Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?
$begingroup$
Recently IST relocation happened over 2 days. MUC was also moved overnight. Doesn't it cause chaos, since most employees are new to the place and equipment, work procedures are not well established? e.g. some people do not have badges with correct security clearance. Why not to do it gradually over longer time. Move airline by airline. Smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently IST relocation happened over 2 days. MUC was also moved overnight. Doesn't it cause chaos, since most employees are new to the place and equipment, work procedures are not well established? e.g. some people do not have badges with correct security clearance. Why not to do it gradually over longer time. Move airline by airline. Smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently IST relocation happened over 2 days. MUC was also moved overnight. Doesn't it cause chaos, since most employees are new to the place and equipment, work procedures are not well established? e.g. some people do not have badges with correct security clearance. Why not to do it gradually over longer time. Move airline by airline. Smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
Recently IST relocation happened over 2 days. MUC was also moved overnight. Doesn't it cause chaos, since most employees are new to the place and equipment, work procedures are not well established? e.g. some people do not have badges with correct security clearance. Why not to do it gradually over longer time. Move airline by airline. Smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
airport airport-operations
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 15 hours ago
Kamil AliyevKamil Aliyev
412
412
New contributor
New contributor
8
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago
8
8
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Gradual relocation essentially mean having to staff and equip nearly two full airports during the transition period. It is also annoying for the travelers that want to transfer planes and need to relocate to the other airport. They would then need to get transported to or from the new location and through security again unless a small short hop flight is established during the transition. In IST's case it's 35 km distance between the old and new location.
Having two busy airports close to each other is also a bigger challenge for air traffic control than a really busy one and a calm one.
The solution to the issues you mention can be solved by thorough preparation. Like making sure all the old badges work (or having the new ones passed out as they come in for their first day at the new location), make sure everyone knows where they need to report for work in the new location. Perhaps having some extra trouble shooters on hand to fix teething issues.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Moving airline by airline doesn't help that much:
- You still have the same chaos, just on a per-airline basis.
- The airports you mention are dominated by large carriers that have turned them into hubs (Turkish Airlines and Lufthansa). Even if you move all the other airlines one by one, you still have much of the pain of the big move when you move the largest airline.
And it has disadvantages:
- Connections: A large percentage of traffic through these hub airports are connecting passengers, and thanks to airline alliances and partnerships, many are connecting between flights from different airlines. Very few passengers (and even fewer high-paying business travelers) will willingly break their journey to go for a drive across a famously traffic-congested city to change airports. Customers will abandon your airport and fly other routes while this is going on.
- Equipment: When Denver International Airport moved, there was a massive overnight caravan "of more than 10,000 baggage carts, plane tugs, fire engines, catering trucks, de-icing machines and untold truckloads of tickets, tags and gift shop sundries" to the new airport. A similar operation occurred in Istanbul. If both airports must operate simultaneously, a fleet of equipment must be maintained at both airports during the overlap period. Much of this equipment is expensive, long-lasting, and will be difficult to sell or dispose of after the old airport is closed down.
- Staff: There's not an exact linear relationship of airport staffing to the number of flights. Many staff may work for contracted ground handling companies and serve flights from more than one airline. They can't be in two places at once.
This is still done to a limited extent though. Turkish Airlines operated a few flights out of New Istanbul Airport for several months prior to the big move, which allowed them to test systems and familiarize staff with the new airport. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by limiting the number of flights and choosing them strategically.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradually moving between airports is a living nightmare for connecting travelers.
Exactly that was done at Montreal Mirabel airport, a fabulous, spacious new replacement airport for Montreal Dorval (Trudeau). Montreal used to be Canada's main international hub. International flights were banned from the old airport, as incentive for airlines to move all operations to Mirabel. But they lacked the political strength to fully close the old airport, and never finished the high-speed-rail connection (or even highways) to Mirabel. Passengers needed to take an hourlong bus ride and re-clear security. This was so irksome that instead of consolidating at Mirabel, operators simply sent their international flights to Toronto instead, making it Canada's main hub.
They lost so many flights that Montreal didn't need two airports anymore, and they consolidated back at Trudeau. Mirabel's main terminal was scrapped and it's a race track now. A few cargo operations remain.
Then you have the case of Kai Tak, where they "threw the switch" properly, but due to teething pains, threw the cargo operations back to Kai Tak for a short while.
Then there is Berlin.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62154%2fwhy-airport-relocation-isnt-done-gradually%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Gradual relocation essentially mean having to staff and equip nearly two full airports during the transition period. It is also annoying for the travelers that want to transfer planes and need to relocate to the other airport. They would then need to get transported to or from the new location and through security again unless a small short hop flight is established during the transition. In IST's case it's 35 km distance between the old and new location.
Having two busy airports close to each other is also a bigger challenge for air traffic control than a really busy one and a calm one.
The solution to the issues you mention can be solved by thorough preparation. Like making sure all the old badges work (or having the new ones passed out as they come in for their first day at the new location), make sure everyone knows where they need to report for work in the new location. Perhaps having some extra trouble shooters on hand to fix teething issues.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradual relocation essentially mean having to staff and equip nearly two full airports during the transition period. It is also annoying for the travelers that want to transfer planes and need to relocate to the other airport. They would then need to get transported to or from the new location and through security again unless a small short hop flight is established during the transition. In IST's case it's 35 km distance between the old and new location.
Having two busy airports close to each other is also a bigger challenge for air traffic control than a really busy one and a calm one.
The solution to the issues you mention can be solved by thorough preparation. Like making sure all the old badges work (or having the new ones passed out as they come in for their first day at the new location), make sure everyone knows where they need to report for work in the new location. Perhaps having some extra trouble shooters on hand to fix teething issues.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradual relocation essentially mean having to staff and equip nearly two full airports during the transition period. It is also annoying for the travelers that want to transfer planes and need to relocate to the other airport. They would then need to get transported to or from the new location and through security again unless a small short hop flight is established during the transition. In IST's case it's 35 km distance between the old and new location.
Having two busy airports close to each other is also a bigger challenge for air traffic control than a really busy one and a calm one.
The solution to the issues you mention can be solved by thorough preparation. Like making sure all the old badges work (or having the new ones passed out as they come in for their first day at the new location), make sure everyone knows where they need to report for work in the new location. Perhaps having some extra trouble shooters on hand to fix teething issues.
$endgroup$
Gradual relocation essentially mean having to staff and equip nearly two full airports during the transition period. It is also annoying for the travelers that want to transfer planes and need to relocate to the other airport. They would then need to get transported to or from the new location and through security again unless a small short hop flight is established during the transition. In IST's case it's 35 km distance between the old and new location.
Having two busy airports close to each other is also a bigger challenge for air traffic control than a really busy one and a calm one.
The solution to the issues you mention can be solved by thorough preparation. Like making sure all the old badges work (or having the new ones passed out as they come in for their first day at the new location), make sure everyone knows where they need to report for work in the new location. Perhaps having some extra trouble shooters on hand to fix teething issues.
edited 6 hours ago
Loong
267214
267214
answered 14 hours ago
ratchet freakratchet freak
24.2k467131
24.2k467131
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Moving airline by airline doesn't help that much:
- You still have the same chaos, just on a per-airline basis.
- The airports you mention are dominated by large carriers that have turned them into hubs (Turkish Airlines and Lufthansa). Even if you move all the other airlines one by one, you still have much of the pain of the big move when you move the largest airline.
And it has disadvantages:
- Connections: A large percentage of traffic through these hub airports are connecting passengers, and thanks to airline alliances and partnerships, many are connecting between flights from different airlines. Very few passengers (and even fewer high-paying business travelers) will willingly break their journey to go for a drive across a famously traffic-congested city to change airports. Customers will abandon your airport and fly other routes while this is going on.
- Equipment: When Denver International Airport moved, there was a massive overnight caravan "of more than 10,000 baggage carts, plane tugs, fire engines, catering trucks, de-icing machines and untold truckloads of tickets, tags and gift shop sundries" to the new airport. A similar operation occurred in Istanbul. If both airports must operate simultaneously, a fleet of equipment must be maintained at both airports during the overlap period. Much of this equipment is expensive, long-lasting, and will be difficult to sell or dispose of after the old airport is closed down.
- Staff: There's not an exact linear relationship of airport staffing to the number of flights. Many staff may work for contracted ground handling companies and serve flights from more than one airline. They can't be in two places at once.
This is still done to a limited extent though. Turkish Airlines operated a few flights out of New Istanbul Airport for several months prior to the big move, which allowed them to test systems and familiarize staff with the new airport. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by limiting the number of flights and choosing them strategically.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Moving airline by airline doesn't help that much:
- You still have the same chaos, just on a per-airline basis.
- The airports you mention are dominated by large carriers that have turned them into hubs (Turkish Airlines and Lufthansa). Even if you move all the other airlines one by one, you still have much of the pain of the big move when you move the largest airline.
And it has disadvantages:
- Connections: A large percentage of traffic through these hub airports are connecting passengers, and thanks to airline alliances and partnerships, many are connecting between flights from different airlines. Very few passengers (and even fewer high-paying business travelers) will willingly break their journey to go for a drive across a famously traffic-congested city to change airports. Customers will abandon your airport and fly other routes while this is going on.
- Equipment: When Denver International Airport moved, there was a massive overnight caravan "of more than 10,000 baggage carts, plane tugs, fire engines, catering trucks, de-icing machines and untold truckloads of tickets, tags and gift shop sundries" to the new airport. A similar operation occurred in Istanbul. If both airports must operate simultaneously, a fleet of equipment must be maintained at both airports during the overlap period. Much of this equipment is expensive, long-lasting, and will be difficult to sell or dispose of after the old airport is closed down.
- Staff: There's not an exact linear relationship of airport staffing to the number of flights. Many staff may work for contracted ground handling companies and serve flights from more than one airline. They can't be in two places at once.
This is still done to a limited extent though. Turkish Airlines operated a few flights out of New Istanbul Airport for several months prior to the big move, which allowed them to test systems and familiarize staff with the new airport. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by limiting the number of flights and choosing them strategically.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Moving airline by airline doesn't help that much:
- You still have the same chaos, just on a per-airline basis.
- The airports you mention are dominated by large carriers that have turned them into hubs (Turkish Airlines and Lufthansa). Even if you move all the other airlines one by one, you still have much of the pain of the big move when you move the largest airline.
And it has disadvantages:
- Connections: A large percentage of traffic through these hub airports are connecting passengers, and thanks to airline alliances and partnerships, many are connecting between flights from different airlines. Very few passengers (and even fewer high-paying business travelers) will willingly break their journey to go for a drive across a famously traffic-congested city to change airports. Customers will abandon your airport and fly other routes while this is going on.
- Equipment: When Denver International Airport moved, there was a massive overnight caravan "of more than 10,000 baggage carts, plane tugs, fire engines, catering trucks, de-icing machines and untold truckloads of tickets, tags and gift shop sundries" to the new airport. A similar operation occurred in Istanbul. If both airports must operate simultaneously, a fleet of equipment must be maintained at both airports during the overlap period. Much of this equipment is expensive, long-lasting, and will be difficult to sell or dispose of after the old airport is closed down.
- Staff: There's not an exact linear relationship of airport staffing to the number of flights. Many staff may work for contracted ground handling companies and serve flights from more than one airline. They can't be in two places at once.
This is still done to a limited extent though. Turkish Airlines operated a few flights out of New Istanbul Airport for several months prior to the big move, which allowed them to test systems and familiarize staff with the new airport. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by limiting the number of flights and choosing them strategically.
$endgroup$
Moving airline by airline doesn't help that much:
- You still have the same chaos, just on a per-airline basis.
- The airports you mention are dominated by large carriers that have turned them into hubs (Turkish Airlines and Lufthansa). Even if you move all the other airlines one by one, you still have much of the pain of the big move when you move the largest airline.
And it has disadvantages:
- Connections: A large percentage of traffic through these hub airports are connecting passengers, and thanks to airline alliances and partnerships, many are connecting between flights from different airlines. Very few passengers (and even fewer high-paying business travelers) will willingly break their journey to go for a drive across a famously traffic-congested city to change airports. Customers will abandon your airport and fly other routes while this is going on.
- Equipment: When Denver International Airport moved, there was a massive overnight caravan "of more than 10,000 baggage carts, plane tugs, fire engines, catering trucks, de-icing machines and untold truckloads of tickets, tags and gift shop sundries" to the new airport. A similar operation occurred in Istanbul. If both airports must operate simultaneously, a fleet of equipment must be maintained at both airports during the overlap period. Much of this equipment is expensive, long-lasting, and will be difficult to sell or dispose of after the old airport is closed down.
- Staff: There's not an exact linear relationship of airport staffing to the number of flights. Many staff may work for contracted ground handling companies and serve flights from more than one airline. They can't be in two places at once.
This is still done to a limited extent though. Turkish Airlines operated a few flights out of New Istanbul Airport for several months prior to the big move, which allowed them to test systems and familiarize staff with the new airport. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by limiting the number of flights and choosing them strategically.
answered 8 hours ago
Zach LiptonZach Lipton
6,57412643
6,57412643
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the connections point. Passengers don't like having to make their way to the other side of the city because their inbound flight went to one airport, but their outbound flight moved to another.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradually moving between airports is a living nightmare for connecting travelers.
Exactly that was done at Montreal Mirabel airport, a fabulous, spacious new replacement airport for Montreal Dorval (Trudeau). Montreal used to be Canada's main international hub. International flights were banned from the old airport, as incentive for airlines to move all operations to Mirabel. But they lacked the political strength to fully close the old airport, and never finished the high-speed-rail connection (or even highways) to Mirabel. Passengers needed to take an hourlong bus ride and re-clear security. This was so irksome that instead of consolidating at Mirabel, operators simply sent their international flights to Toronto instead, making it Canada's main hub.
They lost so many flights that Montreal didn't need two airports anymore, and they consolidated back at Trudeau. Mirabel's main terminal was scrapped and it's a race track now. A few cargo operations remain.
Then you have the case of Kai Tak, where they "threw the switch" properly, but due to teething pains, threw the cargo operations back to Kai Tak for a short while.
Then there is Berlin.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradually moving between airports is a living nightmare for connecting travelers.
Exactly that was done at Montreal Mirabel airport, a fabulous, spacious new replacement airport for Montreal Dorval (Trudeau). Montreal used to be Canada's main international hub. International flights were banned from the old airport, as incentive for airlines to move all operations to Mirabel. But they lacked the political strength to fully close the old airport, and never finished the high-speed-rail connection (or even highways) to Mirabel. Passengers needed to take an hourlong bus ride and re-clear security. This was so irksome that instead of consolidating at Mirabel, operators simply sent their international flights to Toronto instead, making it Canada's main hub.
They lost so many flights that Montreal didn't need two airports anymore, and they consolidated back at Trudeau. Mirabel's main terminal was scrapped and it's a race track now. A few cargo operations remain.
Then you have the case of Kai Tak, where they "threw the switch" properly, but due to teething pains, threw the cargo operations back to Kai Tak for a short while.
Then there is Berlin.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gradually moving between airports is a living nightmare for connecting travelers.
Exactly that was done at Montreal Mirabel airport, a fabulous, spacious new replacement airport for Montreal Dorval (Trudeau). Montreal used to be Canada's main international hub. International flights were banned from the old airport, as incentive for airlines to move all operations to Mirabel. But they lacked the political strength to fully close the old airport, and never finished the high-speed-rail connection (or even highways) to Mirabel. Passengers needed to take an hourlong bus ride and re-clear security. This was so irksome that instead of consolidating at Mirabel, operators simply sent their international flights to Toronto instead, making it Canada's main hub.
They lost so many flights that Montreal didn't need two airports anymore, and they consolidated back at Trudeau. Mirabel's main terminal was scrapped and it's a race track now. A few cargo operations remain.
Then you have the case of Kai Tak, where they "threw the switch" properly, but due to teething pains, threw the cargo operations back to Kai Tak for a short while.
Then there is Berlin.
$endgroup$
Gradually moving between airports is a living nightmare for connecting travelers.
Exactly that was done at Montreal Mirabel airport, a fabulous, spacious new replacement airport for Montreal Dorval (Trudeau). Montreal used to be Canada's main international hub. International flights were banned from the old airport, as incentive for airlines to move all operations to Mirabel. But they lacked the political strength to fully close the old airport, and never finished the high-speed-rail connection (or even highways) to Mirabel. Passengers needed to take an hourlong bus ride and re-clear security. This was so irksome that instead of consolidating at Mirabel, operators simply sent their international flights to Toronto instead, making it Canada's main hub.
They lost so many flights that Montreal didn't need two airports anymore, and they consolidated back at Trudeau. Mirabel's main terminal was scrapped and it's a race track now. A few cargo operations remain.
Then you have the case of Kai Tak, where they "threw the switch" properly, but due to teething pains, threw the cargo operations back to Kai Tak for a short while.
Then there is Berlin.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
HarperHarper
4,524725
4,524725
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the other hand, some large cities get along just fine with 2 or even 3 major airports with one being primary for long-haul flights and the other being mostly domestic and regional flights. Off the top of my head, NYC, London, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Dallas, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Bangkok all work that way. Granted, the NYC airports aren't exactly an example of efficiency, but that's because each of them lacks sufficient space to build more runways, not because of failing to combine operations.
$endgroup$
– reirab
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62154%2fwhy-airport-relocation-isnt-done-gradually%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
$begingroup$
If you move an airport gradually you actually need more staff, second it is also very confusing for everybody, third you also have to consider the airspace around the airport. When opening a new airport, certain section of the airspace have to be redesigned. It is more common to move gradually to a new terminal as it is less complex on the airspace side of the problem. For example the new Terminal 3 at CGK was taken into service over a longer period of time
$endgroup$
– Brilsmurfffje
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads Munich-Riem Airport closed on 16 May 1992 and the current Munich Airport opened the next day. Istanbul Atatürk Airport ceased commercial passenger flights on 6 April this year and they moved to Istanbul Airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
5 hours ago