Worst International Airport Plannings

[Alexzero77 3]

The Berlin area has a strange airport system. Three international ones surround the metro area.

Berlin-Tempelhof: Oldest one. Nobody cares about this one nor do I really. It's not possible to expand and has been partly abandoned for a year, and will be closed later in 2008.

Berlin-Tegel: Berlin's main airport. IMHO, one of the best planned airports in the world. Both terminals are giant hexagonal structures with another hexagon in the center where parking and what-not is. Sadly, it will be closed by 2012 in favour of the future Berlin-Brandenburg airport. Probably space issues again is the contributing factor to this future tragedy.

Berlin-Schönefeld: To be expanded and renamed to Berlin-Brandenburg, closing Tempelhof and Tegel. Right now its one of the most pathetic looking international airports ever. But once expansion goes underway, it will become a monster.

Now, if only one airport serves Berlin, alot of trouble is going to happen. Have you ever seen such a big metro area only served by ONE airport? I believe Tegel should be kept open, screw Tempelhof, and expand Schonefeld.

[TV-VCR 15]

Not sure if I should apply my palm to my face or not about this. It could end up awful, but will the capacity of Berlin-Brandenburg be the size of it and Tegel combined, or maybe even larger? If not, then I agree with you here.

But no matter what, in ways I think it could be harder to manage. Two destinations for arrival are better than one in certain situations, not to mention one big crowd and one medium crowd of travel-goers is more easy to manage than one crowd the size of Berlin itself or something.

[alexbieiniek 0]

They should expand Tegel not Shconefeld, Last time i flew to Schonefold, it looked like a 3rd world country in there.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Worst airport planning - ...Heathrow...

[krbe 193]

Berlin-Tegel is the worst I've ever been too—it's small and cramped, the symmetrical design makes every wall look the same, and the signage is terrible.

Tempelhof is one of the nicer-looking ones; spacious fo such a small airport, right next to the city centre AND it has the Underground next to it, something Tegel has never had.

BBI is also going to have a capacity greater than the passenger numbers of Tegel and Sch

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Worst airport planning - ...Heathrow...quote>

the permanently repressed hiphopper in me would say "word" to this...

as for the berlin airports, tempelhof is just a great airport for national air traffic.

we don't fly huge planes inside germany, mainly small ones, very often it's just turboprops, so tempelhof is just the right airport for this stuff. (not to mention that it's probably the most famous airport is world's history)

for international traffic, I guess the new one would kick butts.

schönefeld is stupid layed out. tegel is great imho and should be extended to the main airport in berlin.

but the overall worst planning imo had kai tak. seriously, how can you have had an international airport that required special pilot training to land there??

[neongamer 3]

I'm going to probably surprise a lot of people by saying this, but judging by my flight in from Orlando this morning on VS, Gatwick seems very under capacity...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: neongamer I'm going to probably surprise a lot of people by saying this, but judging by my flight in from Orlando this morning on VS, Gatwick seems very under capacity...quote>

Might that be because Heathrow is on the underground while Gatwick is not? That would certainly make Heathrow more appealing to a lot of people.

Honestly, though. The idea of "airport planning" seems a little contradictory to me.  As my father is fond of saying, there are three things which are never finished: hospitals,  college campuses, and airports.

Seriously. Airports are always being reconstructed, expanded, rearranged, what have you. No major airport will look exactly like it does to day in a decade or two. They simply can;t go that long without some "improvement" getting done. For instance, look at what's changed at JFK in New York since 1998:

-new parking garages have been built, replacing old parking lots

-the JFK AirTrain was built and put into operation

-Terminal 4 was completely rebuilt

-Terminal 5 (formerly TWA) is undergoing reconstruction into JetBlue's terminal

-several other airlines have had their spaces moved around

-Terminal 8 is being demolished and the new Terminal 9 is now Terminal 8

-tons of new security equipment and whatnot have been installed

All that's just in the past 10 years, and some of it's still going on. See? Never finished.

[neongamer 3]

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant Gatwick is under capacity as in it is unable to meet the amount of PAX it handles. For example, I had to wait ~45 minutes to clear customs in the 'Nothing to declare' line... And don't get me started on the South terminal's departure lounge... Nowhere NEAR enough seats/ facilities.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Gatwick seems very under capacity...

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant Gatwick is under capacity as in it is unable to meet the amount of PAX it handles. For example, I had to wait ~45 minutes to clear customs in the 'Nothing to declare' line... And don't get me started on the South terminal's departure lounge... Nowhere NEAR enough seats/ facilities.quote>

Apart from the distance from Central London, Gatwick isn't too bad to be honest. Yeah security, last time I was there in January 07, I tend to use Heathrow more, took FOREVER, though its not as packed and more calm then Heathrow, the transport links just aren't that fantastic.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: neongamer Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant Gatwick is under capacity as in it is unable to meet the amount of PAX it handles.quote>

That would mean that it's over capacity.

[krbe 193]

Maybe he looked upon it as this: Capacity > Gatwick. Or that that PAX handled (actual capacity) = 10, while Gatwick's capacity (designed capacity) = 8. After all, the usual focus is not that there is too many people, but that the airport can't handle them.

[Equilibria 16]

I would give the dishonor jointly, to Mirabel, Kansas City, Dulles, and DFW (Dallas). I mean this not because they aren't successful (DFW is a huge hub and Dulles is busy enough), but because they all are built on the same scheme and would fail without hub traffic.

All of these airports look essentially the same and were meant to mimic European airports (CDG would be the closest analog). They are far out from the CBD with no transit links and replace more convenient fields, which in three cases (Montreal, DC, and Dallas) are still operating. They have no origin/destination traffic because no one is willing to drive out to them, so the local government has to brutally restrict traffic into the closer airport.

Mirabel failed utterly, KC was dealt a body blow when TWA left (though Midwest Airways hubs there these days), Dulles and DFW both survive because of huge hub operations (where people connect through but never leave the airport, a uniquely American concept). The idea just doesn't work for domestic traffic, which wants convenience over almost everything else.

[hawkpride147 1]

DFW is in the process of building a light rail connection to dallas and it's light rail system, and is looking at a line to fort worth. it is currently already served by a jointly operated venture by both dallas and ft. worth called the trinity railway express. it also has sky link to link the terminals...dfw was built in it's layout to facilitate being able to park closer to the terminals and to have a shorter taxi time to the runway. and as for no one driving to DFW, plenty of people drive to it...very few people out of tarrant county (where fort worth is located) use love field. as for restricting traffic, the restrictions have been lifted because they are hoping to extend the time til the next terminal/runway construction phase at dfw. love field simply cannot handle the larger airplanes of today safely. yes it can handle a 747, but according to faa recommendations, they do not due to safety related to the runway length. fort worth also has 2 regional airports that simply struggle to retain airline service due to the popularity of DFW. dfw has also begun to benefit of the removal of travel restrictions to europe from certain US cities. recently KLM has begun service to DFW and i'm sure in the near future, Air France, Iberia, Air Lingus, as well as others will begin to offer international service to and from DFW.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Kinda sad, though...Tempelhof has so much lofty history behind it, and in many ways it is the father of airports and a birthplace of the airline. America was still barnstorming while Germany was building gargantuan air palaces. An Art Deco jewel in its own right, Tempelhof even has a cooler name, too!

Meanwhile, I get to use San Antonio International Airport, which is really rather boring and hardly matches the scope suggested in its name.  But then that may be because I compare it to Honolulu International Airport, near which I used to live, and setting me up to be underwhelmed by other airports. It is hard to find one as lush or airy as Honolulu's, even if there is a tendency to be a bit touristy. For a time, one of Hickam's base-accessible beaches skirted alongside the Reef Runway, separated only by a narrow canal. Whenever those hulking JAL jumbo jets came in to land, it was time to dunk under the water to protect your ears. Takeoffs were a bit scarier, as it never seemed like the heavy planes would make it off the runway before overshooting the end and careening into us beachgoers. You could see the faces of the passengers in the fuselage windows, and most of the time everyone on the beach waved. However, being naughty little kids, it was occassionally fun to greet the incoming passengers by dropping your swimming trunks and giving them the posterior Island Welcome, hehehe. Ah, the memories...

[Gozer_Jep 0]

originally posted by: Alexzero77Now, if only one airport serves Berlin, alot of trouble is going to happen. Have you ever seen such a big metro area only served by ONE airport? I believe Tegel should be kept open, screw Tempelhof, and expand Schonefeld. quote>

Why is that a problem? Schiphol serves the complete country in Holland.

[Equilibria 16]

HawkPride: I didn't mean that no one uses DFW, or that it in any way is a bad airport; I use it relatively frequently and T5 might be the best terminal I've ever seen.

My comment was more about the planning and concept, not the result, and the reason Love Field is inadequate (which it definitely is for international traffic) is because development there stopped when DFW opened. As a domestic airport, DFW basically depends on AA for viability, and also on the suburbs which have enveloped it since it opened.

If Dallas had invested some time and resources in Love Field improvements, instead of stubbornly vilifying it for thirty years, it could be a great airport today. Look at Dorval (Montreal's Love field, albeit with slightly longer runways) or, for an American example, Midway in Chicago.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Gozer_Jep

originally posted by: Alexzero77Now, if only one airport serves Berlin, alot of trouble is going to happen. Have you ever seen such a big metro area only served by ONE airport? I believe Tegel should be kept open, screw Tempelhof, and expand Schonefeld. quote>

Why is that a problem? Schiphol serves the complete country in Holland.quote>

Besides, the size of the metro area isn't the important factor here, but rather the number of flights and transfer passengers. In those terms, Berlin isn't even close to Frankfurt or Munich. It more resembles Copenhagen (which has one airport for the city, and is by far the most important for the greater Copenhagen/Malmo area), or even Oslo (though that city has two smaller LCC airports).

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbe Maybe he looked upon it as this: Capacity > Gatwick. Or that that PAX handled (actual capacity) = 10, while Gatwick's capacity (designed capacity) = 8. After all, the usual focus is not that there is too many people, but that the airport can't handle them.quote>

Something is "operating over capacity" if it's doing more than it's designed to, and "operating under capacity" if it's doing less than it's designed to. Using "under capacity" to mean that something is handling more than it's supposed to isn't an alternate way of looking at it, it's just incorrect.

Also, you're misusing the word "capacity". "Capacity" is, by definition, the maximum something is designed to handle. It doesn't change unless construction is done, it's usage that varies. To correct your wording, it would be more proper to say "The capacity is 8 but it's handling 10".

Of course, if you were to say that Gatwick is "under designed", that would be correct.

[sEAhAwk fAn121 0]

Mirabel failed utterly, KC was dealt a body blow when TWA left (though Midwest Airways hubs there these days), Dulles and DFW both survive because of huge hub operations (where people connect through but never leave the airport, a uniquely American concept). The idea just doesn't work for domestic traffic, which wants convenience over almost everything else.quote>

 

Yeah, I live in Kansas City and it is a terrible airport. It is voted #1 in best medium sized airports but there is nothing to do and it is far from everything... THe city is starting to expand towards the airport though. And consitering we are one of the fastest growing medium airports I think new terminals are in the near future and are planned.

[cameron1991 0]

I would say London Heathrow is the worst because it wasnt intended to serve 70 million people per year.

It was built on the basis that flying would always be expensive and that only wealthy people would be able to afford it.

[LironTheChick 20]

I know that almost everyone is unfamiliar to this but...

I have just landed from this airport and it is so awful.

The arrival area is so small and the baggage claim area doesn't have a conveyor belt

The departure area is so small and check in counters doesn't have conveyor belt.

It is hot and crowded inside.

There is no monitor that will tell you the flight status.

The runway has too many cracks and potholes.

It is Laoag International Airport in the Philippines. (LAO)

[2nerdy4u 1]

DFW is far from both Dallas and Ft. Worth due to some disagreements the two cities were having in the planning stages. Putting the airport closer to Dallas angered Ft. Worth and vice versa. Solution: stick it in the middle. Dallas and Ft. Worth are about 30 miles apart, so it's naturally going to be a somewhat long commute.

As for the actual terminal layout and general planning of the airport, I'd have to say that DFW is one of the best. Driving through the airport is easy, and there is very little traffic. Overall, the simplicity of the design makes DFW a very efficient airport.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

If you guys think American airports are bad, you haven't seen Galeao Airport in Rio!

Not only did I feel like someone was going to jump me and steal my bags, the air conditioners never seemed to work, it hasn't gotten any updating since the 70's, people are allowed to smoke inside, even the tarmac has an unnatural whitish color, and then there's the crazy commute through favelas and labor factory cities.

But to be fair, Terminal 2 is not nearly as bad as Terminal 1.

[sedimenjerry 1]

Originally posted by: Alexzero77 The Berlin area has a strange airport system. Three international ones surround the metro area.

 Have you ever seen such a big metro area only served by ONE airport? quote>

I dont know the size difference between Berlin and Atlanta but Atlanta has only one major airport.

Unfortunately they put it on the south side of town which is where no one wants to live (for the most part). Because it is the only major airport in Atlanta it receives all traffic to Atlanta which is why it is one of the busiest in the world.

Hopefully planners in Berlin will construct another airport.

[panthersimcity4 162]

ilikehotdogsalot: Dang - way too much "gold"-ish color. Not the kind of airport for the colorblind

[ledge69 0]

Gatwick - Crap design (what are those spiral stairs about). As said above there is nowhere near enough seating and even then their are no facillities whilst you wait to board. The plus point is the Gatwick Express.

[neongamer 3]

Right, r.e. the capacity debate, let's start again.

I'll start off by saying Gatwick's demand has outstripped it's capacity .

[egem4760 1]

I think you all haven't seen ATATURK International Airport in Istanbul/TURKIYE. It is one of the most beautiful airports in the world. It is the third biggest and crowded working in Europe, the biggest in Balkans and Middle East. ( Bigger than Dubai)

And again in TURKIYE, Antalya International Airport is the most beautiful designed at all of the Mediterranean Coast. If you come to TURKIYE any time, you can see that TURKIYE' s transportation is above the standarts of EURASIA.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Panther: Oh yeah, don't get me started! lol. It's terrible.

Originally posted by: egem4760 I think you all haven't seen ATATURK International Airport in Istanbul/TURKIYE. It is one of the most beautiful airports in the world. It is the third biggest and crowded working in Europe, the biggest in Balkans and Middle East. ( Bigger than Dubai)

And again in TURKIYE, Antalya International Airport is the most beautiful designed at all of the Mediterranean Coast. If you come to TURKIYE any time, you can see that TURKIYE' s transportation is above the standarts of EURASIA.quote>

Isn't this the 'worst' planned airports thread?