Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?Why 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?How to get a home base airport in the UAE?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 meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence?

Why do we use polarized capacitors?

Is Fable (1996) connected in any way to the Fable franchise from Lionhead Studios?

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

How to create a consistent feel for character names in a fantasy setting?

Piano - What is the notation for a double stop where both notes in the double stop are different lengths?

What to wear for invited talk in Canada

Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?

New order #4: World

Are objects structures and/or vice versa?

How many letters suffice to construct words with no repetition?

Prime joint compound before latex paint?

Is it wise to focus on putting odd beats on left when playing double bass drums?

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?



Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?


Why 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?How to get a home base airport in the UAE?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?













7












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 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
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
    $endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    10 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
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    1 hour ago















7












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 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
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
    $endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    10 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
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    1 hour ago













7












7








7





$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question







New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









Kamil AliyevKamil Aliyev

412




412




New contributor




Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 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
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
    $endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    10 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
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    1 hour ago












  • 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
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
    $endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    10 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
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    1 hour 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
11 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
11 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Kamil Aliyev, what are you talking about? What moved?
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
10 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
9 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
9 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
It would greatly help if you would use recognizable geographic names for the airports, instead of 3-letter codes.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
The wording of the question title struck me as a bit humorous...
$endgroup$
– Michael
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















18












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    12












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      +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
      41 mins ago


















    9












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      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
      35 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
      $endgroup$
      – Harper
      22 mins ago












    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.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    18












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      18












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        18












        18








        18





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago









        Loong

        267214




        267214










        answered 10 hours ago









        ratchet freakratchet freak

        24.2k467131




        24.2k467131





















            12












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              +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
              41 mins ago















            12












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              +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
              41 mins ago













            12












            12








            12





            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            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.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 5 hours ago









            Zach LiptonZach Lipton

            6,56412643




            6,56412643











            • $begingroup$
              +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
              41 mins 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
              41 mins 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
            41 mins 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
            41 mins ago











            9












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              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
              35 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
              $endgroup$
              – Harper
              22 mins ago
















            9












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              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
              35 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
              $endgroup$
              – Harper
              22 mins ago














            9












            9








            9





            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 17 mins ago

























            answered 5 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
              35 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
              $endgroup$
              – Harper
              22 mins 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
              35 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
              $endgroup$
              – Harper
              22 mins 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
            35 mins 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
            35 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            22 mins ago





            $begingroup$
            @reirab Or Los Angeles, with 5. Yeah, NYC seriously needs to do the Mirabel thing.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            22 mins ago











            Kamil Aliyev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

            The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу