Originally Posted by
Christopher
It is not too difficult. I suppose configuring an airport so that international and domestic departures are separated has the knock-on effect of reducing the flexibility with which the gates can be used – seven international flight are all going to be late in leaving, for example: if they can use any gate, that makes it much easier than if they are confined to the five gates set aside for international departures (or whatever the numbers may be). But these difficulties are not insuperable, obviously.
They also don't necessarily have to be permanently delegated as such, depending on how the airport is laid out. EWR C3, for example, is built so that either the whole area could be closed off at the junction with the main C pier or there are holding rooms upstairs. No concessions up there so that would be a notable drawback but I'm guessing they'd solve that problem if the functionality actually went into practice.
Originally Posted by
JohnnyColombia
This is wow interesting, I didn't know that. 3 times I have flown BOG IAH LHR IAH BOG and have never collected my bags in IAH and rechecked them.
IAH is one of a few airports where I:I connections do not have to collect bags. I think the MIA is another but I'm not positive.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Logistic wise, this would require lots of headaches since majority of the US airports are big hubs for the major airlines, and said majors hold big stakes at the terminals they serve.
Given that many of the terminals built to handle this sort of arrangement are actually major hubs I'm not so sure I agree. The airline would LOVE to have this option. It makes things WAY better for them in terms of attracting connecting passengers. They'll do nearly anything to make it work if the feds permit it.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
In order for int'l-to-int'l transit to be made, there has to be a lot of changes done like these which from the airlines POV, is not worth the extra cost.
You've cited one example of an airport where it isn't configured particularly well. I can think of many others where it is configured in a manner which would easily support the operations, should the government allow it.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
This is even more apparent when comparing the airport configuration structure between the US and the rest of the world. Most airports in the world, segregate terminals with "international flights" and "domestic flights." By segregating them, it allows for int'l-to-int'l connections and a more controlled airport environment.
It really wouldn't be too hard to do this at many US airports as they are currently built.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
The US however, does not; they are more configured to jumble up "all United flights at LAX depart at Terminal 7 domestic or international, all Delta flights at JFK depart at Terminals 2, 3 or 4 domestic or international" and this has to do with the airlines holding big stakes at the terminals that they use at every US airport. So in a place like LAX, all AA flights, whether it's a domestic flight to DFW or an international flight to NRT, they all depart from T4. They don't segregate AA's NRT flights to depart from a dedicated single international terminal as with other foreign carriers.
It would be relatively trivial for DL to move all their international traffic to one pier at JFK if that meant they could have I:I transfers. Ditto for UA at LAX, though there aren't many natural I:I connections in their operations there.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Trying to convince all the US airlines that from this day forward, that their own international flights will also have to depart from one single dedicated international terminal as with other international carriers, will be a futile attempt, let alone considering how many major airports there are in the US that serve both domestic and international flights.
There is no need for all international departures to always be in the same terminal. Heathrow seems to manage it just fine, for instance. So does CDG. And FRA.
Besides, the airlines would be quite happy to handle it initially just for same carrier transfers if that's what the option was.