fassy

I cannot understand why SK doesn't free up award space closer to the departure date when it is clear the plane won't be full. Anyway, I usually use my points for LH F and they never disappoint

GUWonder

CPH's owner wants to expand the airport while eliminating one runway to do so. SK is not thrilled by this.

fassy

So what is the plan? More gates? More mall?

I guess eliminating runway 12 with 0.2% landings and runway 30 with 2.0% landings/0.2% takeoffs won't be much of an issue.

CPH-Flyer

More mall for sure. But increasing the number of aircraft stands including remote from 78 to 124.

It looks like an extension of B, a proper concourse at the end of D (basically taking out F) and either remote stands or a midfield building on the west end of 12/30. B will also stretch across the current 12/30.

CPH-Flyer

I did not see an SK comment yet. But I guess like with the LHR expansion and BA, they are worried about cost and increasing fees. Plus worried about increased capacity and competition.

SK2751

There have been quite extensive reports about this in the media, and even conservative media do not present the airport in a very good light. The way it looks in the media (the way I read the situation), we have a large monopolistic actor on the market, who already stopped the plan to build a competing terminal trying to extend the current capacity. They say runway capacity is sufficient to double size (in terms of number of pax). Berlingske named extending the B finger (which BTW is already terribly long walk), and building an in-field/satellite terminal, where the cross-runway is right now.

The airlines are quite united against it. SK claims it will cost them 3-digit million amount yearly if CPH does this. The issue is that the runway to be closed is used rarely, but it is used in the situations when nothing else can be used, and on these days all flights will be pretty much grounded leaving the airlines with care costs and re-booking costs. The airport does not consider this being an expense caused by them.

This is the problem with the monopoly situation IMHO, the (rich) airport looks into significant expansion of profit, and all the actual cost of the operation is on the airlines, who are operating in a highly competitive market.

I honestly believe that the right thing to do, is to start planning a low cost airport in Copenhagen (whether at Kastrup or elsewhere) that does not depend on CPH economically and that could take some traffic of it. Not because CPH has no capacity, but because it would be really healthy for it to face some competition. I can totally understand (if not approve) SK's increasing focus on ARN and OSL, given the developments in Copenhagen over the last years.

GUWonder

The airlines' costs for EC261/2004 at CPH will increase with a runway shutdown under the airport's expansion plan. The airlines already figured that out, but the airport doesn't care because the airport doesn't directly pay a price for the costs from EC 261/2004 and knock-on impacts from IRROPS increasing for the airlines. Rather the airport may even gain financially when the airlines at CPH are increasingly on the hook for EC261/2004 as the delays/shutdown at the airport get worse.

CPH's addiction to more and more fees and to retail-related revenue has some perverse consequences for passengers who just want to get from "door to door" as quickly and reliably as possible.

CPH-Flyer

On an average year, how many days would the runways shot down? It would not be the only airport in the world without a cross runway, but weather and wind is also different in each one.

I am sure the airlines are not complaining without reason, but they are probably not perfect truth sayers either.

fassy

As i understand it the importance of cross runways has gone down since modern jets can handle much higher crosswinds then years ago.

Also bear in mind that 12/30 is quite restricted anyway:
https://www.cph.dk/en/about-cph/Environment-and-energy/noise/runway-1230/

GUWonder

I'm thinking it's less about number of days that are shut-down days than it's about number of flight passengers that would be impacted by primary runway shut-down periods due to weather or who knows what else.

I have little doubt that the airlines also play games in order to try to advance their own financial interests even at the expense of consumers. Restricting airport expansion may be one way to do so.

Consumers, unfortunately, are too diffuse an interest to make much of a difference in the outcome of the give and take between the airport, the airlines and their shareholders.

SK2751

I totally understand that these political hearings are a lobbying situation, and airlines likely inflate the problem. However, I am more likely believe companies from a highly competitive market, than a fat monopoly pumping money out of the country for many years, while declining customer services. I actually see this as a perfect opportunity to intervene for the state. Not by regulating the airport - this is a commercial entity, but by creating some better balance of power.

TiredAndWired

I don't think F will be demolished. From the photo below, it looks like F will remain, but the current walkway from D to F is removed, and access to F will be through the new E.

The new midfield building looks like it is designed similar to F (with no jetbridges). So most likely the new midfield building will accomodate LCCs for Schengen-destinations, and F will be LCCs for destinations outside of Schengen. I haven't read any info on how passengers will get to the new building (underground walking tunnel, underground train or overground bus transport), but I assume an underground walking tunnel would make sense.

Also, the expansion of the shopping area between A and C seems to remove some gates. At least A3, A5, B2 and C10 will be removed to accomodate the expansion.

CPH-Flyer

This one does look like F remains. The concept drawing seen from straight above looked slightly different.

For the mid field building walkway, we should probably think Frankfurt A to B gates....

ksu

If an underground walkway, a bad airport will get even worse, by following the example of FRA instead of MUC.

CPH-Flyer

As long as they keep LCCs out there, I will not be affected...

But seriously, yes these underground passages rarely are plusses for airports.