Why can't MEL have a LAX-style walkway between T1/T3 and T2 airside?

[RSVKanga]

Why can't Melbourne Airport have a passageway that allows people who have cleared T1 (and T3) security to access the international terminal airside and vice versa? LAX does a good job at this by connecting the TBIT with American Airlines Domestic T4 through an airside passageway. It would improve the overall airport experience for both domestic and international passengers, especially with T1 increasingly looking a lot nicer with all the major redevelopment and refurbishments going on.

Of course, it may require changes to the current passport screening system, but just curious as to why MEL hasn't adopted LAX's model given it would be super convenient for a lot of people.

 

[cwd]

Two reasons I can think of:
* Different security screening requirements (ie. liquids allowed for domestic but not international)
* International passengers have to pass through the border to leave the country if coming from a domestic terminal

In short - there's nothing to be gained given passengers would need to pass through immigration and security. These issues don't exist in the US as security is the same for domestic/international, and there are no border/immigration checks to pass through when leaving the country.

Not sure if there are any differences in security for domestic and international other than liquids? With countries easing restrictions on liquids with new scanners, perhaps that particular obstacle could disappear. LHR T5 mixes people on both sides of the border (with biometrics), so in theory that's possible to solve too I suppose. EDIT: Actually, thinking about that more, there's no way customs/quarantine would allow mixing domestic and international if people are allowed to do international transit.

 

[RooFlyer]

Why can't Melbourne Airport have a passageway that allows people who have cleared T1 (and T3) security to access the international terminal airside and vice versa?

One very obvious reason (or it should be) is that Australia has exit immigration, whereas the USA does not. Can't clear security in international in Australia until you clear immigration. So the system currently in place appears to be the solution .

Yes, you could re-build the terminal to re-arrange things, but to save 5-10 mins of walking across to the Int terminal entrance and entering immigration as now, probably isn't worth the $20 mill-odd cost in re-building.

 

[dajop]

Can't clear security in international in Australia until you clear immigration.

Umm, whilst I totally with everything else you and cwd have written, slight error here. At MEL, you clear security before clearing immigration. So if domestic security requirements were aligned with international requirements, it should not be too difficult to construct a walkway into the "clean area" between security and immigration, as you do within Schengen areas in Europe (where passing into non-Schengen only requires passing through immigration, not security).

In a big advantage of this could be that it also provides an airside connection from T1 to T3/4, be really useful for QP/SG/WP's travelling on Jetstar wanting lounge access.

But they are not aligned so moot point anyway.

 

[Mwenenzi]

<snip>
Yes, you could re-build the terminal to re-arrange things, but to save 5-10 mins of walking across to the Int terminal entrance and entering immigration as now, probably isn't worth the $20 mill-odd cost in re-building.

Security vs emigration controls can be a different order depending on the airport
$20M would just be the start. And the biggest problem- would take away *retail space* !!!
Terminal layout sketch from 2022. A detailed engineering - architectural drawing would be very different.

 

[jb747]

Aligning security requirements would almost certainly mean making them much more onerous for domestic passengers. So, whose convenience are we serving now?

 

[RooFlyer]

Umm, whilst I totally with everything else you and cwd have written, slight error here. At MEL, you clear security before clearing immigration.

You are no doubt correct, but I just didn’t have that picture in my mind. . Starting my journeys from Hobart, I usually fly out of Sydney so it’s been a been awhile ex MEL and the mind is hazy. Must pay more attention

 

[oz_mark]

Aligning security requirements would almost certainly mean making them much more onerous for domestic passengers. So, whose convenience are we serving now?

Not to mention more expensive for domestic passengers. Someone would have to pay for it...

 

[TomVexille]

This makes about as much sense as asking the same question about SYD

 

[dk4]

Also... each international terminal (/international departure zone at airports with swing gate systems) operates as its own isolated security zone. Which means everyone entering the international area must be screened by that terminal's security screening. That doesn't happen at domestic terminals.

For example, fly MEL(T1)-PER-BME you won't need to be re-screened for security during your Perth transit (if you remain air-side in domestic departures). However, if you fly MEL(T2)-PER-LHR, you will need to be re-screened by PER security, even though you remain air-side in an immigration sense, before you can enter the Perth international departures area.

All transits through an international terminal in Australia, including those originating from another Australian international terminal (where passengers already went through international screening it that terminal) are re-screened in the transit international terminal. This does not happen with domestic terminal transfers.

 

[SYD]

This makes about as much sense as asking the same question about SYD

Although a SYD T2-T3 connector is long overdue! And it’s such a small air gap…

 

[tdimdad]

Although a SYD T2-T3 connector is long overdue! And it’s such a small air gap…

But we have the train tunnel between the terminals.
Having it arranged like BNE domestic would be handy but the terminal design poses some challenges for it.

 

[SYD]

But we have the train tunnel between the terminals.

But that’s land-side and you could as easily walk along the elevated roadway past where the connector should be.

But T3 to T2, you’re hoping it’s not a zoo a security..

Having it arranged like BNE domestic would be handy but the terminal design poses some challenges for it.

Not really. There’s actually space to add extra gates as well as a connector. I beleieve there’s some issue with the heritage terminal (currently a used as a staff lunchroom apparently?) but that could be enclosed and repurposed as a museum / food / bar with apron views - there used to be a public observation deck there!

 

[tdimdad]

But that’s land-side and you could as easily walk along the elevated roadway past where the connector should be.

But T3 to T2, you’re hoping it’s not a zoo a security..

Not really. There’s actually space to add extra gates as well as a connector. I beleieve there’s some issue with the heritage terminal (currently a used as a staff lunchroom apparently?) but that could be enclosed and repurposed as a museum / food / bar with apron views - there used to be a public observation deck there!

Oh, I see what you might be after. I've never actually taken a look at the terminals from above but there already seems to be buildings between T2 and T3. In theory, you probably could build on top of them or find another way through the space.

 

[clifford]

But we have the train tunnel between the terminals.

Yes, that's the point. Too lucrative for vested interests for a change to be made.

If the current Govt can't do it, subsequent ones certainly won't. (IMO).

 

[SYD]

Yes, that's the point. Too lucrative for vested interests for a change to be made.

If the current Govt can't do it, subsequent ones certainly won't. (IMO).

It really comes down to SYD Airport Corp and whether they can convince one or more airlines that it makes sense to join the dots. I would have thought QF could happily use extra gates. Probably less pull from JQ since they’ll make you schlepp between terminal with luggage anyway…