New Sydney Airport Vision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look at the new ADL terminal - it multi tasks quite well in mixing Domestic and International. (Aside from the QP.)

However, IMHO it's not going to happen at SYD within the next 20 years ... if ever ...
 
Elevate your business spending to first-class rewards! Sign up today with code AFF10 and process over $10,000 in business expenses within your first 30 days to unlock 10,000 Bonus PayRewards Points.
Join 30,000+ savvy business owners who:

✅ Pay suppliers who don’t accept Amex
✅ Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
✅ Earn & transfer PayRewards Points to 10+ airline & hotel partners

Start earning today!
- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Look at the new ADL terminal - it multi tasks quite well in mixing Domestic and International. (Aside from the QP.)

However, IMHO it's not going to happen at SYD within the next 20 years ... if ever ...

ADL "multitasks" quite well in that it only handles a very small amount of international traffic.

A significant scale up of the ADL concept is neither straightforward nor easily practical IMO.

In essence, ADL is pretty much MEL except the latter does not have a visually-appealing "common concourse".
 
A significant scale up of the ADL concept is neither straightforward nor easily practical IMO.

Why does it work so well at LHR T5 then? Although I hate LHR T5 it manages DOM and INT pax together quite well.
 
Not specifically related to SYD, but I wouldnt be surprised if the figures were the same. Ay YMMB, 80-90% of the noise complaints come from the same 3 or 4 people. Now forgive my ignorance, but one can only presume they moved there because it was cheap, or was what they could afford. The airport existed prior to them moving there and now the noise is the airports fault?? If you dont like aircraft noise, and I accept it could become tiresome, DONT LIVE NEAR AN AIRPORT! To expect a multi BILLION dollar piece of infrastructure, that you would be hamstrung without, to just up and move because you cant sleep is absurd! It is far simpler for you and your household to sell up and move somewhere more to your liking.

You would be surprised. But that is why we supposedly live in a democracy (after all, it wouldn't be so if the rich and big corporations could just buy votes, if they already do so anyway).

Direct compensation of people affected in order to move only addresses a financial concern, not social or moral ones. Moreover, appropriate compensation (even at veritable market rates) is rarely afforded to such affected people in such situations.

One can also make the argument that the airport has expanded multiple times and people had different expectations of the noise during different phases of its expansion. For example, someone who has lived in the area for decades was probably used to only a few planes compared to now, albeit they were louder (but probably didn't land at night). If the same persons were living in the area, the traffic has increased and hence they did not move into the area to put up with the new level of noise. It's actually almost equally facetious on both sides if you analyse it carefully (i.e. the other side of the coin is that it is impossible for one to reasonably think that there was no possibility of the airport expanding its operations). For those that have just moved into the area, perhaps the caveat is more valid, but people are people and they still won't take it.

Moreover, it is both the airport itself and flight paths which are the bones of contention for noise in SYD. If it were possible to always land on the third runway, for example, then apart from necessitating some probably wasteful but extensive flight paths to avoid residential areas, then I don't think a curfew would be necessary. Unless wake noise and so on from the airport carries a fair distance, which may be another problem. Also, even if it were possible to instigate this scenario and remove the curfew, it'll only take one go around and there will be a plethora of complaints to the local MPs office tomorrow.
 
Why does it work so well at LHR T5 then? Although I hate LHR T5 it manages DOM and INT pax together quite well.

In the UK there are no outbound immigration procedures. Moreover, all flights - both DOM and INT - are subject to LAG restrictions. The commonality of procedures does not require a separation of DOM and INT streams, making the design of T5 significantly easier (every passenger is the "same").

In ADL there is a need to keep both DOM and INT - at least to some point in the sterile zone - separated. The current system at ADL calls for the use of clear folding walls to separate the INT and DOM zones where applicable for departing INT flights. It's a clunky system and prone to human error, thus presents a risk in itself.

At ADL all INT passengers must pass through two sets of security screening (the second one is to ensure no LAGs). If and when LAG restrictions are lifted, things might get better in this regard (i.e. the only thing left would be to clear immigration).


I probably should've made it clear that there is no problem really of mixing DOM and INT in the same terminal area but this is only really for the non-sterile area. Of course this doesn't mean more than one terminal is necessary - that is why MEL is not a bad model.

Essentially my argument about ADL was that the loose walls concept and double security may be acceptable for small operations but for much larger operations this needs a rethink.
 
In the UK there are no outbound immigration procedures.

Essentially my argument about ADL was that the loose walls concept and double security may be acceptable for small operations but for much larger operations this needs a rethink.

I can assure you that the UK does have outbound immigration procedures because it is not a signatory to the Schengen treaty.

Further to another members assertion that there is no outbound immigration procedures in the US, there are. You are processed by the airline as part of the checkin process and once you have boarded the aircraft (not physically, but rather your BP scan) you are deemed to have left the US.

I do agree with ADL however. Its operations are more than adequate for the few arrivals/departures it has per day, but there is no way or need for such a system to be implemented at a major international airport that warrants a dedicated terminal.
 
As a frequent flyer whom transits SYD for regional Rex flights (and reverse) I think this will definately lock Rex passengers into whichever alliance terminal that Rex ends up in.
 
As a frequent flyer whom transits SYD for regional Rex flights (and reverse) I think this will definately lock Rex passengers into whichever alliance terminal that Rex ends up in.

Why? If the current rail link between T1 and T2/3 is maintained, and remains at the current few $$ or free between the 2 terminals, id see no problem with changing terminals. I mean heck, at LHR you sometimes have to change terminals when flying the same airline (BA T3 to T5 and vv) or same alliance (QF/IB/AY/CX to BA and vv). But I concede it would become tiresome after a while....
 
You would be surprised. But that is why we supposedly live in a democracy (after all, it wouldn't be so if the rich and big corporations could just buy votes, if they already do so anyway).

Direct compensation of people affected in order to move only addresses a financial concern, not social or moral ones. Moreover, appropriate compensation (even at veritable market rates) is rarely afforded to such affected people in such situations.

One can also make the argument that the airport has expanded multiple times and people had different expectations of the noise during different phases of its expansion. For example, someone who has lived in the area for decades was probably used to only a few planes compared to now, albeit they were louder (but probably didn't land at night). If the same persons were living in the area, the traffic has increased and hence they did not move into the area to put up with the new level of noise. It's actually almost equally facetious on both sides if you analyse it carefully (i.e. the other side of the coin is that it is impossible for one to reasonably think that there was no possibility of the airport expanding its operations). For those that have just moved into the area, perhaps the caveat is more valid, but people are people and they still won't take it.

Moreover, it is both the airport itself and flight paths which are the bones of contention for noise in SYD. If it were possible to always land on the third runway, for example, then apart from necessitating some probably wasteful but extensive flight paths to avoid residential areas, then I don't think a curfew would be necessary. Unless wake noise and so on from the airport carries a fair distance, which may be another problem. Also, even if it were possible to instigate this scenario and remove the curfew, it'll only take one go around and there will be a plethora of complaints to the local MPs office tomorrow.


You raise very valid points and peoples response depends very much on which side of the fence they sit. But IMHO, the fact remains that an airport is a fundamental piece of infrastructure that Sydney or any city can not live without. It must function efficiently and effectively and not be hamstrung by bureaucracy or NIMBY's. Given that houses can be compulsorily aquired to widen roads etc, I see no difference with airports.

My preference is to relocate the entire field but I dont see that happening anytime soon. As for MEL, it has plenty of land available for expansion but it needs to be careful not to fall into the same trap of allowing development to encroach too closely for what is a short term financial gain.
 
I agree - not a huge problem except that with the low frequency of Rex I am quite often looking at minimum connection times, especially as QF and JQ won't interline Rex baggage.

Also agree with the comments about urban encroachment on airports - a classic case of what not to do would be CBR...
 
Of course, with LHR you don't get airside unless you are working at the airport or travelling, unlike ADL.

The main issue with this (and why I can't see it happening before 2025 if ever) is the funding. Who's gunna pay? Not the govm'nt, not MAQ -I'm sure most PAX would want to either.
 
To me, just leave the airport as it is. Too many excuses for Mac Airports to raise charges with minimal gain.
 
To me, just leave the airport as it is. Too many excuses for Mac Airports to raise charges with minimal gain.

While I think that is a risk, the airport really could do with being bulldozed and built again. Obviously that is not going to happen, and the current 'vision' is, to me, an improvement.

One downside, is that the current Qantas domestic terminal is probably the best of the three, and if Mac takes that over it may all become the same style of shopping plaza we have come to enjoy elsewhere in Sydney Aiport.
 
Not trying to be a contrarian but what is the problem with the shopping centre in int'l? I do not frequent it as I go straight to the F lounge and I walk quickly through it. It has no direct impact on me and I am numb to it. What it does do is put cash into Mac's coffers. If they weren't getting cash from here then they would be getting it from the airlines. This way the shopaholics are keeping downward pressure on fees and charges. This doesn't mean Mac aren't charging high prices but at least it relieves some of the pressure.
 
I can assure you that the UK does have outbound immigration procedures because it is not a signatory to the Schengen treaty.

I have to admit, I also thought that UK didn't have outbound immigration, in any case Schengen would have no bearing as to if they had outbound immi as it's an agreement to allow entry into certain countries either under the one visa or without any visa \ border controls. It does not play a part in departure procedures of a non signatory country. (Prehaps someone who has departed the UK recently could comment)

Another example I can think of is LAX, it has INT and DOM departing from the same terminal, but again they have no outbound immi. You show your passport at the gate as you board. But again security procedures are the same regardless of INT or DOM.

I can see a mixed terminal working in SYD, provided they had dedicated gates for DOM and dedicated gates for INT. The other choice is use the "glass tunnels" idea similar to what AKL does to separate departing and arriving pax. Have INT pax and DOM pax waiting in different areas and when a gate is to be used for INT purposes doors close so there is a tunnel so to speak connecting the gate to the INT departures area.
 
Not trying to be a contrarian but what is the problem with the shopping centre in int'l? I do not frequent it as I go straight to the F lounge and I walk quickly through it. It has no direct impact on me and I am numb to it. ...
It's not too bad for those travelling Qantas, but try checking in at the *A counters for pier C, then taking the enforced 600 metre walk to the lounge. (This used to be ¼ the distance).
 
It's not too bad for those travelling Qantas, but try checking in at the *A counters for pier C, then taking the enforced 600 metre walk to the lounge. (This used to be ¼ the distance).

Yep. SQ, check in at row Z (OK I exaggerate, but it is the last row), then walk all the way to Qantas checkins and all the way back to about 60m from where you started. Ridiculous. Very BKK.
 
I have to admit, I also thought that UK didn't have outbound immigration, in any case Schengen would have no bearing as to if they had outbound immi as it's an agreement to allow entry into certain countries either under the one visa or without any visa \ border controls. It does not play a part in departure procedures of a non signatory country. (Prehaps someone who has departed the UK recently could comment)

My passport was looked at departing the UK (my UK passport that is).
 
My passport was looked at departing the UK (my UK passport that is).

Any formal outbound immi like AU (involving departure cards \ passport stamping etc), or was it simply checked at the gate?
 
It was post security and before shopping/lounges/gates. There are no departure cards - but equally I have never filled in an inbound arrivals card entering the UK. I think foreigners (including non-EU citizens) do though. It was "immigration" person rather than an airline person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top