Schiphol Future Plans
 

An interview with one of Schiphol's management was published in a range of Dutch media this weekend.

http://www.zakenreis.nl/popupmessage.php?msgid=3740 in Dutch.

Biggest reported issues (and nicely reflected at his forum) are security queues at the gate and the gate layout.

Apparently the plan is to separate arriving from departing passengers which would get rid of the security checks at the gate and to improve the gate areas (would they still be necessary?) as per the recent test at G7.

Will take a few years before it is implemented though.

Not sure I see the issue. Gate security has a massive benefit in that the queues will not cause you to miss a flight. Returning to central security would make it as bad as many other large airports.

Interesting! I know that separating pax streams has been under consideration for a long time, with the high costs of implementation presenting the biggest stumbling block. I think it is good news, but for transfer pax it will all depend on how they will directed back into the departures hall. If all arriving transfer pax are funneled into a central security checkpoint (à la LHR T5), which seems to be the idea, this could result in far greaterer distances to be covered, and thus longer tranfer times.

I'm also curious to know what Privium intend to do once the free no-Q automated border checkpoints are introduced for all pax. So far, all they have done is once again increase the annual fee, by a considerable amount (19%, off the top of my head).

I don't find the G satellite terminal idea all that appealing. It is a departure from AMS' all-under-one-roof concept, and busing pax is something that should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Johan

I know many people have complained about it, but I have always personally liked the mixing of arriving and departing pax. It's a much more pleasant experience for arriving passengers, from my perspective. Rather than being funneled into a dark, boring, gray corridor with tacky corporate art or Kodak moments hanging on the walls... you get dropped into the buzz of departing passengers with the shops and restaurant and so on. Plus it simplifies things so much, especially when transferring. BA passengers seem to love doing point runs to AMS, because it is so easy to turn around.

I have no problems whatsoever with the current setup, given my travel pattern and Privium membership.

Johan

The current arrangement has a very nice benefit for the status flyers amongst us. I have used the AMS lounge very often as a kind of arrivals lounge. Sometimes just for a quick snack, sometimes for the shower and just today to meet a fellow FT member whose status update on facebook indicated he was in Amsterdam.

With a new design and the split of arriving and departing passengers this will not be possible any more.

I don't think it's made clear in the article (but my Dutch is very limited and I may have missed something)... but my assumption was that the separation of arriving and departing passenger is something that will only happen in the non-Schengen zone. If my assumption is right then I don't think it's a bad thing as it will eliminate all those additional security checks that shouldn't really be necessary but that are currently required because Schiphol mixes departing and arriving passengers.

Someone who has cleared Security at another EU or Schengen airport should NOT have to clear security again at Schiphol... but mixing with arriving non-EU passengers makes these passengers "unclean", hence the need for re-screening. Having central security, and sending arriving non-EU/Schengen transfer passengers through security on arrival, should make things a lot more efficient.

Unless KL go to the trouble of opening an arrivals lounge.

Fat chance!

Johan

Maybe in the non-Schengen area...

But yeah, I am not holding my breath...

The papers indicate that they are prepared to spend 300 million euros of our overpriced airport fees in doing so.

Maybe helpful to literally translate some of the highlights (or what I think are the highlights in any case!). Everyone can be their own judge! Not sure I like the idea of transfer buses to a new G-satellite, however. I would think a tunnel would be much more preferable; we don't want to catch the Heathrow busing disease. And does anybody know where this "G buffer" is located?

Here are the translations:

New gates and piers
Plans for the construction of two new piers (A and A') have been put on ice indefinitely. "Research about the passenger experience has consistently shown that two aspects always play a prominent role: queues at security checkpoints and the quality of the waiting areas at the gate. At the moment we are testing the Schiphol Innovative Gate on the G-pier (G7). This waiting area in a new style should improve the passenger experience before departure considerably. Not only will the furniture be completely renewed, but also the lighting and information screens will be tailored to the airlines using the gate and the phase of the boarding process. Dependent upon the test's results, this concept will be rolled out this summer."

Separating arriving/departing passengers and security
It seems obvious that this reconstruction will be substantial, taking several years and requiring a large investment roughly estimated at €300 million. The construction plans vary from building up into the air (a new level on top of the existing terminal building) to building parallel along the existing piers and building. Construction should start, according to current projections, in 2012.

British travelers and security
Of course one wants to avoid unnecessarily screening passengers, which is unfortunately the case at the moment. All traffic out of Great Britain arrives at the non-Schengen area and when transfering to a Schengen flight, must pass through the security filter, which is actually not required by EU rules. In the new design, we want to avoid these types of situations.

Cancelled plans for new A-pier
Expansion is certainly not permanently off the table. The problem is that increased demand is concentrated around peak hours. "We have plenty of capacity during the slow times and that should not change much. But most carriers, especially home carrier KLM, want extra freqeuencies to European destinations to seamlessly connect to the arriving masses of intercontinental passengers. And that is always during peak hours. Considering that transfer passenger constitute 43% of total volume, one cannot avoid an unequal distribution over the course of the day."

Satellite terminal in the G-buffer
Four widebodies will be able to park there. Departing passengers will wait in a comfortable lounge, while transfer buses will bring passengers to the main terminal.

Automated border passage
No-Q means automated border passage for EU passengers on the basis of biometric data found in (new) passports. In contrast to Privium (border passage with iris scan), it will not be necessary to enroll and there will be no additional costs. "From the upcoming winter until next year, we will install 100 machines."

Security and automated border passage for ELITES
Business travelers will be happy to know that priority lanes will be expanded considerably at security check-points. Both Previum members as well as first and business class passengers will be able to make use of this facility. "Currently, the line for Privium is sometimes longer than the regular queues, which obviously is not the intention."

Airport fees
A recurring sensitive issue for the airlines is the airport fees. Last year, these costs were frozen for the airlines, but with an eye to the planned investments, it seems unlikely they will be frozen again in April 2011. The reconstruction of the terminal must be financed somehow and while it will lead to substantially lower security costs, the return on investment is over twenty years. The airport fees consist of three parts: landing fees (per aircraft, dependent on weight), a security surcharge and a passenger service surcharge. "Some airlines want us to share part of the risk through the elimination of landing fees. But even if you land an empty aircraft, you still make use of the runways and other facilities, such as a fire brigade that is always on stand-by." Currently, a discussion is taking place about bringing variation to the security surcharge. "Flights that fall into so-called "high risk" categories (such as to the United States and Israel) demand extra security measures. I am of the opinion that it would not be unreasonable if the extra costs we incur for these flights are passed onto the airlines that service these destinations." The possibility that the government would finance a part of the infrastructure costs, as is currently the case for rail and road transport, is not realistic. "The ministry of finance is already critical about the dividend currently issued by the Schiphol Group to the government, never mind that they would be prepared to finance in our expansion plans."

New flying taxes
"We are closely watching the proposed German air tax. But also the environmental tax in England and the poverty surcharge in France are signs that do not make us uncomfortable. In the Netherlands the air tax was implemented to close a budget deficit of €350 million, but in the end it caused about €1.2 billion in damages to the economy. Let us hope Dutch politics have learned their lesson."

Non-Schengen EU Countries
 

Thanks for the detailed summary, Schmeckflyer - much appreciated.

I am glad that they are addressing the issue of non-Schengen EU passengers as a separate point, and I hope that this means that they are planning to do something about it sooner rather than later.... as this is something that could be resolved quite easily, and without major reconstruction. All that would be required would be a dedicated area for UK/Ireland flights that is separated from the Schengen area by passport control only. "D Downstairs" would be the obvious place for this - all that would need to happen would be for the security checkpoint to be moved to the other side of the entrance to D Pier while keeping the Immigration checkpoint in its current place.

Wouldn't this mean bus gates only for UK flights?? :eek:

I don't mean the basement (aka D6) - I mean the ground floor, i.e., the whole of the downstairs corridor (D1 to D57). With the exception of D6 these are all normal gates with aircraft parked at the end of airbridges.

For those not familiar with D Pier - D Pier is shared between Schengen and non-Schengen, and operates on two levels. If your flight is a non-Schengen flight you access your gate from the ground floor. If your flight is a Schengen flight you access it from the upper floor. Every D gate has two numbers, a "downstairs" one and an "upstairs" one.

Are there enough flights that fall under the category to justify the entire downstairs D pier? Seems like more gates than would be required for EU non-schengen destinations.. I might be wrong, but doesn't seem to add up in my mind.

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.

KL&AMS - the future
 

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 België 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