Pacific
Topic Author
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:01 pm

One of the biggest drawbacks of the Boeing 757-300 was the time it took to plane and deplane at the airport due to its length and the single-aisle nature of the aircraft. This got me thinking of the design of the airbridges in Amsterdam where the second airbridge actually goes over the wing to serve door 4 of the 747. If such airbridges can serve the front and rear doors of the 757-300, it would probably solve the problem. Heck, if door 3 was full-size, it would be the best as catering can use door 4 at the same time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nick de Jonge Photography



All this comes down to cost. Obviously, an over-wing airbridge would cost far more initial outlay but afterwards, are running costs (maintenance etc), similar? I'm going to go off in my fantasy world here but, *if* such gates were commonplace and *if* we get another long narrowbody design in the future, how much fuel will airlines save? The 757-300 is a good 30 tons lighter than the A300, which was built for similar missions.

Of course in a free-market world of privately run airports, the airport company would see no reason to build more expensive gates at the expense of MTOW-based landing fees...but it's great to imagine!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:05 pm

There's an easy answer to your question. All an airline has to do is use air stairs and have passengers walk on the ramp to the back of the airplane. It's somewhat common place to use two doors on a narrowbody in quick turn operations and this is usually done by airlines loading from the ground with stairs. Complicated jetbridges to meet the aft door and avoid the rear stabilizer are far too complicated in my opinion. A good old fashion stair will work presuming the airport allows it and passengers are willing to walk outside.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
bohica
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:42 pm

I know this would take up a lot of ramp space but in the good ole days at some airports, a 707 or DC8 would park parallel to the terminal and a jetway would be used on the front and rear doors. Realistically though, I don't see it happening ever again.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:00 am

Quoting bohica (Reply 2):
I know this would take up a lot of ramp space but in the good ole days at some airports, a 707 or DC8 would park parallel to the terminal and a jetway would be used on the front and rear doors.

That was common at ORD in the early years of jet service. Example below of TWA 707 with bridges connected to both front and rear doors.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matt Kluck



UA also had this group of gates at SFO in the 1960s with bridges to both front and rear doors. After their stretched DC-8-61s arrived I doubt they would have fit. The aircraft could taxi to and from these gates under their own power.

 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:34 am

Wasn't there a problem in DEN where an over-the-wing bridge gave way and damaged the wing of an aircraft?
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:12 am

The over wing jet bridge does seem a good idea but outside AMS I haven't seen it.





Even in the picture above it doesn't appear that any of the rear airbridges are connected.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
kalvado
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:37 pm

WN uses (used) overwing airbridge at some airports - a least at ALB; and I had a chance to actually use it.
It was same intent of faster turnaround, but I believe it turned out not cost effective.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:49 pm

Quoting Brenintw (Reply 4):
Wasn't there a problem in DEN where an over-the-wing bridge gave way and damaged the wing of an aircraft?

Yep- damaged a UAL 752.

United tested the over-wing bridges, but then ditched the project:

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_7324922
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
bohica
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:11 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
The over wing jet bridge does seem a good idea but outside AMS I haven't seen it.

They used to have them at the old terminal 4 in JFK. I never saw them in use though. They were removed when the terminal was rebuilt.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
Even in the picture above it doesn't appear that any of the rear airbridges are connected.

It looks like one is connected to the plane on the far left.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
UA also had this group of gates at SFO in the 1960s with bridges to both front and rear doors. After their stretched DC-8-61s arrived I doubt they would have fit. The aircraft could taxi to and from these gates under their own power.

I remember seeing that when I was a child in SFO. I looked in the database and sure enough they also parked the DC8-61 that way as well. I remember they had to tow the plane into the gate but they did power out.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla

 
YXD172
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:38 am

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:33 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):
All an airline has to do is use air stairs and have passengers walk on the ramp to the back of the airplane

Or, there's always ARN's combination of over-the-wing airbridge to stairs (for use with the DC-9 and MD-80s). They were designed to end in stairs down to the ramp, allowing passengers a short walk to the tail door of the aircraft.

This is the best picture I can find of it, you can see the stairs (the grey-walled ones with little portholes) behind the 2nd-4th aircraft (I'm not sure if these are in use anymore)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel and Robert Fall

Radial engines don't leak oil, they are just marking their territory!
 
User avatar
c172akula
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 1:53 pm

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:55 pm

Pier D at YYC had an overwing airbridge that WS tried out for a while. Don't know if it is still there or not. I should really look the next time I fly out of D.
 
YXD172
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:38 am

RE: Normal Airbridges Vs. Over-wing Airbridges (AMS)

Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:02 pm

Quoting C172Akula (Reply 10):
Pier D at YYC had an overwing airbridge that WS tried out for a while. Don't know if it is still there or not. I should really look the next time I fly out of D.

I know that the overwing half of it has been boarded up for a few years - to my disappointment the one time I boarded through that gate. I think last time I passed by that they'd taken it down completely, but I may be wrong. I guess it just didn't make that much of a difference? Or maybe the UA incident had something to do with it.
Radial engines don't leak oil, they are just marking their territory!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Grizzly410 and 23 guests