Travel News - Sharing at the Airport (Gates, Desks, Kiosks...)

Sharing Catches On at Airports (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/business/at-airports-a-new-strategy-is-catching-on-sharing.html?_r=1&ref=business)

NY Times has an interesting article about something new in SNA, as well as SJC, and RDU. It's also being considered for MIA and SMF. It is additionally in use in LAS.

It's definitely an interesting concept, and I'm quite surprised it hasn't been done before. Especially with everything becoming digital nowadays, there's no reason airlines can't share space. Though I suspect they won't share gates in different terminals.

It's done at some airports, small ones where they share gates, where contractors run the check in counters, and the kiosk has a bunch of logos and you touch the one for the airline you are flying to get started.

I've never however seen them all using the same computers, it's always been if you need xyz airline and they are at the abc terminal, they move over to the next terminal.

Interesting concept to roll up to a large grown up airport. I would be a bit shocked if the airlines would go for it.

Outside of the US, gate-sharing is the norm. The article mentions Europe, but you find this pretty much everywhere. Fly to BKK or HKG (or, yes, to most big airports in Europe), and carriers do not have their own designated gates. Ticketing and check-in facilities also can be swiftly interchanged. Podiums have LED screens to identify which carrier is using them.

It's a centralized system that, I think, works really well. It's a MUCH more efficient use of space.

US airport could learn quite a bit from those overseas, which on the whole are far more attractive, more efficient, and more convenient.


Patrick Smith

CUTE (common-use terminal equipment) has been used for a while now, though less so in the US and primarily only at gates.

I completely agree that the more widespread it becomes, the more the traveling consumer wins. Flexibility and more efficiency can only help our antiquated airports.

The speed of PCs at the gate running CUTE software was brutally slow to boot in the past, multiple interfaces loaded onto each machine really dragged down their performance.

US airport could learn quite a bit from those overseas, which on the whole are far more attractive, more efficient, and more convenient.

I fail to see how ticket counter/gate operations relate to airport attractiveness.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Euro-model. I like knowing where my airlnes' gates are going to be well before I get to the airport. I like dedicated counters to the airline I'm flying, not some jumble of carriers. While it may be efficient for the airport, it makes the airport experience far less pleasing. I won't even go into the "Guantanamo" gate security issue used at most euro-ports.

I fail to see how ticket counter/gate operations relate to airport attractiveness.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Euro-model. I like knowing where my airlnes' gates are going to be well before I get to the airport. I like dedicated counters to the airline I'm flying, not some jumble of carriers. While it may be efficient for the airport, it makes the airport experience far less pleasing. I won't even go into the "Guantanamo" gate security issue used at most euro-ports.

I disagree. I fly into/out of TLV numerous times, and I never have an issue of "not knowing" where my gate is. What does it matter to me whether it's C7, C8, or D7? They're all the same distance from security, and I'll find out when I get my boarding pass. It's much better, and this way, if there's an issue, I know I'll be moved to a different gate, preventing delays. (Similar to what a single airline can do at a hub)

The sharing of gates sounds good until they have you run from Concourse A to Concourse G in 20 minutes to make your plane and you are at the last gate of Concourse A and need to be at the last gate in Concourse G.

We learned about sharing in preschool and yes its good when it works but if an airline keeps moving you around sharing seems to make it hard on the passengers. Now if they kept the same terminal/concourse then that is fine with me.

It's an interesting concept that works well for tiny airports but I doubt would be practical for large ones.

It's an interesting concept that works well for tiny airports but I doubt would be practical for large ones.

Why? Take for an example, Terminal B at EWR. That's an international terminal. No airline has a hub there, and the only North American airlines that even operate there are DL and AS. But it's filled with other airlines, such as BA, LH, LX, LY, 9W, AF... Why couldn't they share?

It's an interesting concept that works well for tiny airports but I doubt would be practical for large ones.

Like Schiphol?

Like Schiphol?
As an example of a large airport where it doesn't work?

As an example of a large airport where it doesn't work?

No, he's clearly giving it as an example of a large airport where it DOES work, answering slackinormackin's request for such a case.

If clearly labelled, easy to navigate and saves time and money..

Why not?

That would be a great idea but there should be rules to make it more systematic.

That would be a great idea but there should be rules to make it more systematic.

I think there are. Every European airport, where I have seen this in action, has a good system set up. I know where to check-in, and roughly, which gate area my aircraft will be parked at, etc... I never see them putting one flight in one terminal and the other flight in a far away terminal. The only exception is international to domestic at an airport like CPH. I've had to go from the furthest international gate to the furthest domestic gate more than once there. Most flights there seem to be O&D there though.

I think there are. Every European airport, where I have seen this in action, has a good system set up. I know where to check-in, and roughly, which gate area my aircraft will be parked at, etc... I never see them putting one flight in one terminal and the other flight in a far away terminal.

+1. At TLV, CO for example doesn't have their own gates, desks... But check-in is always in the same place, shared with a bunch of airlines, including Aerosvit. The gates are always B9, C9, or D9. (Same terminal) Now they can always be moved, and I'll know before going. But they have a system that shares everything, and maximizes efficiency.

That would be a great idea but there should be rules to make it more systematic.

I think there are. Every European airport, where I have seen this in action, has a good system set up. I know where to check-in, and roughly, which gate area my aircraft will be parked at, etc... I never see them putting one flight in one terminal and the other flight in a far away terminal. The only exception is international to domestic at an airport like CPH. I've had to go from the furthest international gate to the furthest domestic gate more than once there. Most flights there seem to be O&D there though.

imo there must be a system.. yes each airport may have thier own set of systems.. perhaps OP means a world wide or country wide system to make everything seamless and smooth?:-:

imo there must be a system.. yes each airport may have thier own set of systems.. perhaps OP means a world wide or country wide system to make everything seamless and smooth?:-:

Of course each airport must have a system! Not quite sure what erikko meant, either..