Don't forget that "D Downstairs" doesn't equate to 57 gates. There are 57 gates in the whole of D, each of them with two entrances (Schengen upstairs, non-Schengen downstairs). And I think the upstairs gates are already being used more than the downstairs ones, so I am sure that making D "EU/EEA/Schengen only" would work.

Another thing is that we are all very much hoping that they will get rid of D6 (the bus gate - currently a dozen or so gates rolled into one, D6A, D6B etc) and have Cityhopper flights depart straight from a gate - a change recently introduced for Schengen Cityhopper flights. If D6 disappears they will need lots more proper gates for UK flights.

I walked over and had a look at this new "Innovative Gate" G7 yesterday. As it happened, I arrived just as CX was in full swing processing the pax for a flight to HKG.

I noted the following:

The seating area before the gate proper has a variety of seats, but not enough capacity to handle even a single-aisle shorthaul flight.

There is a biggish area in front the the GA desk which is, well, simply empty. Not sure what purpose it serves.

The GA desk is huge, can easily accommodate half a platoon of agents.

Checkpoints are on either side of the desk. One was reserved for elites, and despite a complete lack of premium flyers, all Y pax were funneled through the second one, presumably in line with CX policy. The Y checkpoint being on the window side, this meant that a very long line of pax snaked its way through the innovative seating area and then as far back as the moving walkway, thus blocking traffic across almost the full width of the pier.

I could not see the security checkpoints (opaque windows) but the innnovative waiting area beyond them was remarkable only for the new seats and bigger video screens. There was a separate area marked "Marco Polo / First Class / Business Class" positioned just in front of the jetway entrance, which should make priority boarding easier. However, the seating consisted of 6 two-seater sofa. Almost enough for an airline wishing to reserve the area for F pax only, but totally inadequate for those wishing to cater to F, C and elites.

My impression is that the improvements and changes are largely cosmetic, and will do nothing to solve the real problems, i.e. BC scanning/security chokepoints and long lines. The boarding experience will still depend on whether the operating airline will staff the gate adequately, have proper procedures in place, and ensure that the GA actually follow said procedures.

Johan

This.

I don't see why so many people appear to scoff at AMS for having gate security. There's only one downside to it that I can think of, and that is not being able to take your bottle of water with you because that gets taken from you at security. But this problem needs to be solved differently (and is not something for this thread).

There are only advantages to me with this setup, chiefly among which that you're not wasting giant amounts of time in line with people who may be flying hours after you are supposed to leave.

While I can see that there are downsides to central security (such as the one you mentioned), the main problem with the setup at Schiphol is that huge amounts of time and resources are currently being wasted on additional security checks for people who don't need them.

Anyone who has cleared security on the same day, at an airport in the EU and/or the Schengen area, should NOT have to go through security again. At the moment transfer passengers, except on Schengen to Schengen transfers, are having to waste time on additional security checks that would not be needed if Schiphol didn't mix arriving and departing passengers. All this time-wasting could be avoided if the departure area were turned back into a secure area, with transfer passengers from outside the EU/Schengen being sent through security checks on arrival.

I agree with you in principe, but I don't see it as that big of a waste of time. There's always a line to get on board a plane, adding security simply makes it a slightly slower line. And as said: once you're at the gate and in line for security, you're as good as on the plane. Unlike central security which may take long enough that you miss it, if you have a tight connection. (And there are plenty of situations in which such people are checked. To name one, an international to anywhere transfer in the US.)

Basically, there are up- and downsides to both. I don't think anyone here will deny that. I do think, however, that the upsides of security at the gate outweigh the downsides and the upsides of central security.

It's not just time that's an issue, it's also (and perhaps primarily) the hassle factor.

I don't think there are many who will disagree that security checks are probably the most stressful part of travelling by air. I, for one, look forward to the time when I don't have to go through security twice each time I transfer at Schiphol.

You are absolutely right, but this is not a problem of Schiphol (or the principle of security at the gate) specifically. It's a problem of even having these stupid checks in the first place, and them having gotten worse and worse over time due to government stupidity, especially on the part of the Americans and the British. The security checks are a pain in the ass in any airport that deals with flights to either of those countries.

Of course with security at the gate you will always go through it again when at Schiphol (which is only once btw, the first time was at your originating airport), but there's no real need for it to be such a hassle.

Here's another thing to think about: what's stopping foreign governments (especially the US) from requiring that all international passengers be checked at the gate for flights to their airports some time in the near future? With central security, you'd have to be checked twice at the same airport in that case. And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this were to happen at some point.

AMS , Schiphol is expanding bigtime according to the masterplan 2025.
More gates will be constructed in the south east direction (next to B-gates) and a new arrival/departure hall will be constructed.

Does this mean we will see an exclusive KLM/Skyteam schengen/non-schengen combined terminal and the other airlines move into their own separate terminal building?
An idea just like MUC-airport, where T2 handles LH and Star (schengen on lvl3 and non-schengen on lvl 4 )together in 1 building and T1 all other airlines.

I think this would keep Schiphol competitive as a mainport and give KLM a good edge as a transfer hub. For passengers it will become easier to transfer within the terminal with just going a floor up and down. Add in a good centralized security and immigration capacity and flying KL via AMS could be swift and easy beating LHR, FRA and even CDG!

Source:
Uitbreiding Schiphol levert 10.000 banen op
NEW YORK – Schiphol gaat fors uitbreiden en als het even kan, wordt daar dit jaar nog een begin mee gemaakt. Dat zei president-directeur Jos Nijhuis van Schiphol dinsdag. “Het gaat om een investering die het miljard ruimschoots overschrijdt en minimaal 10.000 extra banen genereert”, aldus Nijhuis. Schiphol wil en moet als luchtvaartbedrijf anticyclisch investeren.
Wanneer er precies met de bouw kan worden begonnen, hangt onder meer af van het vergunningenproces. En de laatste puntjes worden nog op de i gezet met betrekking tot de wensen van de klanten, de luchtvaartmaatschappijen. “In het voorjaar worden de knopen doorgehakt”, stelt Nijhuis.
Schiphol groeide het afgelopen jaar met ruim 10 procent tot bijna 50 miljoen passagiers. “Dat knelde af en toe.” Voor wat betreft het aantal vliegbewegingen, kan de luchthaven nog groeien. “Als we nu beginnen, hebben we over vier tot vijf jaar extra capaciteit. Nijhuis denkt niet dat de crisis roet in het eten gooit. “We zien de groei nog niet afnemen, maar het kan. Maar we komen ook weer uit de crisis en we winnen marktaandeel.” Waarmee Nijhuis doelt op het terugwinnen van passagiers van de luchthavens in Belgi� en vooral Duitsland.
Het geld dat nodig is voor de uitbreiding wordt via een obligatielening uit de markt gehaald, een beursgang is nog steeds geen wens van Nijhuis. Binnen het Masterplan Schiphol 2025 wordt de B-pier op de schop genomen en wil Nijhuis de terminal met pieren, waar de vliegtuigen aan parkeren, in zuidoostelijke richting uitbreiden.
(c) ANP
Article source: http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nl-NL...0_000_banen_op and on AD,Parool,NRC

I did mot get your point about "even beating CDG". IMHO CDG has already been beaten by every other airport in Europe (except LHR maybe), including AMS.

Well CDG is indeed a mess now but AF is already grouped together in T2CDEFG and with the finalization of the expansion satellite all Skyteam flights can be grouped at EFG providing easier transfer.

Given that AMS currently operates virtually as a "single terminal" anyway, is it not currently true that all Skyteam flights are grouped together, and transfers are (particularly when not entering/leaving Schengen) "easy" as it is?

Perhaps this should be merged with the existing Schiphol Future Plans thread.

Thanks for noticing.

Posts have been moved.

Gajan