ty97

Link in German, but browser can auto-translate.

Basic points:
- We already knew T2 would close for renovation when T3 opens in 2026
- T2 will get centralized security
- "completely linked infrastructure between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2"(details on what this means not included)
- T1 renovations planned (details not included)
- T1/T2 to focus on LH and its partners

https://www.aero.de/news-46229/Flugh...-zusammen.html

Fabo.sk

I guess that means that they will open a walkway between C and D, which... good? I guess?

It's still gonna be a mess I think.

T1/T2 complex is sprawling lengthwise, that's not good. To make this sort of thing work, you want a central spine and "ribs" of terminals. Like the trains are in MUC and ZRH. And you want to be able to travel between them cleanly. Currently the train is unclean. and every time you enter it you have to re-clear security. I don't see how they change that. MUC sorts it by having three cars. ZRH sorts it by having the train only be non-Schengen with clean and unclean cars.

At very minimum they need to have 3 zones in the train, is that feasible? Schengen clean, non-Schengen clean and non-Schengen non-clean. Schengen non-clean can use landside buses, if they still exist.

B needs a clean way to transfer that is not the sometimes bus. Or perhaps they can reconfigure it and make entire B Schengen. Or make entire B non-Schengen and move B Schengen operations to T2.
C needs a clean way to enter it in the first place. Currently, unless I missed some recent change, you can't cleanly transfer into C from either Schengen or clean non-Schengen airside.

D/E are not at all integrated...

There's a long way ahead to make this work... if at all possible... maybe with T2 emptied and moved to T3 it can happen.
But I would be certainly not singing the praises before we see the result.

ty97

This is a key piece, IMO, to make this work. B needs to all one zone (whichever zone it may be).

Fabo.sk

B can remain zoned (though of course I would prefer it not to be) as long as the option of a secure non-Schengen transfer to Z and a secure immigration to B/A can be ensured. That, actually, would "only" require immigration passport control B>B, in the MVP form

hch

And with the new placement of the security checks in B and the plan to have the Skytrain in the secure zone that is easily possible. Now just pray that Fraport doesn't manage to f***k it up anyway.

supine

My understanding is that the secure area in T1 is being expanded towards check-in so that a level airside pathway exists between A/Z, B and C, with Schengen on the floor level with A and non-Schengen one floor up level with Z.

The SkyTrain stations will then be able to be secure. If you arrive unclean you would go through security before riding the train, rather than the current situation of unclean train and security after getting off.

They still need to sort out the B and C mess, make it all more like A/Z, but by redoing T2 first that gives them gates to use there for when the T1 work is going to make a mess of that terminal.
​​​​​​

hch

I don't think a walkway between Z and B-Non Schengen is in the current plans, and neither is bi-level gates in B (except for the one they sorta kinda have). Adding this would require completely rebuilding the inner part of B. There were plans to do that complete rebuild years ago, including tearing down the now unused build slicing the B Schengen part in half, but I haven't heard anything about resurrecting it or adding bi-level gates to it. Given that T1 seem in dire need of more Schengen gates I'm also not sure turning B-Schengen into dual Schengen / Non-Schengen gates would buy much. Moving wide body departures off the old part of Z and to T2 would actually help nicely allowing narrow-body turns changing between Schengen and non-Schengen and would reduce the overcrowding there a bit. Maybe that's the plan after T2 reopens?

supine

A minimalist approach would just mostly leave the B arms as is, but change up some of the clean/unclean areas.

E.g. the walkway from non-Schengen B to the SkyTrain is currently unclean, you rework things so that creates a clean path.

I have no idea how ambitious they are going to be...

Fabo.sk

It is true that one advantage FRA has against MUC or ZRH (or for that matter CDG T2E) is that it technically doesn't need an unclean non-Schengen car, given that arrivals would be able to walk to landside easily from any point, something not possible with satellite configuration... that would mean that within T1/T2 the train could be made wholly secure with S and NS part.

I was wondering how the train to T3 would impact that, but on reflection, that train is a separate system that could remain unclean. That would necessitate one-way filter from old to new, and transfer security from new to old (for NS pax), but I guess that could be made to join in the existing transfer security? Schengen pax would just enter via departure checks.

hch

Changing this is the publicly communicated plan. The whole project has a timeline until 2027, though.

oliver2002

Changes to B: https://www.sgp-architekten.de/proje...nal-1-halle-b/

https://www.iadc-studio.de/de/portfo...rt-terminal-1/

All planned in 2023-26.

oliver2002

The reconstruction of the the former checkin area in T1B into a centralized security is in full swing. The construction site is fenced off with some renderings on how it will look in the future.



Detail of checkpoint minus nudoscope

overview, also missing the nudoscopes 😳

Once the B security moves to the area marked in green you will be able to walk from A to C without security and the skytrain moves into the secure area.

hch

The other interesting tidbit shared by an insider in the Geman language VFT is that there plans (but no final decision) to turn the old C pier (C4-11) into Schengen gates.

chris63

C gates, the locals will Love that.

hch

With central security they aren't any worse than B-Schengen. And with a way that is not the tunnel B-Schengen at least becomes a little less bad. Of course what's really needed is a Schengen lounge near the B or C gates, but I've not heard any indication that it's being considered.