MUC Terminal 2 Satellite
May 25, 2017, 1:27 pm
#123
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Programs: LX SEN, AFKL Platinum, BA Bronze,
Posts: 5,601
Jul 25, 2018, 1:12 am
#124
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between DM464 and DM463 on the NAPSA26 RNAV TRANS in EDDM
Programs: this and that
Posts: 1,731
Take a look at this:
https://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/...f-4862b33ef531
The driverless transport system that connects Terminal 2 at Munich Airport with the satellite building is to be expanded in its functionality to be able to handle the rising passenger volumes without any problems in the future. The planned conversion requires intensive test operations, while the "airport subway" is not available for transporting passengers. The planned tests will be carried out in the period from 30th July 2018 to 6th September 2018, from Monday 12 p.m. to Thursday 12 p.m. During this time, passengers will be transported by shuttle buses to and from the satellite building.As the replacement bus service can extend passengers’ journeys to their departure gate by up to 20 minutes, passengers whose journey begins in Munich and who are departing from the the satellite building - i.e. areas K or L - should take this additional time requirement into account when planning their journey.
Jul 25, 2018, 5:13 am
#125
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
Jul 25, 2018, 5:42 am
#127
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between DM464 and DM463 on the NAPSA26 RNAV TRANS in EDDM
Programs: this and that
Posts: 1,731
From what I heared they want to switch the operating mode from two trains (going back and forth on their respective track) to three trains going round about. The goal is to increase the capacity and presumably making it easier for the Schengen pax that have to decide which track to go to (despite the arrows indicating where the next train will go from). The southern track is supposed to go T2 -> T2S, and the northern track is used for T2S -> T2 (because of the unclean pax coming into MUC).
Source: MUCForum & TZ newspaper.
Source: MUCForum & TZ newspaper.
Jul 25, 2018, 5:45 am
#128
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
From what I heared they want to switch the operating mode from two trains (going back and forth on their respective track) to three trains going round about. The goal is to increase the capacity and presumably making it easier for the Schengen pax that have to decide which track to go to (despite the arrows indicating where the next train will go from). The southern track is supposed to go T2 -> T2S, and the northern track is used for T2S -> T2 (because of the unclean pax coming into MUC).
Source: MUCForum & TZ newspaper.
Source: MUCForum & TZ newspaper.
Jul 25, 2018, 6:24 am
#129
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between DM464 and DM463 on the NAPSA26 RNAV TRANS in EDDM
Programs: this and that
Posts: 1,731
Jul 25, 2018, 6:38 am
#130
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
Jul 29, 2018, 8:34 am
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
That seems overly complex & an awful lot of testing, given that the trains have been operating for quite a while now & why could they not seek approval for a few different timings from the beginning?
Jul 29, 2018, 8:49 am
#133
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: LH M&M, BA EC, DL SM
Posts: 5,626
They were actually planning to, but then teething issues with the trains jeopardized the opening of the satellite and so the obtained “emergency” approval for the reduced schedule.
Jul 29, 2018, 8:53 am
#134
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
Jul 29, 2018, 2:48 pm
#135
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between DM464 and DM463 on the NAPSA26 RNAV TRANS in EDDM
Programs: this and that
Posts: 1,731
Sounds to me like damned if you do, damned if you don't.
People would have been upset if the opening had to be postponed because of a missing approval for all theoretical modes of operation for the PTS, so apparently they decided to go ahead with a reasonable scenario and now two years later they find the need to revisit this topic and get approval for additional scenarios. People are upset again. I guess there is no right or wrong here, but working a project based business I don't find the approach unreasonable (let's start with a realistic scenario that we can get approved in time, rather than delaying the opening and spending extra €€€ on evaluating other options. Let's worry about that when the time is right).
People would have been upset if the opening had to be postponed because of a missing approval for all theoretical modes of operation for the PTS, so apparently they decided to go ahead with a reasonable scenario and now two years later they find the need to revisit this topic and get approval for additional scenarios. People are upset again. I guess there is no right or wrong here, but working a project based business I don't find the approach unreasonable (let's start with a realistic scenario that we can get approved in time, rather than delaying the opening and spending extra €€€ on evaluating other options. Let's worry about that when the time is right).
