after 2 pm and mostly depart by 9pm. Often overnight Delta will lease some of the gates for RON. Gates 80 and 81 are signatory gates used by BA and VS respectively, so the same situation as Gate 11 and 13 exists if Delta were to RON on those 2 gates. So from 8am-2pm those gates sit empty now that TAM has moved to Airside 1. Airside 1 Interntional is overcrowded, especially on Saturdays. Four of those 8 international gates are signatory Gate 22 Air Canada, Gate 23 Jet Blue International, Gate 25 West Jet, Gate 26 Copa. I am not aware if TAM also became signatory or not but if they did then they probably have Gate 27 which only 3 gates there can handle planes bigger than a 767 - Gate 24, 27 and 28. On Saturdays you have extra West Jet flights, extra Air Canada plus other precleared Canadian planes that don't need international gates often most Air Transat, Sunwing and Canjet flights as well as most West Jet and Air Canada.
They should move all of the post cleared flights to the new terminal they want to build, leave the 20s gates to pre cleared Canadian flights maybe with a reduced customs facility there on an as needed basis for an occassional West Jet or Air Transat that needs to be cleared. Close the customs facility in Airside 4 and move everything to the south facility.
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2656 posts, RR: 5 Reply 39, posted (2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Wow. Those depictions look a lot like DFW.
They truly are sipping the water from Fantasyland if they think they need this.
Not to rain on anyones parade:
1. Growth is stagnant
2. GOAA gates are GOAA gates because nobody wants them
3. Commuter rail???
4. Light rail???
Where are these rail lines coming from in no-tax, red state once-you-leave-Boca Florida? Who is paying for all of this transit that will connect to the Intermodal Terminal?
MCO has plenty of runway capacity and plenty of gate capacity.
Like I said earlier, a brand new LCC could come in tomorrow and start a JetBlue sized operation within existing gates...and there would still be plenty of gates to go around.
Even the thought of that happening in the next 10 years seems unrealistic.
MCO needs to focus on rebuilding their checkpoints (they are the worst in the country in this pilots opinion) and rebuilding their international arrivals facility.
Both of these things can happen without a $2 billion new terminal.
Do you realize how much $2 billion is in CENTRAL FLORIDA?!?!?!
That would be like spending $10 billion at JFK.
And if that high speed rail ever arrives, it can chug another 1/2 mile to the "North" Complex. But don't buy a train ticket to Miami just yet.
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
Quoting mcogator (Reply 32): I think (MAH)? once posted that MCO-NRT was the largest O&D market to Japan in the US currently not served. I found that quite surprising. The only way I can see our international market expanding is through an airline using MCO as a focus/hub for Caribbean, Central and South American Flights.
Regardless of the traffic flow from NRT (MCO isn't the largest unserved market), MCO lacks the premium, high-yielding traffic necessary to anchor such flight. Heck, service to AMS & CDG hasn't proven sustainable. Nor will MCO become a hub anytime soon ... DL struggled in the 1990s against the low-yielding traffic, and the situation hasn't improved much since. WN(FL) and B6 may continue to add strategic flights, but that's about it.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 34): I'm just saying that the vast majority of the shops/restaurants seem to be landside, and looking at terminal maps of MCO, it appears they are. About a year and a half ago, I flew MCO-CLT on FL, which was departing from Airside 2. The only fast food restaurants open at the time (besides Starbucks) were Sbarro and Au Bon Pain. There was a McDonalds but I think it was closed or something. Regardless, that doesn't seem like a lot.
And IND and LGB were both designed and built post-9/11.
Again, I'm confused as to how this would be a post-9/11 design flaw. People have always cleared security, pre- and post-9/11, to reach the airside gates, and prior to 9/11 they were no more likely to make a trip back landside (should they be dissatisfied with dining options) than they are post-9/11.
And IND & LGB are not "large" airports .
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 35): Part of the space problem isn't just room to park the planes, it's room for the passengers. Ever been stuck in MCO when there has been a ground stop at one of Delta's hubs? They have some many frequent departures that when even one flight gets delayed, that concourse gets absolutely jam packed with people. It is not a safe situation.
The DL concourse is a large, wide concourse with large portions that sit empty much of the time. It was designed to be a DL hub, which was abandoned, and later anchored a focus city operation, which has also been abandoned. And for much of its life, it routinely saw large-capacity widebody aircraft which have since been replaced with much smaller ones. I don't see how anybody can reasonably argue that space is a limiting factor, when there's more space available today than every before.
Clipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Gate use is but one metric (of several) used to determine how "full" an airport is, and is probably the least reliable indicator. Many other factors go into determining if and when an airport is approaching capacity.
MCO's North Terminal Complex has a maximum capacity of 45 million passengers a year. This was raised from an original capacity of 36 Million through improvements over the past 10 years or so. MCO's efficiency and customer satisfaction begins to wain at 40 million passengers a year. MCO saw 35.3 million passengers in 2012 (during a recession). MCO is forecast (by the FAA) to be one of the fastest growing airports in the US over the next 10-20 years. Orlando (and the greater central Florida area) is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the country. At a marginal growth rate of 2.5%, MCO would reach 40 million passengers by 2018. A new Terminal (including planning, design and construction of grounds and utility improvements needed for an International terminal) will take 4-5 years. Hence the work should start soon. It is useless to begin construction after you pass the threshold of need.
The new South Terminal (initial phase) would essentially be an International terminal. MCO's international growth has been a very bright spot for the airport averaging 8-10% increases each month. The FIS facilities at MCO have reached capacity at certain times of the day and season and are space and efficiency limited by the original design of the airport which was not conceived as a large international airport.
BTW....All major airports (with the exception of DEN and possibly IAD) were designed way be 9/11 and reflected the design thinking of the time. No one could foresee the screening requirements needed today. Many airport screening checkpoints are strained.....especially airport like MCO that have large O&D numbers and a Central Terminal design. MCO screens many more passengers and bags a day than airport like ATL whose large passenger numbers transverse the airside terminals be do not have to check bags and flow through the landside terminal.
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 41): Gate use is but one metric (of several) used to determine how "full" an airport is, and is probably the least reliable indicator. Many other factors go into determining if and when an airport is approaching capacity. MCO's North Terminal Complex has a maximum capacity of 45 million passengers a year
Slightly deceitful, because it seems the "maximum capacity" you're referring to is based on reasonable security clearance accommodations. As it is, large portions of MCO's various terminals sit underutilized, often empty, much of the day. There's cheaper solutions to addressing the problem than constructing a new terminal. Especially when the article mentions MCO is receiving 40% fewer passengers today than it had projected when the current terminal plans were executed in the late 1990s. If airfares continue to soar, MCO isn't going to experience any growth as travelers move to their cars (as they're doing now).
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2656 posts, RR: 5 Reply 43, posted (2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 41):
MCO's North Terminal Complex has a maximum capacity of 45 million passengers a year. This was raised from an original capacity of 36 Million through improvements over the past 10 years or so. MCO's efficiency and customer satisfaction begins to wain at 40 million passengers a year.
Is the 40 million number factual though, or an a consultant giving an "expert" opinion? The fact is that traffic has been stagnant in the mid 30s. And the recession has hit central Florida harder than most parts of the country. So that has indeed put a crimp in the FAAs predictions; at least for now.
Again, who is paying for this is an important question. If they are relying on fees to airlines, the airlines at the airport (mainly domestic) will fight tooth and nail.
mcogator From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
Why not consolidate all the domestic airlines into empty spaces, especially since the US/AA merger, and move DL to empty gates elsewhere. This way you can move all international flights to the terminal with gates 60-99, then just spend the money improving customs and the departure/arrival experience for the people who usually spend the most time and money in Central Florida? During peak times, there aren't enough places to sit and you see a bunch of families sitting on the carpet in the main atrium of that terminal.
Clipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Quoting compensateme (Reply 42): Slightly deceitful, because it seems the "maximum capacity" you're referring to is based on reasonable security clearance accommodations
Not deceitful in the least. All capacities of buildings, cars, vans or ships as it relates to people are based off a intelligent estimation based on industry acceptable standards. There is no "factual" number. It is an estimate based a myriad of inputs and functions. As I stated above, gate use is but one of several inputs used to determine capacity. Because you have an excess of one does not cancel out all of the others. Obviously it is your "expert opinion" that another "expert opinion" is not factual.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 43): And the recession has hit central Florida harder than most parts of the country
Not true. The housing sector....Yes, very true. Other sectors have taken advantage of the dip in the economy to invest in Central Florida (tourism, heavy industry, simulation, medical and bio research). Do a little research if you are unconvinced.
Next time you come to Orlando, try visiting Orlando, the theme parks are only part of the story. The Greater Orlando area is starting to bloom if not boom.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 43): Again, who is paying for this is an important question. If they are relying on fees to airlines, the airlines at the airport (mainly domestic) will fight tooth and nail.
MCO is a very profitable operation although it has some of the lowest fees in the country for a airport its size. Much of the monies will come from bonds. The increase to the airline fees is minute. I'm sure some will balk (WN especially as they will reap no direct benefit from the new terminal at its inception).
Quoting mcogator (Reply 44): Why not consolidate all the domestic airlines into empty spaces, especially since the US/AA merger, and move DL to empty gates elsewhere
It is not that simple. There are not a lot of empty spaces, despite what you read above. The airport can only work with what the airlines want to rent. For example. Although AA lease only 4 gates in the wing of 8 gates they operate, they regularly used 5-6 through the day (depending on operational need), they also lease the entire ramp level under those 8 gates. They lease additional offices and holdroom areas on the transfer level. They even lease the tower located on that wing. So, again.....Gate space only tell you part of the story. You cannot make a determination based entirely on gate usage.
Quoting compensateme (Reply 42): As it is, large portions of MCO's various terminals sit underutilized, often empty, much of the day.
This is very untrue. Open gates....yes. The main terminal, where the largest constraints on capacity are found, is always busy. Currently there is only one wing of gates that see little activity (90s, currently F9,SY and DL RONs).
Quoting compensateme (Reply 42): There's cheaper solutions to addressing the problem than constructing a new terminal. Especially when the article mentions MCO is receiving 40% fewer passengers today than it had projected when the current terminal plans were executed in the late 1990s. If airfares continue to soar, MCO isn't going to experience any growth as travelers move to their cars (as they're doing now).
Cheaper Solutions...Yes, I'll give you that. Better solutions? No. Any economist will tell you of a little thing called "ROI" or return on investment. The new terminals actual cost in around $1.2 billion (Terminal, Apron, Utilities, Taxiways). The rest is for Multi-modal terminal, parking garage and roadway improvements. Is it better for MCO to spend $800-900 million to attempt to cram more people through a 30 year old terminal, or spend the money on a new facility whose cost can be amortized over another 30 years. These decisions are not about vanity, nor as simple as you think.
BTW. MCO is at the point now, % of capacity wise, that it was back in in the late 1990s when the South Terminal was first proposed.
Another misnomer.....Airfares are not soaring. Adjusted for inflation....it has never been cheaper to fly in this country...
Thank you for that info, very helpful. The ultimate DFW-like layout is overly optimistic, but since it looks like it would be built in phases... I could see the case for phase 1, to handle international flights for instance. But I still think it's better to fix the landsie/airside discrepancy in the current terminal.
I don't understand the need for light rail in those plans, or why the proposed commuter/high speed rail stops at the south terminal rather than continuing a bit further to the main terminal. A poor layout IMO.
NASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3081 posts, RR: 5 Reply 47, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Quoting mcogator (Reply 44): Why not consolidate all the domestic airlines into empty spaces, especially since the US/AA merger, and move DL to empty gates elsewhere. This way you can move all international flights to the terminal with gates 60-99, then just spend the money improving customs and the departure/arrival experience for the people who usually spend the most time and money in Central Florida? During peak times, there aren't enough places to sit and you see a bunch of families sitting on the carpet in the main atrium of that terminal.
You ever been down in the Customs hall Airside 4 especially between about 4pm and 6pm? Ok consolidating all international flights in Gates 70-90 might be a solution to fix the gate issues - however only a couple 70s and 90s gates can handle widebodies - they are already working on making a couple 90s gates international capable. However the gate issue isn't the problem - what do you propose to do with an overcrowded customs hall if all of those gates are used? When a couple Virgin flights, Lufthansa (and back then an Air France and TAM) would come in during the same hour it was common for people to be held on planes for 30-90 min. Making more gates international without drastically redesigning the customs hall would just create gate delays now of 90-180 min or more.
There are only four baggage carousels in the customs hall - when a Virgin 747 comes in, it uses 2 of them. There is no room for any additional baggage carousels without totally redesigning the facility - and that would involve moving the Customs holding areas, offices etc. The areas under the 70s gates, 80s gates, 90s gates which are offices aren't sufficient for adding additional carousels or customs/immigration facilities due to the width being too narrow and would also a costly demolition of offices, plumbing and other things under those areas and a radical redesign.
I would think the whole building would have to be redesigned to accomodate that. It would probably cost close to $1 billion to redesign Airside 4 where it could be what you are talking about.
Next - how would you do that without disrupting the current operation? Where would you move Delta while this is going on? Delta is the 3rd busiest carrier at MCO after WN/FL and B6. At night Delta often fills all of the 70s gates for RON and most of the 80s gates. Airside 1 is close to capacity with Jet Blue, American and the current customs flights (that couldn't be moved until Airside 4 that you propose is built out). Airside 2 minus a couple GOAA gates is full. Airside 3 is used by Continental/United and USAirways. USAirways and American both have a good size operation at MCO - they couldn't just be consolidated into the teens wing where American is or the 50s wing where USAirways is. Even if they were given 53, 55 and 57 (which I last checked were GOAA gates), woudn't be enough to move AA over - 53, 55 and 57 were used every night by USAirways for RON. American also needs a gate for Alaska, which American handles (or at least they did when I was there).
they are making a big deal about the empty GOAA gates, but they are often used for RON flights, winter and summer storm delays cancellations by the airlines as well as some of the non signatory carriers like Sun Country and domestic charters as well as pre cleared international carriers like Bahamasair. This would involve moving a whole bunch of counters, carousels, gates etc which would just be as costly as building a new facility and leaving everything else as is. At least you would get a brand new building out of it and for visitors from out of the country to experience the Orlando Experience without 2 hour delays in customs.
NASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3081 posts, RR: 5 Reply 48, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
I don't see why a 16 gate terminal would cost $2.1 billion. Is this thing built out of Crystal and gold? Or have prices really drastically shot up in a little over 10 years GOAA might need to examine some of these costs. I believe just a little over 10 years ago when DTW built the 120 + gate McNamara Terminal with 3 concourses, 10 international gates and a customs facility it only cost $1.2 billion and that includes their $5 million dancing fountain, the train that runs back and forth along Concourse A etc. Why would a 16 gate facility need to cost more than $1 billion? How much did the Maynard Jackson International facility at ATL that recently opened cost?
readytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 3 Reply 49, posted (2 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 47): When a couple Virgin flights, Lufthansa (and back then an Air France and TAM) would come in during the same hour it was common for people to be held on planes for 30-90 min. Making more gates international without drastically redesigning the customs hall would just create gate delays now of 90-180 min or more.
Yes, from experience this is a very cramped busy area sometimes,not the best advert for int arrivals.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 980 times:
Gates may be empty, but are they empty when they are needed? that is the problem - you have to design for the maximum number of planes you are going to handle. It's not like you can just shuffle planes off to more convenient times of day - these are the times airlines schedule their flights. sure, the easiest solution would be to simply tell the airlines if they want to fly in any more passengers, they have to use larger planes instead of more flights. But realistically that wont happen for a variety of reasons.
On the whole, I think this is probably one of the more pointless worries. People aren't going to decide to go to a different theme park because suddenly MCO fares go up $20. It's not like there are other theme parks to go to. And in the overall scheme airfare is not a huge deciding factor. People decide which airline to fly, but they don't decide which city to vacation in based on how much the airfare costs to go there. It is one situation where the cost can successfully be passed on.
As for capacity, what about roads and traffic?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
compensateme From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 869 times:
Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 45): Not deceitful in the least. All capacities of buildings, cars, vans or ships as it relates to people are based off a intelligent estimation based on industry acceptable standards. There is no "factual" number. It is an estimate based a myriad of inputs and functions. As I stated above, gate use is but one of several inputs used to determine capacity. Because you have an excess of one does not cancel out all of the others. Obviously it is your "expert opinion" that another "expert opinion" is not factual.
The 45M figure represents an arbitrary number that represents maximum efficiency. That number was previously significantly higher, but lowered to represent post-9/11 accommodations. Oodles of airports around the country are handling significantly more passengers than they were designed for. And the terminals themselves aren't capacity constrained, with over 100 gates accommodating approximately 420 peak departures -- representing among the lowest utilization of any large airport in the country.
Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 45): Another misnomer.....Airfares are not soaring. Adjusted for inflation....it has never been cheaper to fly in this country...
That's a strange thought process. For 2012, average airfares to/from Orlando will be up about $70 from their low point just several years ago, and that's not including ancillary fees -- e.g. $50 per person RT baggage fees -- that many travelers are faced with. Alas, nobody cares how much, adjusted for inflation, it use to fly to Orlando. They care merely about total trip cost, and with the cost of economy & mid-rang lodging, theme park tickets & rental cars rising at a clip significantly outpacing inflation, many will consider driving to save costs -- even if it hadn't cost them up to $500 more to fly to begin with. Orlando's among the cheapest places in the country to travel to/from, and as the denigration, more people will head to the roads -- which is happening at an accelerated pacing, per the article cited.
While there may be issues regarding security clearance wait times, as well as inefficiencies regarding international arrivals, there are certainly better ways to address them than what's being proposed.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10676 posts, RR: 100 Reply 52, posted (2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 732 times:
Normally I am in favor of airport expansion. However, I do not see the ROI (return on investment) for this terminal at this time. I'm all for planning for growth. But there is no need to start the bulldozers... yet.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 39): MCO has plenty of runway capacity and plenty of gate capacity.
For now I agree. Agreeing pains me as so many airports need capacity increases (e.g., my home airport LAX... so I use LGB.)
This sounds like a bureaucratic institution trying to justify its payroll. I'm sad MCO isn't expanding, but that is the economy. As much as I'd like justification to 'green light' a 'shovel ready' $2 billion dollar project, I see the money better not-spent for now.
irish From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 685 times:
What if they moved us to airside 1 with american. Put united at airside 4 and configure the old airtran gates for them. Tear down airside 3 and rebuild it as a internationals only.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jul 2006, 3513 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 751 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 309 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
