Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
babastud wrote:Great news! I posted some time back about sfo needed to get going with remote parking. Yes it's not the premium experience but it adds a little flavor to the travel experience and most important is it will hopefully aleave planes waiting for a gate which has been a growing problem due to the surging traffic.
rcair1 wrote:babastud wrote:Great news! I posted some time back about sfo needed to get going with remote parking. Yes it's not the premium experience but it adds a little flavor to the travel experience and most important is it will hopefully aleave planes waiting for a gate which has been a growing problem due to the surging traffic.
Maybe they could take the premium's to the plane in a Ferrari.... Sorry - forgot it is San Francisco - Tesla
babastud wrote:rcair1 wrote:babastud wrote:Great news! I posted some time back about sfo needed to get going with remote parking. Yes it's not the premium experience but it adds a little flavor to the travel experience and most important is it will hopefully aleave planes waiting for a gate which has been a growing problem due to the surging traffic.
Maybe they could take the premium's to the plane in a Ferrari.... Sorry - forgot it is San Francisco - Tesla
So True!
rcair1 wrote:babastud wrote:Great news! I posted some time back about sfo needed to get going with remote parking. Yes it's not the premium experience but it adds a little flavor to the travel experience and most important is it will hopefully aleave planes waiting for a gate which has been a growing problem due to the surging traffic.
Maybe they could take the premium's to the plane in a Ferrari.... Sorry - forgot it is San Francisco - Tesla
atcpeter wrote:it doesn't quite align with the premium passenger experience the airport tries to create.
atypical wrote:Busing passengers out to aircraft in the US has always struck me problematic due to ADA restrictions. ADA is one of the reasons I was always under the impression most airports could not effective use them The Plane-Mates used at Dulles were ADA compliant but a nightmare in upkeep and purchase expense. Are there any details on how ADA will be met in general and which SFO gates have elevators (assuming these gates will need them for wheelchair passengers). How are wheelchair passengers going to be lifted to AC door and does SFO currently have equipment supporting that ability. Last question, could this be apart of a set of remote isolated gates where passengers would have a waiting area, normal jetways, and the buses are for building to building transportation?
MaxxFlyer wrote:How do U.S.airports that don't have jet bridges load disabled pax?
winter wrote:At most European airports there's a vehicle akin to a catering truck that transports the ADA individual terminal-plane and then lifts up to plane level.
Aeri28 wrote:San Francisco is one of the most politically correct cities in the US. I'm sure they will be ADA compliant.winter wrote:At most European airports there's a vehicle akin to a catering truck that transports the ADA individual terminal-plane and then lifts up to plane level.
Slightly off topic, but there was a Kate Winslet film several years ago. She played an Australian woman running off to India to find herself. Her mother decides to go looking for her and bring her back. While there, the mother experiences so many India based issues with food, delhi belly, robbery, laced mago lassie and to top it off, she falls and breaks her leg. Kate brings her back to Australia and while at the airport in India (Calcutta I think, maybe Mumbai), her mother is being raised by one of those catering truck vehicles up to the rear door of the plane and awakens just as she is able to look up and see the Kangaroo on the aircraft tail and says "Thank God its Qantas".
winter wrote:At most European airports there's a vehicle akin to a catering truck that transports the ADA individual terminal-plane and then lifts up to plane level.
Aeri28 wrote:San Francisco is one of the most politically correct cities in the US. I'm sure they will be ADA compliant.
L1011 wrote:I have seen disabled passengers on inter-island flights at Molokai loaded with forklifts.
atcpeter wrote:
Some variation of one of these: http://www.kcigse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/027.JPG
That particular model can service B739 and smaller. I haven't seen that type at SFO, but a smaller type for E175/CRJ7 is already there.
The ramp length and angle, as well as the intermediate "landings" are designed to meet ADA criteria.
Now we wait and see which operators/aircraft types start using this. There are a few places in the terminals where secure-side elevators connect to the ramp (assuming you have the right badge to activate the elevator... it's not something a wayward pax would be able to do).
hayzel777 wrote:As long as the respective passenger pays the same facility fees and the respective airlines pays the same landing fees, then everyone gets to use the same facilities.I think all airlines that carry cattle(aka poor passengers on LCC/ULCC) should be forced to use remote boarding. It saves the premium experience for the people that paid for it and the cattle can suffer.
hayzel777 wrote:I think all airlines that carry cattle(aka poor passengers on LCC/ULCC) should be forced to use remote boarding. It saves the premium experience for the people that paid for it and the cattle can suffer.
hayzel777 wrote:I think all airlines that carry cattle(aka poor passengers on LCC/ULCC) should be forced to use remote boarding. It saves the premium experience for the people that paid for it and the cattle can suffer.
A2 wrote:I think the assignment of which airlines gets the remote stand should not be based solely on LCC/ULCC status. But rather it should be based on aircraft seat count. For example, to address the overcrowding in A and G gates, airlines operating narrow bodies such as COPA, AeroMexico, UA's Mexico flights should be assigned to remote stands. Also, during the mid-morning to afternoon rush hour on G, the B788 flights can be assigned remote stands. Doing so can minimize inconvenience to passengers and facilitate more efficient use of available gate spaces.
flyDTW1992 wrote:hayzel777 wrote:I think all airlines that carry cattle(aka poor passengers on LCC/ULCC) should be forced to use remote boarding. It saves the premium experience for the people that paid for it and the cattle can suffer.
Ha, wow.
Even if trolling, that's one of the most vile elitist comments I've seen on this site.
atcpeter wrote:MaxxFlyer wrote:How do U.S.airports that don't have jet bridges load disabled pax?
Some variation of one of these: http://www.kcigse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/027.JPG
That particular model can service B739 and smaller. I haven't seen that type at SFO, but a smaller type for E175/CRJ7 is already there.
The ramp length and angle, as well as the intermediate "landings" are designed to meet ADA criteria.
Now we wait and see which operators/aircraft types start using this. There are a few places in the terminals where secure-side elevators connect to the ramp (assuming you have the right badge to activate the elevator... it's not something a wayward pax would be able to do).
lydh wrote:Utility aside, remote stand bussing is such a trashy experience, and looks horrible for the airline as well.
MaxxFlyer wrote:lydh wrote:Utility aside, remote stand bussing is such a trashy experience, and looks horrible for the airline as well.
I assume you do not travel internationally very often. Remote stands are quite common.
MaxxFlyer wrote:lydh wrote:Utility aside, remote stand bussing is such a trashy experience, and looks horrible for the airline as well.
I assume you do not travel internationally very often. Remote stands are quite common.
spinkid wrote:I'm surprised this is even being discussed. Maybe I connected in IAD and have flown internationally so often, I never realized this was a problem. Taking a bus isn't much different than having to walk to the plane at an airport that doesn't use jet bridges and there are lots of places in the U.S. like that. I also prefer a bus, over waiting for a gate.
lydh wrote:MaxxFlyer wrote:lydh wrote:Utility aside, remote stand bussing is such a trashy experience, and looks horrible for the airline as well.
I assume you do not travel internationally very often. Remote stands are quite common.
You assume wrong. My dislike of remote stands has increased along with their ubiquity at airports around the world.
NichCage wrote:In the future, SFO will have a lot of problems and become even more congested. The International Terminal is very busy at certain hours of the day and the new international swing gates won't be added for a while. Boarding Area G is busy, while Boarding Area A is busy as well, along with the fact that several domestic airlines are taking up gate space due to the Terminal 1 re-construction. Along with the fact that SFO cannot expand by making more runways, separating the distance the runways have between them, as well as the problem of not being able to build any new Terminals, SFO will continue to get busier without major expansion plans.
atypical wrote:Busing passengers out to aircraft in the US has always struck me problematic due to ADA restrictions. ADA is one of the reasons I was always under the impression most airports could not effective use them The Plane-Mates used at Dulles were ADA compliant but a nightmare in upkeep and purchase expense. Are there any details on how ADA will be met in general and which SFO gates have elevators (assuming these gates will need them for wheelchair passengers). How are wheelchair passengers going to be lifted to AC door and does SFO currently have equipment supporting that ability. Last question, could this be apart of a set of remote isolated gates where passengers would have a waiting area, normal jetways, and the buses are for building to building transportation?
atypical wrote:NichCage wrote:In the future, SFO will have a lot of problems and become even more congested. The International Terminal is very busy at certain hours of the day and the new international swing gates won't be added for a while. Boarding Area G is busy, while Boarding Area A is busy as well, along with the fact that several domestic airlines are taking up gate space due to the Terminal 1 re-construction. Along with the fact that SFO cannot expand by making more runways, separating the distance the runways have between them, as well as the problem of not being able to build any new Terminals, SFO will continue to get busier without major expansion plans.
SFO could build more terminals if the Airport Commission can make a gutsy move and not renew the lease for the United Maintenance base. There is enough room to increase the number of gates by at least 50%. Room isn't the issue, backbone is.
In all fairness SFO has issues other airports do not. It has absolutely no ability to acquire additional property, even purchasing it at double the market rates. The only way to increase acreage is to reclaim from the bay which is highly unlikely with the bay area political climate.
atypical wrote:In all fairness SFO has issues other airports do not. It has absolutely no ability to acquire additional property, even purchasing it at double the market rates. The only way to increase acreage is to reclaim from the bay which is highly unlikely with the bay area political climate.
hayzel777 wrote:atypical wrote:NichCage wrote:In the future, SFO will have a lot of problems and become even more congested. The International Terminal is very busy at certain hours of the day and the new international swing gates won't be added for a while. Boarding Area G is busy, while Boarding Area A is busy as well, along with the fact that several domestic airlines are taking up gate space due to the Terminal 1 re-construction. Along with the fact that SFO cannot expand by making more runways, separating the distance the runways have between them, as well as the problem of not being able to build any new Terminals, SFO will continue to get busier without major expansion plans.
SFO could build more terminals if the Airport Commission can make a gutsy move and not renew the lease for the United Maintenance base. There is enough room to increase the number of gates by at least 50%. Room isn't the issue, backbone is.
In all fairness SFO has issues other airports do not. It has absolutely no ability to acquire additional property, even purchasing it at double the market rates. The only way to increase acreage is to reclaim from the bay which is highly unlikely with the bay area political climate.
We will see how the market is in 2023. Until then, United is stuck there. U can also just remove the cargo facility and catering building right next to G and extend in down.
nikeson13 wrote:SFO is kinda in a tight spot, but they got to figure out something soon to keep ahead of demand cause that little extension they want to do along the BART rail line from Int. G won't do much. Brought up the possibility of remote stands in another thread, great to see them possibly going through with this.
intotheair wrote:nikeson13 wrote:SFO is kinda in a tight spot, but they got to figure out something soon to keep ahead of demand cause that little extension they want to do along the BART rail line from Int. G won't do much. Brought up the possibility of remote stands in another thread, great to see them possibly going through with this.
Just a minor correction — it's the AirTrain that SFO wants to extend, not the BART line. They are two separate systems. SFO operates the AirTrain and wants to extend it to the long term parking lot to the north, as well as loop it into the proposed hotel project.
nikeson13 wrote:Sorry i may have been unclear, but i was talking about the extension of terminal G to add 3 more wide body gates ALONG the BART line, which can be seen here.http://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/Design_and_Construction_Presentation%2004-07-16.pdf
Also, didn't notice this last time looking at the document but it seems that if there were any bus gates, they would be G91 and A2. Seems like the most logical since G91 is in that hard corner as well as A2. It also looks like they're gonna take out some of that parking near A8/10 and realign McDonnell Road to make room for up to 3 777 parking spots.