|Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):|
Overseas many facilities are owned and operated by the government on more common use basis with the funding coming often from central government coffers for facilities unlike the US where airline can each build or fund their individual facilities.
OLD: Munich - Riem (MUC / EDDM) (closed), Germany">MUC T2
was designed tailor-made for LH
's hub operation and is owned 45% by LH
. Still, the building has waaay too few contact gates with jetways to cater for all widebodies it is serving (at times), let alone for all mainline jets.
Using a remote stand (unfortunately) is the norm at LH T2
Even though traffic has risen to a level, where a satellite to T2
is now approved, it still will not add sufficient gates to cater for all mainline jets.
In the end it is a decision based on economy.
Extra terminal (concourse) area with contact gates is much (!) more expensive to create. Expenses that will need to be recovered via usage fees. OTOH, just pouring some concrete to create a remote stand is comparable cheap.
Ground support, OTOH, will be slightly more expensive at a remote stand, calculated on a aircraft by aircraft basis.
In the end, all such expenses will need to be factored in into the ticket price ...
Here in Europe, there is one example of LCC that prefers remote stands over using jetways: FR
. They claim that boarding is faster using front AND
aft door. Still, FR
sometimes (but seldom) uses jetways if mandated by the airport.
In the end, the use of jetways (or not) most often is an economical decision by the airline.
As long as the pax do not revolt and do come back again and again, use of remote stands appears to be acceptable.
In the U.S. direct competition on routes often is given, and any airline trying to lower the long-established standard for pax being able to board via jetways will see a hard time.
OTOH; here in Europe, pax are accustomed to using remote stands (some with bus transfer, some with walking to the terminal building), so expectations are different.
One example: Kirkenes is Northern Norway is not exactly the place with the warmest weather, but even though KKN is served by mainline jets of AND
Air Djibouti">DY and SK
regularly, it does not feature any jetways. Even in Norway with its high living standard it is considered to be uneconomical to invest in such a thing as a jetway, seeing that KKN served only 278 000 pax in 2009 - despite quite a chunk of them being cruise passengers for Hurtigruten that look for some pampering ...
But I do agree that it is not acceptable from a pax' point of view if intercontinental flights are required to use remote stands for deplaning and/or boarding on a regular base.
One other positive thing about using Jetways has not been mentioned yet: They reduce the risk of pax being able to run off on the tarmac / the apron, thus reducing the risk of security breaks.
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !