This one seems easy, since we are re-designing anyway. Put chairs (and even desks) against the walls, so folks can plug in without running a cord across an area where others will walk.

First of all, I'd like to echo everyone else's sentiments: welcome to FT, evilkarma!

Personally, I don't really mind the trains at DEN, my favorite airport, but I particularly hate the moon buggies at IAD (oh, how I'm eager for their tram system to be built!). Do those of you who hate the DEN trains realize that you can walk to terminal A? Doesn't AA fly out of A? (I don't recall as I fly UA.)

As far airside connections at LAX go, I've always thought that *provided you're staying with one airline* (which I always do and it's always UA), it's not so bad. Being ex-LAX really helps here. But, as far as re-designing airports goes, I'm not sure it's at all reasonable to expect a re-design of currently built airports.

With all due respect, I think that suggests exactly the opposite: more power outlets would be useful. Maybe if there were more, people wouldn't stretch their cords all over the place. At least, I'd like to think so.

I'll second the point about places in restrooms to temporarily store one's carry-on items ... in the men's room, too!

I also like rail connections to airports. However, I realize that in many situations (e.g. LAX, DEN, IAD) it just isn't possible without a significant outlay of municipal resources. Perhaps airports should be built to make such improvements as easy as possible?

This is an interesting question. Sorry I don't have more that is constructive to say!

Wouldn't help unless you bolt them down - people who want seating but not power ports would likely just move the chairs wherever they want them, creating futher congestion and hassles. And I've seen very few gate areas with enough space to spare to bring in desks.

The problem with many airports is that they're simply not designed for the passenger numbers that use them. Big hub airports are the most guilty of this, and worse still is the piecemeal expansion, adding a terminal here, a new pier there, rolling out a new few taxiways etc. What you end up with is something that alieviates the symptoms a little but will be at capacity within a few short years.

Take terminal 4 at Heathrow, there's a good chance you're going to have to cross an active runway to arrive or leave. Which bright spark thought that would be a good idea?

Gatwick, nice new passenger bridge to take people from the North terminal to the new midfield satelite, forgot to check the tail height of the A380. Now A380 pilots will have to manouever around it because of the 4ft discrepancy.

Any airport with multiple crossing runways, Chicago for instance.

Any airport with parallel runways too close together which stops both runways from being used at the same time, Istanbul for instance.

Airports with massive taxi times to reach the central terminal zone, when whats needed are satelite terminals closer to the runways, DFW and AMS spring to mind.

That would require that checked and carryon baggage have identical regulations as to what can be carried in them.

SFO has both "features". The parallel runways can be used simultaneously in clear weather, but foggy weather requires that only one be used at a time, causing delays.

Of course, lack of space for expansion makes it difficult for many of the airports to build better runway configurations.

Changi (SIN) also has this set up ^

thanks everybody!

hmm...one area i think should really be redesigned are the overhead compartments. on smaller planes, when people get on, everybody has to wait for maybe one guy struggling to fit his luggage on top before they can get past him because the aisle is too small. things also fall off sometimes and your stuff might hit some poor guy's head, hmm as if i havent seen that scenario enough in commercials!

solution: floor compartments in front of every seat where the floor slides open and the passenger of that seat can put their luggage inside. this solves the crowd problems and mess, luggage doesnt get mixed with others, you can keep a safe eye on your stuff and you can reach your stuff at anytime during the flight without annoying people. design of the plane overall shouldnt be compromised anyways, overhead compartment space eliminated, replaced with a deeper floor.

although maybe there are some policies im not quite familiar with that won't make this design work...what do you think?

My greatest design pet peeve is "push" doors that look like they're "pull" and visa versa. You should intuitively know what to do just by looking at the handle. Of course, this is not airport specific.

For airports, most design flaws are inherent in the fact that the airports were designed before "modern" times and modern problems. Capacity is the biggest issue, but also larger security zones, etc. (Unlike one above poster I like security to be right away since my anxiety level goes way down after I clear security).

The biggest airport design flaw that I can think of is that it seems that airports, in general, weren't designed for people lugging baggage. Restaurants and restrooms are especially awkward with a carry-on and a computer.

As for airplanes, the functional design is generally quite good given the inherent constraints (interior design is another matter). One thing I would change would that seats should be designed so that when you recline you take away your own legroom rather than the person behind's. (That is, the seat bottom should slide forward.)

This is not a "feature." It is a feature. :D. You need crossing runways for different wind conditions. This is done based on % of time a wind blows in a certain direction. For LAX, it's either east or west, so 4 || runways do the job. However the runways are too close to be used together and that's why the south runway (25L) is being moved a bit south, so a taxiway can go in-between the two runways to allow for simultaneous ops. There have been a number of nasty runway incursions, with planes taking off and landing.

As for SFO, we need the intersecting runways for varying wind conditions. Same goes for Chicago. Chicago is notorious for bad weather and wind can come pretty much from any direction. If the crosswind is too strong, a particular runway can't be used. That's basically it.


Trust me, it's just you. All the seats in Y are the same. Maybe some have tables in the armrest, and maybe some are missing an arm rest near the window, but they're all pretty much the same dimension-wise.

I think he was trying to be humorous with the F/J seats up front and the narrow smaller Y seats behind.

I haven't been to an airport like this, so I'm curious. This would seem to lead to problems, at least at typical domestic hubs. You would have to re-clear at your connecting point, right? Plus, now I can't bring that water purchased in the terminal on board, at least with the current rules, right?

LOL.... sorry, I'm a bit out of it yesterday and today.

However, the intersecting runways are used mostly to increase capacity. SFO frequently uses both sets of runways at the same time (one set for taking off, the other set for landing). Which means that if the weather conditions require using only one set (or landing planes one at a time because the parallel ones in a set are too close together), delays are very likely.

That would be correct, IMO. MCI has this layout, each gate or small section of gates has it's own security. Once you go through security for your gate, there is nothing except seats, and maybe restrooms. I imagine this is also very inefficient from a screening equipment and personnel standpoint.

I prefer the more typical layout. Since the time to go through varies, I would rather just get security out of the way first, then get a bite or drink and not have to worry about trying to gauge how much time to allow for screening. Also, if your flight is delayed, you are not stuck in the minimal sterile zone with no food, drink, or place to buy a magazine.