Why isn't airport relocation done gradually? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy circle an airport after takeoff? (SLC particularly)Why are airport firetrucks painted yellow green?Why is Denver International Airport runway 16R/34L rarely used?What does it mean “the airport has the code A 129” (Nida airport, Europe)?What is the busiest airport?In the US, what can be done at an airport when volunteering hours?Which civil airport has the longest runways in total?What is this airport video?Why are follow-me cars used in Gran Canaria Airport in good visibility for incoming aircraft?Why so much ground time at Frankfurt Airport?
What is the accessibility of a package's `Private` context variables?
How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?
Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
Did 3000BC Egyptians use meteoric iron weapons?
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
Can one be advised by a professor who is very far away?
Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?
Multiply Two Integer Polynomials
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
One word riddle: Vowel in the middle
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Write faster on AT24C32
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
Is bread bad for ducks?
Why can Shazam fly?
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
During Temple times, who can butcher a kosher animal?
Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy circle an airport after takeoff? (SLC particularly)Why are airport firetrucks painted yellow green?Why is Denver International Airport runway 16R/34L rarely used?What does it mean “the airport has the code A 129” (Nida airport, Europe)?What is the busiest airport?In the US, what can be done at an airport when volunteering hours?Which civil airport has the longest runways in total?What is this airport video?Why are follow-me cars used in Gran Canaria Airport in good visibility for incoming aircraft?Why so much ground time at Frankfurt Airport?
$begingroup$
Recently Istanbul airport (IST) was relocated from Atatürk over 2 days. Munich Franz Josef Strauss (MUC) was also moved overnight from Munich Riem. 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 do it gradually over longer time? Move airline by airline -- smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
Recently Istanbul airport (IST) was relocated from Atatürk over 2 days. Munich Franz Josef Strauss (MUC) was also moved overnight from Munich Riem. 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 do it gradually over longer time? Move airline by airline -- smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
16
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
Recently Istanbul airport (IST) was relocated from Atatürk over 2 days. Munich Franz Josef Strauss (MUC) was also moved overnight from Munich Riem. 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 do it gradually over longer time? Move airline by airline -- smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
New contributor
$endgroup$
Recently Istanbul airport (IST) was relocated from Atatürk over 2 days. Munich Franz Josef Strauss (MUC) was also moved overnight from Munich Riem. 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 do it gradually over longer time? Move airline by airline -- smaller first, bigger later.
airport airport-operations
airport airport-operations
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
rob74
1072
1072
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Kamil AliyevKamil Aliyev
13623
13623
New contributor
New contributor
16
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
16
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago
16
16
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
27
27
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
17
17
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
5
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
4 Answers
4
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
My experience is when KUL moved from Subang (now SZB) to the new KL Intl Airport (KLIA).
The moving date was declared way in advance, I seem to remember the date was locked more than 6 months before, and a lot of airlines rescheduled their ops especially the nightstopping aircraft. Obviously Malaysia Airlines had to ferry a bunch of planes over but its a 10minute hop and done in the early hours so not much of an issue. Some of the ground equipment was ferried over earlier in the day (of the last day of Subang operations) but everything else was moved over once the last flight of the day was completed. I'm talking motorised stairs, K-loaders, belt-loaders, tractors, trolleys, dollies the works. It was quite a convoy of flat loaders. Stuff that could be driven on public roads were given temporary permits so you saw motorised steps and water/toilet trucks on the public highways!
The biggest change was moving from a host (MH) checkin environment to a homegrown common-use system which was integrated with the Baggage Handling System (BHS). The first days baggage handling was chaos with a lot of bags not making their flights.
A lot of items can't be duplicated not only in terms of equipment but also in manpower and its easier to make a clean cut and manage the problems for a 24hour period than drawing the pain over a period of weeks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
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-isnt-airport-relocation-done-gradually%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
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 2 days ago
Loong
267214
267214
answered 2 days ago
ratchet freakratchet freak
24.6k468131
24.6k468131
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
$begingroup$
Incidentally, the distance between the old and new Munich airports is also ~35 km (by road).
$endgroup$
– rob74
yesterday
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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 2 days ago
Zach LiptonZach Lipton
6,75412743
6,75412743
$begingroup$
+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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm surprised that gift shop contents were part of the overnight shift in Denver. I'd've expected that stores could be largely filled in advance at the new locations and then have their remaining inventory sent to the new location's stock room after the main rush.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
yesterday
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Zach, that's fasicnating about the "overnight caravan" - good one!
$endgroup$
– Fattie
12 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
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 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
HarperHarper
4,694926
4,694926
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
$endgroup$
– Harper
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@reirab JKF is primarily international flights while Newark and LaGuardia are primarily domestic, but they're not split cleanly like Mirabel/Dorval were. I can fly IND->EWR->LHR, as opposed to IND->EWR, bus/train to JFK, then JFK->LHR. That would be a nightmare and nobody would use JFK if they could possibly avoid it.
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
$begingroup$
@FreeMan I had JFK/LGA more in mind than EWR. EWR is more split from the other airports by alliance than by domestic vs. international. All of United's long-haul operations are at EWR and their hub is there. Delta and American have their hubs at LGA and JFK instead with LGA being entirely domestic/regional and all long-haul operations being at JFK. A lot of Star Alliance airlines fly to EWR in order to access UA's route network, while oneworld and SkyTeam airlines mostly just fly to JFK, where they can access American and Delta route networks from JFK or LGA.
$endgroup$
– reirab
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
$begingroup$
@reirab London doesn't really fit your long-haul vs domestic/regional split, either. City, Luton, Stansted and whatever other airports one might consider as "London" (*glowers at Southend*) are domestic/regional, and Gatwick and Heathrow do everything. If you're connecting from a long-haul flight to a domestic/regional flight in London, you'd typically do that at either Gatwick or Heathrow and wouldn't need to transit to another airport.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
My experience is when KUL moved from Subang (now SZB) to the new KL Intl Airport (KLIA).
The moving date was declared way in advance, I seem to remember the date was locked more than 6 months before, and a lot of airlines rescheduled their ops especially the nightstopping aircraft. Obviously Malaysia Airlines had to ferry a bunch of planes over but its a 10minute hop and done in the early hours so not much of an issue. Some of the ground equipment was ferried over earlier in the day (of the last day of Subang operations) but everything else was moved over once the last flight of the day was completed. I'm talking motorised stairs, K-loaders, belt-loaders, tractors, trolleys, dollies the works. It was quite a convoy of flat loaders. Stuff that could be driven on public roads were given temporary permits so you saw motorised steps and water/toilet trucks on the public highways!
The biggest change was moving from a host (MH) checkin environment to a homegrown common-use system which was integrated with the Baggage Handling System (BHS). The first days baggage handling was chaos with a lot of bags not making their flights.
A lot of items can't be duplicated not only in terms of equipment but also in manpower and its easier to make a clean cut and manage the problems for a 24hour period than drawing the pain over a period of weeks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My experience is when KUL moved from Subang (now SZB) to the new KL Intl Airport (KLIA).
The moving date was declared way in advance, I seem to remember the date was locked more than 6 months before, and a lot of airlines rescheduled their ops especially the nightstopping aircraft. Obviously Malaysia Airlines had to ferry a bunch of planes over but its a 10minute hop and done in the early hours so not much of an issue. Some of the ground equipment was ferried over earlier in the day (of the last day of Subang operations) but everything else was moved over once the last flight of the day was completed. I'm talking motorised stairs, K-loaders, belt-loaders, tractors, trolleys, dollies the works. It was quite a convoy of flat loaders. Stuff that could be driven on public roads were given temporary permits so you saw motorised steps and water/toilet trucks on the public highways!
The biggest change was moving from a host (MH) checkin environment to a homegrown common-use system which was integrated with the Baggage Handling System (BHS). The first days baggage handling was chaos with a lot of bags not making their flights.
A lot of items can't be duplicated not only in terms of equipment but also in manpower and its easier to make a clean cut and manage the problems for a 24hour period than drawing the pain over a period of weeks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My experience is when KUL moved from Subang (now SZB) to the new KL Intl Airport (KLIA).
The moving date was declared way in advance, I seem to remember the date was locked more than 6 months before, and a lot of airlines rescheduled their ops especially the nightstopping aircraft. Obviously Malaysia Airlines had to ferry a bunch of planes over but its a 10minute hop and done in the early hours so not much of an issue. Some of the ground equipment was ferried over earlier in the day (of the last day of Subang operations) but everything else was moved over once the last flight of the day was completed. I'm talking motorised stairs, K-loaders, belt-loaders, tractors, trolleys, dollies the works. It was quite a convoy of flat loaders. Stuff that could be driven on public roads were given temporary permits so you saw motorised steps and water/toilet trucks on the public highways!
The biggest change was moving from a host (MH) checkin environment to a homegrown common-use system which was integrated with the Baggage Handling System (BHS). The first days baggage handling was chaos with a lot of bags not making their flights.
A lot of items can't be duplicated not only in terms of equipment but also in manpower and its easier to make a clean cut and manage the problems for a 24hour period than drawing the pain over a period of weeks.
$endgroup$
My experience is when KUL moved from Subang (now SZB) to the new KL Intl Airport (KLIA).
The moving date was declared way in advance, I seem to remember the date was locked more than 6 months before, and a lot of airlines rescheduled their ops especially the nightstopping aircraft. Obviously Malaysia Airlines had to ferry a bunch of planes over but its a 10minute hop and done in the early hours so not much of an issue. Some of the ground equipment was ferried over earlier in the day (of the last day of Subang operations) but everything else was moved over once the last flight of the day was completed. I'm talking motorised stairs, K-loaders, belt-loaders, tractors, trolleys, dollies the works. It was quite a convoy of flat loaders. Stuff that could be driven on public roads were given temporary permits so you saw motorised steps and water/toilet trucks on the public highways!
The biggest change was moving from a host (MH) checkin environment to a homegrown common-use system which was integrated with the Baggage Handling System (BHS). The first days baggage handling was chaos with a lot of bags not making their flights.
A lot of items can't be duplicated not only in terms of equipment but also in manpower and its easier to make a clean cut and manage the problems for a 24hour period than drawing the pain over a period of weeks.
answered yesterday
AnilvAnilv
3,2381012
3,2381012
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
$begingroup$
OK but only your last sentence actually answers the question.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
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-isnt-airport-relocation-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
-airport, airport-operations
16
$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@jamesqf airports often have several names, and are often commonly referred to by something other than their official name. additionally, cities often have several airports, so while "munich airport" might be unambiguous, "milan airport" is not. on the other hand, MUC is completely unambiguous. it may require a 10-second lookup for people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about / discussing / talking about airports, but on the other hand, this is the aviation stack exchange.
$endgroup$
– jbg
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
@jbg Nobody should have to Google just to find out what the question is about. The IATA code is great for disambiguation and should be included for that reason, but we should never rely on just a code, especially in questions like this one that are likely to be of interest to non-specialists. Quite apart from anything else, codes are easy to typo in ways that completely change the meaning of the question. Write "Munixh" and it's obvious what you meant; write "MUX" and suddenly you're in Pakistan and wasting everybody's time.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Some airport codes are well-known. But, come on, when I wrote MUX, did you know what I meant? We're supposed to be communicating more broadly than just the clique who know airport codes. Especially, as I said, on a question that is of interest to people who aren't aviation geeks. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use the codes: I explicitly said we should use them, alongside the actual name.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@Fattie Know that there are a lot of people like me that reach this site either from sister sites or maybe even Google. These are two reasons to include both a full name and an airport code. Including the actual names increases findability on search engines for anyone (which is one of the primary goals of StackExchange) and makes this quite interesting question more accessible to a broader audience. Your simple fact (1) is just plain wrong. I will gladly be the counterexample thereof. Please tone down the attitude.
$endgroup$
– rubenvb
10 hours ago