Is there really a need for an 'international terminal?'

[schomers87]

After just coming back from the US and flying VA LAX-MEL I often find it quite strange being in a terminal that had flights to DFW/JFK/MIA at a gate right next to my international flight back to Melbourne. Indeed i've found this in other airports such as EWR.

As we all know back in Australia we have dedicated international terminals where you are required to go through immigration.

Given that Australia might perhaps move to a US style system of having IDs checked at security domestically- if a new airport was to be built (say a 2nd SYD airport) would there really be a need to create extra costs to build an exclusive international terminal?

I'm of the opinion that we should keep security arrangements as they are, and obviously have far greater requirements on international flights by having international terminals. But have thought about this for a while and thought i'd see what you guys think?

 

[Hvr]

Given that Australia might perhaps move to a US style system of having IDs checked at security domestically- if a new airport was to be built (say a 2nd SYD airport) would there really be a need to create extra costs to build an exclusive international terminal?

I'm of the opinion that we should keep security arrangements as they are, and obviously have far greater requirements on international flights by having international terminals. But have thought about this for a while and thought i'd see what you guys think?

I've not yet been to the USA (booked for next year) but from what I've read they would prefer to have our system. A dedicated international terminal achieves far greater efficiencies by having all of the required infrastructure in one place such as immigration customs etc.

A combined terminal would also mean that non-travellers could not get past the first security check point.

My opinion is that we've got it right. And MEL is the best demonstration of how to do it properly. SYD sucks for having to change terminals between domestic and international.

 

[BAM1748]

My opinion is that we've got it right. And MEL is the best demonstration of how to do it properly. SYD sucks for having to change terminals between domestic and international.

Hey, but you get a train ride! :mrgreen:

 

[Hvr]

Hey, but you get a train ride! :mrgreen:

Yeah and I end up steaming because it is so expensive and the carriage is old.
(Funnily enough the age of the carriage doesn't stop me travelling on a certain BAM1748.):mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

Yeah and I end up steaming because it is so expensive and the carriage is old.
(Funnily enough the age of the carriage doesn't stop me travelling on a certain BAM1748.):mrgreen:

Expensive? Terminal transfer is $5. Sometimes they even have the new trains.

 

[mannej]

Perth transfer easier than Sydney?

 

[wingspan]

After just coming back from the US and flying VA LAX-MEL I often find it quite strange being in a terminal that had flights to DFW/JFK/MIA at a gate right next to my international flight back to Melbourne. Indeed i've found this in other airports such as EWR.

As we all know back in Australia we have dedicated international terminals where you are required to go through immigration.

Given that Australia might perhaps move to a US style system of having IDs checked at security domestically- if a new airport was to be built (say a 2nd SYD airport) would there really be a need to create extra costs to build an exclusive international terminal?

I'm of the opinion that we should keep security arrangements as they are, and obviously have far greater requirements on international flights by having international terminals. But have thought about this for a while and thought i'd see what you guys think?

This is what I like about airports like ADL - you can still spend time saying farewells to family or friends who are travelling internationally up until the moment they choose to go through customs, if you want. I guess obviously there are a lot less int flights going through ADL than a number of other airports, but then again there are a lot more than in a number of other airports too.

 

[Happy Trails]

Perth transfer easier than Sydney?

Hardly. One bus each way every 50 minutes.

 

[ButFli]

I have to say I am really liking Melbourne's setup with Domestic and International in separate parts of the same building. Makes transfers easy as.

 

[opusman]

One big downside to the US system is there's no concept of international transit. Even if you're only passing through the airport on the way to Canada or Mexico, you still have to clear customs in the US (and if ineligible for visa waiver, get a visa in advance).

 

[Heleigh]

This is what I like about airports like ADL - you can still spend time saying farewells to family or friends who are travelling internationally up until the moment they choose to go through customs, if you want. I guess obviously there are a lot less int flights going through ADL than a number of other airports, but then again there are a lot more than in a number of other airports too.

You have to remember in the US you are only allowed past security screening area if you have a ticket and (only one person) if you have an unaccompanied minor or a disable person flying. No family beyond immigration or security scanning area.

No it isn't better than AUS.

 

[simongr]

I've not yet been to the USA (booked for next year) but from what I've read they would prefer to have our system. A dedicated international terminal achieves far greater efficiencies by having all of the required infrastructure in one place such as immigration customs etc.

Outbound there is no immigrations/customs in the US

You have to remember in the US you are only allowed past security screening area if you have a ticket and (only one person) if you have an unaccompanied minor or a disable person flying. No family beyond immigration or security scanning area.

No it isn't better than AUS.

I disagree here - less people through security means less queues at security - say goodbye at the kerb or at home rather than gushing with tears at the airport. We used to drop my parents off at the terminal but it became a 2 hour round trip for us just to go through the same emotions we went through at home. Now they get picked up by my driver and we go straight back inside and reorganise the house once they have gone...

 

[kevrosmith]

Airport owners wouldn't be in favour of a change either. Less meeters/greeters and farewellers in Retail precincts increasing average PSR, RP and ATV rates (pax spend rate, retail penetration and average transaction value.. very important stats!)

If anything, you're more likely to see integrated terminals with 'Swing' gates like at OOL. All pax (INT and DOM) enter through common security screening. Pax and farewellers can dwell and spend in a common departures/arrivals - DOM only - area, and then departing INT pax only go through to clear Immigration prior to boarding. Obviously, INT arrivals need to be segregated until they've cleared Immigration and Customs.

For anyone whose travelled through OOL, you'll notice the glass wall between gate 3 and 2 (I think it is). Gate 3 can be used as either INT or DOM, and they can open/close partitions in the lounge depending on capacity needs. I think ADL has swing gates too (though I've never been through). CNS considered a Common Integrated Terminal (CIT) back in late '90s with multiple swing gates, but stuck with a dual-terminal approach. I think they regret it now, especially with the huge downtour in INT pax in the last few years

What I'll be watching with interest is what BNE, in particular, does with its Domestic Terminal leases once they expire... ideally, they'd prefer not to have a "Qantas end" and a "Virgin end", but move to a Common Use Terminal like all (most?) International Terminals. Much greater flexibility from an airport owner's perspective and maximises use of capital investment in infrastructure, such as Aerobridges and baggage carousels. Reduces unnecessary duplication in these areas. (e.g. instead of having 9 baggage carousels in BNE: 4 QF, 4 DJ and 1 in common-use area, a proper utilisation analysis would probably reduce this to 7 or something - don't quote me on these numbers - I couldn't remember for sure how many there are in BNE). SYD's T2 is a classic example of this.

 

[Heleigh]

Outbound there is no immigrations/customs in the US



I disagree here - less people through security means less queues at security - say goodbye at the kerb or at home rather than gushing with tears at the airport. We used to drop my parents off at the terminal but it became a 2 hour round trip for us just to go through the same emotions we went through at home. Now they get picked up by my driver and we go straight back inside and reorganise the house once they have gone...

Simongr, My reply related to a comment made by wingspan in his view of ADL dom/int ability to have visitors to see you off. I usually have one guest waving me goodbye Brother or Cousin (maybe only to enjoy SYD J lounge, have to work that one out. lol). Otherwise like you prefer the less time in security and more in lounges.

Having said this I think there are a few AFF who organize meetings at airports when some are not flying.

On INT flights always droped off at curb.

 

[MattinCBR]

hmmm - prior to Sept 11 Family/Friends/Anyone could get past security in the US, so that component of US travel has nothing to do with airports potentially being international.

The difference in US airports is there is no real outbound immigration check (it is done by the airlines at check in). International terminals at US airports are usually used by "International" carriers - i.e. carriers without there own terminals, and sometimes for arrivals of all international flights.

A not bad example might be BOS - international flights for carriers with their own gate space/terminals leave from those locations, however Immigration and Customs is handled in the international terminal i.e.. Flying AA BOS-LHR-BOS you would leave BOS from Terminal B (American Airlines Terminal), but coming back from the UK you would land and be processed in Terminal E.

You would have to wonder though what would be the fate of the QF F Lounge if such a thing were to happen - presumably it would become a lot like the Concorde Rooms and operate outside the normal OW rules - i.e. access limited to international travellers (Maybe the Longreach room in Sydney and the Winton Room in Melbourne )

Matt

 

[moa999]

Yeah and I end up steaming because it is so expensive and the carriage is old.
(Funnily enough the age of the carriage doesn't stop me travelling on a certain BAM1748.):mrgreen:

Interestingly ended up on the one new Waratah set on the airport line over the weekend

 

[trooper]

As previously mentioned..... I think that the lack of International transit is a very irritating feature of "shared" terminals...

 

[harvyk]

Whilst I've never had a problem in outbound emmigration in the US, a friend of mine did. The airline never collected the green slip from his passport outbound, thus coming back in he had all sorts of explaining to do as to why he was not already in the US. In both cases he was simply transiting.

That sort of thing could never happen in Australia. With the dedicated international terminal (or dedicated international area at least) forcing everyone to get passport checked etc it prevents such problems, plus it means people can transit without needing to get visa's.

Like others have said, I think MEL has the right idea. All three terminals are in the one common building (ignoring T4), thus transitting from dom to int is easy.

 

[MattinCBR]

Whilst I've never had a problem in outbound emmigration in the US, a friend of mine did. The airline never collected the green slip from his passport outbound, thus coming back in he had all sorts of explaining to do as to why he was not already in the US. In both cases he was simply transiting.

That sort of thing could never happen in Australia.

Doesn't really happen in the US these days either - the green slip stapled in your passport is a thing of the past.

 

[ButFli]

Whilst I've never had a problem in outbound emmigration in the US, a friend of mine did. The airline never collected the green slip from his passport outbound, thus coming back in he had all sorts of explaining to do as to why he was not already in the US. In both cases he was simply transiting.

That sort of thing could never happen in Australia.

really happen in the US these days either - the green slip stapled in your passport is a thing of the past.

But surely someone at some stage has to make a record of the person leaving the country. As there isn't any "proper" outbound immigration control, it must fall back on the airline. Whether the airline forgets to remove a piece of cardboard or whether they forget to enter something on their computer has the same effect.