Airport Mistakes

blockski · Tue May 30, 2023 1:03 am

capejet wrote:
What about Dulles International and those mobile lounges? I guess I should have researched the reason for them before I criticize, however it seems like a new airport built back in the 1960s with lots of land available to plan, could have been done a lot better.

Dulles was planned at the dawn of the jet age, but before the invention of the jet bridge.

They got a lot of things right: plenty of space; the basic airfield has been efficient and effective for 60 years.

But the thinking at the time was that the mobile lounge would be the new standard, which was clearly not how things worked out. And since then, IAD had this fleet of mobile lounges and found ways to use them for all sorts of tasks.

bobd6 · Tue May 30, 2023 1:03 am

I'm sure other airports suffer from this, but no inter-terminal airside transit at ORD is a big mistake.

santi319 · Tue May 30, 2023 1:23 am

SurfandSnow wrote:
santi319 wrote:
FLL airport has definetly got to be there. In construction for at least 15+ years, only to be at max capacity again. Every holiday their parking lot has to close due to maximum capacity (even Mother’s Day lol).

Its the only airport in the world where you have to wait for customs INSIDE THE PLANE, sometimes for 1 hour or more.

FLL is indeed absolutely awful, but to be fair, I did have to wait in line for customs in the aisle of a UA 757 (and then a stuffy jetway) after arriving at TXL from EWR. Though we had pushed back on time, summertime congestion at EWR meant we sat for about an hour before actually taking off for Berlin. The flight was an awfully long ride in a narrowbody from the U.S., and then once we finally pulled up to the Cold War-era hexagonal terminal (with two tiny customs booths adjacent to the jetway), it was probably about an hour wait before it was my turn to exit the gate and enter Germany.

Well you just compared FLL to TXL so that speaks loads about my point earlier in regards to FLL… lol

SQfan1 · Tue May 30, 2023 1:32 am

DEN has had a few:
1. Automated luggage system
2. Remember the toll plaza on Pena Blvd several miles from the terminal when the airport opened in 1995? It was a total fiasco and was subsequently removed.
3. Lack of pedestrian tunnel paralleling the transit system

bfitzflyer · Tue May 30, 2023 1:34 am

DEN and no walkways next to the trains like ATL.

bohica · Tue May 30, 2023 2:04 am

TNT - This was supposed to be the new Miami International Airport. It was going to be the airport of the future designed as a hub for supersonic transports. It was located in the middle of the Everglades far away from civilization. The project got cancelled after one runway was built.

dennypayne · Tue May 30, 2023 2:53 am

Yellowbird295 wrote:
CLT has been an ongoing nighmare for a long time. No passenger access to Terminal A. Only three TSA checkpoints. The road construction is never ending and seems to get worse daily.

I’d only connected though CLT before, and that’s bad enough. The airside food court is about the only bright spot. Typically I’m slogging all the way from E to B or C after a longer taxi time than the flight from my origin city.

But 2 weeks ago I went to CLT for business and not only did I get the interminable taxi time, and the long slog from the end of E, but man the pre-security side is a total dump. Terrible signage to get to baggage claim and rental cars. Chaos at check-in with nowhere to put security checkpoint lines, so they spill over and block access to the check-in desks. It was a miserable experience for sure.

zachary165 · Tue May 30, 2023 3:16 am

bobd6 wrote:
I'm sure other airports suffer from this, but no inter-terminal airside transit at ORD is a big mistake.

The terminal transfer bus recently reopened. I haven't used it yet because by the time I walk from C6 to B1, wait up to 15 minutes, and then ride the bus to K20, only then to have to walk to L24, I could've walked the distance in less time. It's "only" a little over a mile.

Now it is DEFINITELY useful connecting to T5 which is the primary purpose anyways

https://www.flychicago.com/ohare/Servic ... s/tbt.aspx

KMCOFlyer · Tue May 30, 2023 3:31 am

phatfarmlines wrote:
billreid wrote:
A few years back I worked at PIA airprt in Illinois and warned good airline relations were needed to grow airservice. Instead they were more interested in providing free parking and not courting the airlines. When DL pulled but maintaining service in Bloomimgton the wiseness threw a chill in the communities base.

The point of this thread is to bring up discussions about when airports just aren’t on the right page with different aspects of the business environment.

From real estate perspectives:

TPA: Not rebuilding Airside B as a passenger facility.

MCO: Not building the 3rd wing at Airside 2 even though the GOAA should have figured out by now how to ensure no ILS interference occurs with runway 17R (its been a 20+ years affair). Also, removing CBP facilities at Airside 1.

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

BoeingG · Tue May 30, 2023 3:53 am

1. St. Helena (FHSH). The airfield's proneness to wind shear was underestimated in its planning phase and has prevented frequent commercial service to the island (e.g., by Comair).
2. Carlisle Lake District Airport (EGNC). Its new passenger terminal was inaugurated in July 2019 and hosted the first scheduled passenger flights since 1993. This service, operated by Loganair, was suspended mere months later owing to the pandemic. The airport has been without commercial service ever since and will be for the foreseeable future.

Velocirapture · Tue May 30, 2023 3:58 am

SQfan1 wrote:
DEN has had a few:
1. Automated luggage system
2. Remember the toll plaza on Pena Blvd several miles from the terminal when the airport opened in 1995? It was a total fiasco and was subsequently removed.
3. Lack of pedestrian tunnel paralleling the transit system

1. DEN refused to implement the changes the system needed - i.e., humans in the system at key points - because the biggest tenant wouldn't hear of it. The concept was overly far reaching for it's time and other mistakes were made that could have been corrected.

2. "Total fiasco" is an understatement.

3. Denver was told - warned - over and over and over again about this mistake and they just wouldn't hear of it. The mistakes in the current Great Hall Project remind me of that.

Planeboy17 · Tue May 30, 2023 4:43 am

Can’t believe that no one has mentioned STL. Tearing down hundreds of houses and building a 4th runway which turned out to be basically useless with the collapse of TWA.
One could also put BLV ( Belleville, IL ) in this category.

B6twufa · Tue May 30, 2023 4:47 am

KMCOFlyer wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:
billreid wrote:
A few years back I worked at PIA airprt in Illinois and warned good airline relations were needed to grow airservice. Instead they were more interested in providing free parking and not courting the airlines. When DL pulled but maintaining service in Bloomimgton the wiseness threw a chill in the communities base.

The point of this thread is to bring up discussions about when airports just aren’t on the right page with different aspects of the business environment.

From real estate perspectives:

TPA: Not rebuilding Airside B as a passenger facility.

MCO: Not building the 3rd wing at Airside 2 even though the GOAA should have figured out by now how to ensure no ILS interference occurs with runway 17R (its been a 20+ years affair). Also, removing CBP facilities at Airside 1.

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

Terminal C is a big failure. Everything was an after thought:

No elevators to go to customs;

Carpets in the ramp to go UP to customs (heard of a skycap getting seriously injured pushing a large customer up the ramp with the carpet);

No employee parking (although it is supposed to be finished this upcoming month or July);

Baggage claim built upstairs so passengers "could see the Orlando Skyline" when the skyline is BEHIND the terminal;

No moving walkways, the terminal is ridiculously long, especially for limited-mobility passengers;

No waiting areas for crews to sit down behind the gates like in all other Airsides;

Use of carpet instead of tiles for easy rolling of roller boards on the marathon walk to Customs from C230.
GOAA needs to learn from the failures of Terminal C and improve the alleged new expansion and alleged new Terminal D.

bols59 · Tue May 30, 2023 4:56 am

capejet wrote:
What about Dulles International and those mobile lounges? I guess I should have researched the reason for them before I criticize, however it seems like a new airport built back in the 1960s with lots of land available to plan, could have been done a lot better.

On 5 July 1985 I flew SEA - IAD on NW. When I stood up after the mobile lounge arrived at the terminal there was a black stain of something like roadway tar on my trousers. Last time I ever wore white when I flew.

crownvic · Tue May 30, 2023 5:00 am

LAS - After God knows how many years, they "shoehorn" most of the passenger vehicles into the T1 arrivals/departures areas causing daily chaos, while those same airlines (Delta and AA) are much closer to T3. Meanwhile, the T3 arrivals/departures area is completely underutilized and has been for many years. Inquiries to the airport for many, many years leave you more confused than before you asked why they do this!

WkndWanderer · Tue May 30, 2023 5:40 am

BoeingG wrote:
1. St. Helena (FHSH). The airfield's proneness to wind shear was underestimated in its planning phase and has prevented frequent commercial service to the island (e.g., by Comair).
2. Carlisle Lake District Airport (EGNC). Its new passenger terminal was inaugurated in July 2019 and hosted the first scheduled passenger flights since 1993. This service, operated by Loganair, was suspended mere months later owing to the pandemic. The airport has been without commercial service ever since and will be for the foreseeable future.

An interesting mini-documentary about St. Helena airport.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-QejUTDCWw

zrs70 · Tue May 30, 2023 5:43 am

LAX. The monies poured into the new transit system has translated to a fiasco in the traffic pattern.

They really should have created an Atlanta style Terminal complete between the runways.

Airdolomiti · Tue May 30, 2023 8:52 am

Someone mentioned BER a few posts back. I think it is a good airport that suffers from being essentially a 1990s design that opened in a 2020s reality.

For one, there is little space between check-in and security, and in general there are a number of structural bottlenecks that won't be easy to solve without some significant remodelling. The narrow stairs and inexplicably low number of escalators are another example: there would have been ample space for more, especially between the railway station and the mezzanine. Yet there are NO downward-moving escalators to the railway platforms, resulting in masses of people dragging their luggage down the stairs (good luck using the lifts), only to find themselves on a platform with huge pillars that create narrow passageways close to departing trains.
In terms of long-term expansion, the BER masterplan provides for satellite buildings in front of Terminal 1. But no plans were made for an underground tunnel, so - if they build the satellites, and that's a big "if" - it remains to be seen how they would be connected to the main building.
On the other hand, while I would like to see an extension of the U7 underground line, I think BER is fairly well accessible by rail: depending on where in the city you need to go, it can take as little as 16 to 30 minutes to get there, and at €4.00 for a single ride it compares favourably to other airport rail links.

An airport that had a bumpy start in terms of rail and road accessibility is MXP.

When the new terminal opened in 1999, major road links had not yet been completed (or even started). The rail link to Cadorna station was seen as less desirable than a direct service to Milan's central station, and in general MXP was perceived to be in the middle of nowhere. The situation has changed for the better since then, but there is room for improvement.
For some reason, the non-stop services were axed a few years ago, meaning that all services call at a minimum of 3 stations on the way to MXP - yet the Malpensa Express still commands a premium price of €13.00 one-way (a regular train ticket on a similar distance would be somewhere in the region of €6.00-7.00). Frequency is OK when departing from MXP, with a train to Milan every 15 minutes, but when departing from Milan you may have to wait up to 30 minutes as departures alternate between Cadorna and Centrale stations.
Aside from accessibility, the decision not to close LIN at the time meant that MXP - or, to be more precise, the ambition for MXP to become a major hub - was doomed to fail. LIN is simply too conveniently located for O/D traffic. Attempts to limit its utilisation have essentially been abandoned and it appears it will continue to thrive, especially with the recently-opened underground link, which will soon be extended to central Milan with journey times of under 15 minutes. At just €2.20 for a single ride, it's going to be a bargain compared to MXP.

OzarkD9S · Tue May 30, 2023 9:05 am

Planeboy17 wrote:

Can’t believe that no one has mentioned STL. Tearing down hundreds of houses and building a 4th runway which turned out to be basically useless with the collapse of TWA.
One could also put BLV ( Belleville, IL ) in this category.

STL is more a case of not having a crystal ball. The runway was absolutely needed during the hub days as the original parallels were too close together when weather conditions went south. I've landed/taken off on the new runway many times when flying DL or UA as Concourse A is closer to the new runway under certain arrival/departure conditions. It's not truly "needed" now, but it's built, handy to have and does get used regularly. BLV...it has come into it's own more or less, and handy for those pax in the Metro East/Southern Illinois.

vhtje · Tue May 30, 2023 9:16 am

This thread is very US-centric. That's normal for airliners.net, yes, but it is pertinent to remember in this thread, the economic model for airports is different in the US to most of the rest of the world. The US has resisted airport privatisation and the majority of airports are owned and run by the city in which they are located. That's not the case in Europe, for example, where airports are usually owned by investment consortia, who blatantly abuse their market dominance and focus on revenue.

It means that airports operate differently in Europe to the United States. In the US, thankfully, the focus remains on processing passengers. In Europe, the focus is on getting £€$ out of passengers' wallets. For example, at Heathrow, you have to go through a labyrinth of shops before you can get to your gate. Another one: did you know Heathrow has monetised their lost property service? Leave something at Heathrow, and you'll need to pay a service charge to recover it.

Personally, I think privatisation of airports is a huge mistake. It doesn't serve the passenger well. So, I'd say privatisation is an Airport Mistake.

factsonly · Tue May 30, 2023 9:27 am

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
Do European airports count too?
If so...AMS often lets planes from major international carriers such SIA, UA, AA, CPA disembark on ridiculously far away remote stands.

To blame AMS management for this is a bit rich, as a new 'A' pier should have been operational in 2019 for non-SKYTEAM carriers. Due to building delays remote parking is a seasonal operational ground handling decision based on costs and priorities and has little to do with airport management.

For this 'airport mistakes' thread it would have been more appropriate to name the 5-year delay of the new 'A' pier that is currently under construction.
This pier was supposed to add 7x new widebody gates in 2019, to stop what you call 'ridiculous' remote parking of UA, AA, SQ and CPA.

The new pier has been delayed as the Turkish TAV / Ballast Nedam construction company has pulled out of the project and AMS had to find a completely new builder half-way through the construction. The new Pier was supposed to open in 2019, but is now scheduled in 2024. AMS has a Euro 300 million claim outstanding with TAV/Ballast Nedam to cover damages resulting from the construction delays.
It is unclear to what extend the AMS management can be blamed for the construction difficulties experienced by TAV/Ballast Nedam.

So I would argue that AMS Management knew very well about the 'ridiculous' remote parking, took appropriate decisions, but suffered external problems that forced its hand.

https://www.schiphol.nl/en/projects/pag ... -new-pier/

Sancho99504 · Tue May 30, 2023 1:27 pm

airportgeek wrote:
Well off the top of my head,

SEA - The international facilities upgrade is such a massive fiasco. Even if the contractor was wrong, the Port should've caught it long before it completed. Going to litigation is not a good look for anyone. The airport at large doesn't have enough hardstands, particularly widebodies, but also hasn't committed to really address the issue. The design of the airfield is also very questionable. There's only one taxiway parallel to the 16R/34L runway next to the terminal side that is wide enough for widebodies. This same taxiway is also one that aircraft push into from the terminal. Lots of layout/capacity issues that are probably expensive to fix, but should have still been addressed long ago. Again, Seattle is a growing city, so these issues really should have been dealt with a while back.

Pushing back from B and C along Taxiway Bravo aren't pushed onto Bravo. The area between Bravo and the respective ramps for B and C could carry an additional taxiway but would have restrictions during widebody operations, so that's where aircraft that are pushed off of B1, 3, 5, 5A, 7, 7A and 9 plus QX C gates, into that area. This generally doesn't cause any disruptions unless there is a lot of taxiway congestion when there is a large bank pushing.

EBiafore99 · Tue May 30, 2023 3:04 pm

I'm not sure it's fair to call some airport items "mistakes". At the time projects were done, some made complete sense to do. For example:

1. Someone mentioned the DTW C Concourse and the pod-like gates - the terminal was built for PMNW and that's what NW wanted. In the NW heyday, all those C gates were filled with CR2 planes. Recent events have caused CR2 flights to diminish, but that doesn't make the C Concourse a mistake.

2. Someone mentioned the STL additional runway - when it was being planned, STL was a major hub airport and before the new runway, weather could force the delay or cancellation of 1/2 of the flights. Given the length of time to plan and build a new runway, no one could have known the fate of TWA soon afterward.

Don't get me wrong, there have been airport mistakes, but in many cases, it's changes in economics and/or aviation after the project was completed.

FLALEFTY · Tue May 30, 2023 5:15 pm

B6twufa wrote:
KMCOFlyer wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:

From real estate perspectives:

TPA: Not rebuilding Airside B as a passenger facility.

MCO: Not building the 3rd wing at Airside 2 even though the GOAA should have figured out by now how to ensure no ILS interference occurs with runway 17R (its been a 20+ years affair). Also, removing CBP facilities at Airside 1.

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

Terminal C is a big failure. Everything was an after thought:
No elevators to go to customs;
Carpets in the ramp to go UP to customs (heard of a skycap getting seriously injured pushing a large customer up the ramp with the carpet);
No employee parking (although it is supposed to be finished this upcoming month or July);
Baggage claim built upstairs so passengers "could see the Orlando Skyline" when the skyline is BEHIND the terminal;
No moving walkways, the terminal is ridiculously long, especially for limited-mobility passengers;
No waiting areas for crews to sit down behind the gates like in all other Airsides;
Use of carpet instead of tiles for easy rolling of roller boards on the marathon walk to Customs from C230.

GOAA needs to learn from the failures of Terminal C and improve the alleged new expansion and alleged new Terminal D.

The South Terminal C at MCO was a case of having a design that valued form over function. Yes, it is a pretty terminal, but the human factors engineering mistakes have led to lots of grumbling by the traveling public. However, most of the problems listed above can be fixed, provided more funding can be found to address them. I hope this happens prior to going full-speed adding on the southern terminal leg that matches the existing one.

As for the "Orlando Skyline" view from C's baggage claim, it is pretty much a "meh!" since the downtown Orlando has few skyscrapers. Otherwise visitors will see the flat terrain of Orlando & South Orange County, plus the expanse of low-rise office and warehouse buildings that surround the airport.

MohawkWeekend · Tue May 30, 2023 5:52 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
Planeboy17 wrote:

Can’t believe that no one has mentioned STL. Tearing down hundreds of houses and building a 4th runway which turned out to be basically useless with the collapse of TWA.
One could also put BLV ( Belleville, IL ) in this category.

STL is more a case of not having a crystal ball. The runway was absolutely needed during the hub days as the original parallels were too close together when weather conditions went south. I've landed/taken off on the new runway many times when flying DL or UA as Concourse A is closer to the new runway under certain arrival/departure conditions. It's not truly "needed" now, but it's built, handy to have and does get used regularly. BLV...it has come into it's own more or less, and handy for those pax in the Metro East/Southern Illinois.

CLE , PIT and STL all made the same mistake. They believed that their hub airline was going to stick around and create even more jobs if only the airport made the improvements the airline wanted. CLE even bought property to build a third parallel runway that thank god was never built.

And when things changed, the cities were left holding the bag

What they should have done was figured some way to pass that risk on to the market. How I'm not sure - surety bonds or an insurance policy for performance perhaps?

At least STL was able to recover $790 million from the NFL and the Rams owner who skipped on the stadium they built for him.

KMCOFlyer · Tue May 30, 2023 5:59 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
B6twufa wrote:
KMCOFlyer wrote:

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

Terminal C is a big failure. Everything was an after thought:
No elevators to go to customs;
Carpets in the ramp to go UP to customs (heard of a skycap getting seriously injured pushing a large customer up the ramp with the carpet);
No employee parking (although it is supposed to be finished this upcoming month or July);
Baggage claim built upstairs so passengers "could see the Orlando Skyline" when the skyline is BEHIND the terminal;
No moving walkways, the terminal is ridiculously long, especially for limited-mobility passengers;
No waiting areas for crews to sit down behind the gates like in all other Airsides;
Use of carpet instead of tiles for easy rolling of roller boards on the marathon walk to Customs from C230.

GOAA needs to learn from the failures of Terminal C and improve the alleged new expansion and alleged new Terminal D.

The South Terminal C at MCO was a case of having a design that valued form over function. Yes, it is a pretty terminal, but the human factors engineering mistakes have led to lots of grumbling by the traveling public. However, most of the problems listed above can be fixed, provided more funding can be found to address them. I hope this happens prior to going full-speed adding on the southern terminal leg that matches the existing one.

As for the "Orlando Skyline" view from C's baggage claim, it is pretty much a "meh!" since the downtown Orlando has few skyscrapers. Otherwise visitors will see the flat terrain of Orlando & South Orange County, plus the expanse of low-rise office and warehouse buildings that surround the airport.

The entire history behind Cs development has been interesting. The project had been in MCOs master plans since the early 2000s but when GOAA went forward with design/construction in 2013-2015, almost all the major carriers at MCO (DL, AA, WN) were opposed to its construction as during that timeframe MCO was underutilized with empty gates as NK and F9 hadn’t exploded into what they are today. Then during COVID, GOAA wasn’t sure how much traffic would rebound so they cut quite a few projects out of the C construction budget to save cost (items like moving sidewalks). In hindsight it was good GOAA ignored the big 3 that were opposed to its development as it definitely was needed with the ever growing passenger numbers but COVID cost cutting + being forced to give the Terminal to B6 due to everyone else being opposed to it has left it in an awkward spot. I think ideally GOAA should have made the new Terminal C the SkyTeam terminal (DL, VS, AM, and WS + a few other random carriers) which would have easily allowed NK and B6 to co-locate together in Airside 4 with FIS gate access. If the B6/NK merger goes through, it’s unlikely there will be enough space for both carriers to relocate together in C if they keep their 200+ daily flight goal by 2027 unless Phase 2 construction is accelerated ASAP.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2013/03/16/airport-may-expand-despite-closed-lightly-used-gates/

stewartg · Tue May 30, 2023 6:51 pm

vhtje wrote:
This thread is very US-centric. That's normal for airliners.net, yes, but it is pertinent to remember in this thread, the economic model for airports is different in the US to most of the rest of the world. The US has resisted airport privatisation and the majority of airports are owned and run by the city in which they are located. That's not the case in Europe, for example, where airports are usually owned by investment consortia, who blatantly abuse their market dominance and focus on revenue.

It means that airports operate differently in Europe to the United States. In the US, thankfully, the focus remains on processing passengers. In Europe, the focus is on getting £€$ out of passengers' wallets. For example, at Heathrow, you have to go through a labyrinth of shops before you can get to your gate. Another one: did you know Heathrow has monetised their lost property service? Leave something at Heathrow, and you'll need to pay a service charge to recover it.

Personally, I think privatisation of airports is a huge mistake. It doesn't serve the passenger well. So, I'd say privatisation is an Airport Mistake.

Which is quite ironic because the US is "the" capitalist country whereby Europe is more "socialist" oriented. They have done a good job with modernizing train stations; why has it not followed thru to airports?

stewartg · Tue May 30, 2023 7:00 pm

Lets separate airports with new or upgraded latent design defects as opposed to outdated airports due to industry or market modernization and growth (mobile lounges, inter-terminal connection).

Halfan · Tue May 30, 2023 7:13 pm

I think a big issue has been the new High D gates in PHX for Southwest. The city failed to add a moving walkway from TSA at the low D gates to new High D. When you add the time, it can take almost 20 minutes to walk from the High C gates, to High D. In-between every other gates in PHX, have a moving walkway. I think it was a terrible decision to not have one.

william · Tue May 30, 2023 7:16 pm

KMCOFlyer wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:
billreid wrote:
A few years back I worked at PIA airprt in Illinois and warned good airline relations were needed to grow airservice. Instead they were more interested in providing free parking and not courting the airlines. When DL pulled but maintaining service in Bloomimgton the wiseness threw a chill in the communities base.

The point of this thread is to bring up discussions about when airports just aren’t on the right page with different aspects of the business environment.

From real estate perspectives:

TPA: Not rebuilding Airside B as a passenger facility.

MCO: Not building the 3rd wing at Airside 2 even though the GOAA should have figured out by now how to ensure no ILS interference occurs with runway 17R (its been a 20+ years affair). Also, removing CBP facilities at Airside 1.

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

Why was Airside One closed down?

brn2Bwld92 · Tue May 30, 2023 7:44 pm

CVG's design of international arrivals for destination flyers is lengthy. Have to deplane, collect checked bags, go through passport control and customs, re-check checked bag, and go through TSA, travel from concourse B to terminal, and then re-collect bag at the regular bag claim just to get to the ground transport area to get a rental car, parking lot, taxi, etc. Most other international airports have a way for you to avoid having to clear TSA security if you're a destination passenger.

sircygnus · Tue May 30, 2023 8:19 pm

How about future airports? The airport idea that just won't die, Peotone, south of Chicago. Pitched as having a large cargo presence, despite capacity at GYY and RFD, this boondoggle seems to always avoid the final nail in its coffin. Shows what some influential politicians are good for

dcaproducer · Tue May 30, 2023 8:42 pm

EBiafore99 wrote:

2. Someone mentioned the STL additional runway - when it was being planned, STL was a major hub airport and before the new runway, weather could force the delay or cancellation of 1/2 of the flights. Given the length of time to plan and build a new runway, no one could have known the fate of TWA soon afterward.

Don't get me wrong, there have been airport mistakes, but in many cases, it's changes in economics and/or aviation after the project was completed.

This has been brought up time and time again by people who don’t understand the logistics of STL in the 90’s and the plan to build the runway were well underway when TWA collapsed and the AA hub even lasted a few years.

As a native of STL, I remember the mid to late 90’s, the delays and long takeoff lines at STL were terrible. Many people forget STL saw 31-million passengers in the late 90’s/2000.

Also, the airline industry was very unstable through the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s. There was no sure way to tell which airline would be around. They all went in and out of bankruptcy. STL has the concourses it has today because of TW.

Airports plan for long term future, not just current conditions. STL is working on building an entirely new terminal.

I’m not saying STL airport management and decision making is perfect, far from it, but to say the runway was a mistake doesn’t take the entire project into context or it’s timing.

alasizon · Tue May 30, 2023 8:45 pm

Halfan wrote:
I think a big issue has been the new High D gates in PHX for Southwest. The city failed to add a moving walkway from TSA at the low D gates to new High D. When you add the time, it can take almost 20 minutes to walk from the High C gates, to High D. In-between every other gates in PHX, have a moving walkway. I think it was a terrible decision to not have one.

If it takes 20 minutes that means you'd have to be walking very slow.

Its ~2,900 feet between C18 and D18 assuming you use no moving walkways. For it to take 20 minutes, that would be an average speed of 1.7mph (half of average walking speed) and slower than just standing on the moving walkways (which operate at 2.1 mph). At average walking speed (3.5 mph), it would take about 10 minutes. The concourse design doesn't allow for a moving walkway (beyond a very short one) because of the way the concessions were fit in to the concourse and the N2>S2 connection. A 175'-200' moving walkway likely would have looked out of place.

The bigger issue with the the new S4 concourse is the fact you can't use all eight gates at once...

vatveng · Tue May 30, 2023 9:21 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
WkndWanderer wrote:
PHF invested in an expansion during the AirTran days only to have WN pull out after the merger and then have a shiny new concourse with no one to use it. The airport then got caught up in the PeopleExpress relaunch debacle, and eventually dwindled to only having US left.

AA, not US, but yes, the 3x daily to CLT on PDT is all that's left. There's also a rumor that the tower may be contracted out as part of the FAA Contract Tower Program, so that means that it would no longer be staffed by FAA controllers. There are certainly plenty of contracted towers with higher levels of commercial operations, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. That would be a big hit for the airport and kind of complete the fall from grace. It's a shame, because 15-20 years ago, it was a fantastic little airport to fly in and out from. It's a lot of infrastructure to keep running for 150 seats a day when ORF isn't far away...neither is RIC, for that matter.

It may be that the amount of GA traffic at PHF, and its close proximity to Langley AFB, has so far warranted continuing to staff the tower there.

PHF is another case of not having a crystal ball. When they built the new concourse, PHF was the third fastest growing airport in the country. They had recovered from the 2008 recession and were breaking traffic records just about every month.

It's hard to call the expansion a mistake, just the worst timing ever. The mistake came from hitching their wagon to the PeoplExpress trainwreck. That truly poisoned the well.

KMCOFlyer · Tue May 30, 2023 9:32 pm

william wrote:
KMCOFlyer wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:

From real estate perspectives:

TPA: Not rebuilding Airside B as a passenger facility.

MCO: Not building the 3rd wing at Airside 2 even though the GOAA should have figured out by now how to ensure no ILS interference occurs with runway 17R (its been a 20+ years affair). Also, removing CBP facilities at Airside 1.

Any future expansion at MCO will come from Terminal C (and possibly a future D but I doubt that will be needed anytime soon). The North Terminal A/B is already beyond its useful capacity so not having an extra 8-9 gates built might have been a blessing in disguise. Closing down Airside 1 CBP was dumb as NK now has flights arriving/departing from 3 different airsides but then again it’s not the end of the world and doesn’t prevent NK from expanding.

Why was Airside One closed down?

CBP didn’t want to staff 3 different FIS checkpoints so the Airside 1 facility was closed and all of its flights were moved to 4 or Terminal C.

stewartg · Tue May 30, 2023 11:04 pm

brn2Bwld92 wrote:
CVG's design of international arrivals for destination flyers is lengthy. Have to deplane, collect checked bags, go through passport control and customs, re-check checked bag, and go through TSA, travel from concourse B to terminal, and then re-collect bag at the regular bag claim just to get to the ground transport area to get a rental car, parking lot, taxi, etc. Most other international airports have a way for you to avoid having to clear TSA security if you're a destination passenger.

ATL is exactly the same for destination pax, isn't it?

DTWLAX · Wed May 31, 2023 2:05 am

stewartg wrote:
brn2Bwld92 wrote:
CVG's design of international arrivals for destination flyers is lengthy. Have to deplane, collect checked bags, go through passport control and customs, re-check checked bag, and go through TSA, travel from concourse B to terminal, and then re-collect bag at the regular bag claim just to get to the ground transport area to get a rental car, parking lot, taxi, etc. Most other international airports have a way for you to avoid having to clear TSA security if you're a destination passenger.

ATL is exactly the same for destination pax, isn't it?

It was, at least until Concourse F opened. I do not know how things are now.

Vctony · Wed May 31, 2023 2:24 am

alasizon wrote:
Halfan wrote:
I think a big issue has been the new High D gates in PHX for Southwest. The city failed to add a moving walkway from TSA at the low D gates to new High D. When you add the time, it can take almost 20 minutes to walk from the High C gates, to High D. In-between every other gates in PHX, have a moving walkway. I think it was a terrible decision to not have one.

If it takes 20 minutes that means you'd have to be walking very slow.

Its ~2,900 feet between C18 and D18 assuming you use no moving walkways. For it to take 20 minutes, that would be an average speed of 1.7mph (half of average walking speed) and slower than just standing on the moving walkways (which operate at 2.1 mph). At average walking speed (3.5 mph), it would take about 10 minutes. The concourse design doesn't allow for a moving walkway (beyond a very short one) because of the way the concessions were fit in to the concourse and the N2>S2 connection. A 175'-200' moving walkway likely would have looked out of place.

The bigger issue with the the new S4 concourse is the fact you can't use all eight gates at once...

PHX has made a lot of "mistakes" recently.

1.) For an airport that seems to be trying to attract (and is attracting) a lot of growth, the consolidation of Terminal 2 into a slightly larger Terminal 3 has been a "mistake." Terminal 3 is bursting at the seams and it seems that they could've kept Terminal 2 around for a while longer until further expansion of Terminal 3 and Terminal 4 were complete.
2.) The Terminal 3 "modernization" program seems like adding a bit of "lipstick on a pig". The Terminal 3 south concourse is probably the only concourse in the entire airport that looks like what a modern airport concourse looks like (along with maybe S2 at Terminal 4). The rest of the terminal modernization is just window dressing of an outdated facility and a centralized security checkpoint.
3.) Leasing out S1 to WN. While Terminal 3 is bursting at the seams the new landside capacity was leased to WN who is essentially just sitting on it. Whether or not they can only use 6 or 8 gates at once WN hasn't added any meaningful capacity to the airport over the last year that it has had access to those gates. They would've been better off leasing those gates to someone like F9 who actually wants to grow in Phoenix or making those gates CUTE so that AA can use them during AA's peak periods.
4.) They opened S1 without any permanent concessions and to this day it seems like very little work has been done on the permanent concessions. The entire concourse is a joke.

Honestly, PHX is an embarrassment of a facility for the volume it handles. Outside of T3S and S2 (and maybe S1) the airports concourses are crowded, narrow and not designed for the gauge of aircraft that use them. While Terminal 3 now has a mostly unified look Terminal 4 looks like the "museum of architectural styles" with a very inconsistent look and many areas that are just plain ugly. There is nothing unified and the whole thing looks like it was simply slapped together at different times (which it was).

PHX really needs a full Terminal 4 modernization program like they did with terminal 3 but also probably needs to replace and/or widen N1, N2, N3, N4, S3 and S4 with concourses that can fit 175 - 225 passenger aircraft.

a320flyer · Wed May 31, 2023 3:41 am

DTWLAX wrote:
stewartg wrote:
brn2Bwld92 wrote:
CVG's design of international arrivals for destination flyers is lengthy. Have to deplane, collect checked bags, go through passport control and customs, re-check checked bag, and go through TSA, travel from concourse B to terminal, and then re-collect bag at the regular bag claim just to get to the ground transport area to get a rental car, parking lot, taxi, etc. Most other international airports have a way for you to avoid having to clear TSA security if you're a destination passenger.

ATL is exactly the same for destination pax, isn't it?

It was, at least until Concourse F opened. I do not know how things are now.

Yeah this happens with the parallel island concourses like CVG/ATL. Not a huge deal when there’s a high % of connecting passengers. CVG is planning on fixing this with the upcoming terminal modernization though.

alasizon · Wed May 31, 2023 3:42 am

Definitely more discussion that could be had over in the PHX thread, but just to add some here.

Vctony wrote:
Terminal 4 looks like the "museum of architectural styles" with a very inconsistent look and many areas that are just plain ugly. There is nothing unified and the whole thing looks like it was simply slapped together at different times (which it was).

Oddly I feel like S2 is what makes it stand out more than S1. But definitely agree with the sentiment.

Vctony wrote:
PHX really needs a full Terminal 4 modernization program like they did with terminal 3 but also probably needs to replace and/or widen N1, N2, N3, N4, S3 and S4 with concourses that can fit 175 - 225 passenger aircraft.

As far as a full modernization, I'm not sure how you do that at T4 until T3.5 is built as it would take out several gates at a time (minimum) and there simply isn't a way to afford that. Why the feet are being drug on T3.5 is beyond me.

For expanding the concourses, you can't go to the full 125' width the whole concourse without also relocating/rearranging the boarding doors/areas, you would lose A321 capability on a number of gates due to jetway angle if you didn't. You could cubby out a lot of the gates though to add additional room for the boarding areas without widening the whole concourse.

I think a lot of airports are behind on having the right-sized facilities but with all the examples of overbuilt facilities now sitting idle (STL, CLE, CVG, PIT, etc.) - how do you choose when to pull the trigger.

DeltaRules · Wed May 31, 2023 3:58 am

Around 2007, DAB had service from DL, CO, and UA. IIRC, DAB threw money at FL to start DAB-BWI (among others), which didn't sit well with UA who eventually pulled their IAD (and ORD) service.

Not long after, FL left anyway, leaving the airport at square one. (At least US restarted CLT not long after.)

flybaby · Wed May 31, 2023 12:01 pm

vatveng wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
WkndWanderer wrote:
PHF invested in an expansion during the AirTran days only to have WN pull out after the merger and then have a shiny new concourse with no one to use it. The airport then got caught up in the PeopleExpress relaunch debacle, and eventually dwindled to only having US left.

AA, not US, but yes, the 3x daily to CLT on PDT is all that's left. There's also a rumor that the tower may be contracted out as part of the FAA Contract Tower Program, so that means that it would no longer be staffed by FAA controllers. There are certainly plenty of contracted towers with higher levels of commercial operations, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. That would be a big hit for the airport and kind of complete the fall from grace. It's a shame, because 15-20 years ago, it was a fantastic little airport to fly in and out from. It's a lot of infrastructure to keep running for 150 seats a day when ORF isn't far away...neither is RIC, for that matter.

It may be that the amount of GA traffic at PHF, and its close proximity to Langley AFB, has so far warranted continuing to staff the tower there.

PHF is another case of not having a crystal ball. When they built the new concourse, PHF was the third fastest growing airport in the country. They had recovered from the 2008 recession and were breaking traffic records just about every month.

It's hard to call the expansion a mistake, just the worst timing ever. The mistake came from hitching their wagon to the PeoplExpress trainwreck. That truly poisoned the well.

Add to all this the expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (and approach roads). That will be the final nail in the coffin for PHF as far as the future of commercial air traffic is concerned.

Polot · Wed May 31, 2023 12:57 pm

DTWLAX wrote:
stewartg wrote:
brn2Bwld92 wrote:
CVG's design of international arrivals for destination flyers is lengthy. Have to deplane, collect checked bags, go through passport control and customs, re-check checked bag, and go through TSA, travel from concourse B to terminal, and then re-collect bag at the regular bag claim just to get to the ground transport area to get a rental car, parking lot, taxi, etc. Most other international airports have a way for you to avoid having to clear TSA security if you're a destination passenger.

ATL is exactly the same for destination pax, isn't it?

It was, at least until Concourse F opened. I do not know how things are now.

ATL is normal now after F opened. Destination pax just walk out of F after going through customs no need to go through a security checkpoint. It was also like that before E opened in the 90s, when T was the international concourse.

2travel2know2 · Wed May 31, 2023 1:09 pm

Polot wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
stewartg wrote:

ATL is exactly the same for destination pax, isn't it?

It was, at least until Concourse F opened. I do not know how things are now.

ATL is normal now after F opened. Destination pax just walk out of F after going through customs no need to go through a security checkpoint. It was also like that before E opened in the 90s, when T was the international concourse.

What ATL hasn’t really figured-out is the bus transfer between Car Rental Centre and the International terminal (F gates).
At times, to go between International Terminal and Car Rental Centre is actually better to change @ Domestic Terminal for the ATL rail to Car Rental Center.

Q · Wed May 31, 2023 1:09 pm

Now, I remembered that Southwest introduced to Detriot City Airport. I just flew to DET. It was a cute small terminal and had 2 jetways. Southwest discussed with Detriot City Airport wanted to extend the runway and built a new terminal a few years later not doing anything Southwest pulled out of service and everything ghost terminal today. ProAir was trying to service in DET for a short time after Southwest pulled. It didn't succeed at DET airport. What did they make a mistake in DET airport?

Q

freakyrat · Wed May 31, 2023 1:09 pm

SBN-Before the modern concourse was built the airport should have rebuilt the ramp and took out all the slopes etc. Previous Airport Director hated Elevators and Escalators so he had the new concourse built a half a floor up. This didn't help the airlines as it takes passengers a litle longer to get their baggage and get baggage to the planes because the tugs have to drive around a long building. Aircraft parking between the gates is a little to close. The slopy ramp causes problems in the winter as the planes can slide towards the building. Help is on the way now thanks to the FAA requirements for Taxiway separation. The Main Taxiway is geting relocated and both it and the Ramp are geting rebuilt. Mead & Hunt is working on a redesign of the aircraft gates and parking areas. A new drive through deice area was built. Passenger enplanements are up 17% this year and the airport should serve over 900,000 passengers at the rate things are going. When all the construction is finished things will be improved for the airlines and all gates will be able to serve larger aircraft that are used during special events.

TheFlyingDisk · Wed May 31, 2023 1:51 pm

Not updating the main terminal at KUL, instead focusing more on the low cost terminal next door. Now the main terminal feels like a dump with the infrastructure looking worse for wear. A far cry from its heyday to be honest, and definitely not helping it compete with the likes of SIN & BKK.

DLvsWN · Wed May 31, 2023 1:53 pm

2travel2know2 wrote:
Polot wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
It was, at least until Concourse F opened. I do not know how things are now.

ATL is normal now after F opened. Destination pax just walk out of F after going through customs no need to go through a security checkpoint. It was also like that before E opened in the 90s, when T was the international concourse.
What ATL hasn’t really figured-out is the bus transfer between Car Rental Centre and the International terminal (F gates).
At times, to go between International Terminal and Car Rental Centre is actually better to change @ Domestic Terminal for the ATL rail to Car Rental Center.

They haven't figured out the busses between International and Domestic in general. I often take the rental car bus and then the Skytrain over to domestic/MARTA--it all depends on the wait and traffic situation once I arrive at F.

F is the big "airport mistake" at ATL:

A more permanent solution to get between International and Domestic while staying landside is needed. Above, through, around, or under: there needs to be something better than a pathetic little shuttle bus that gets stuck in traffic. My first time (I suspect) getting Covid was on that silly little bus the day before Thanksgiving--we were stuck in holiday traffic for almost an hour. I took the bus to retrieve the car, and nobody else from my family (who stayed behind at F with the luggage) caught Covid.
Further, the International terminal isn't up to snuff in general: traffic was backed up probably 500' to get to the curb and drop off my wife at Departures at 6:30 this morning, which is a very slow time of day for international departures. In the evenings, the Arrivals area can have easily a 30 minute wait to get to the curb for pick up.
The walk from E is also hellacious. I'm surprised Delta hasn't raised more of a fuss about this. If you're flying into ATL on BA/LH/QR/AC etc you'll almost certainly fly into F and have a very short walk to customs. On Delta, it's about 80% that you'll wind up in E and walk the better part of a mile. Frontier pax actually get shafted even worse but nobody really cares about them, including Frontier.
Fixing this is extremely difficult, given the sunk cost of investment and facility layout already made. They really need landside access between Domestic, E, and F. Not gonna happen (although the most clever idea I've heard for this is a cable car between the terminals, like a ski resort).

Instead, a "Terminal 2" like MSP for all non-Skyteam airlines with separate customs facilities, south of the main airport area, seems like the solution. Extend the Skytrain from Domestic down to Terminal 2 then back up to International as part of the project. Solves all problems in one fell swoop...except the walk from E to F. At least more DL flights would arrive in F after that.

manny · Wed May 31, 2023 2:06 pm

CDG, the entire airport is a connection nightmare. There should be a reality show with contestants trying to connect from one flight to another at CDG.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net