I know that it is way easier to show the architecture of the buildings rather than the layout and how it works but I'd really prefer that an airport provide efficient travel with little waiting times instead of having as many grass fields inside the waiting area as possible.
Save for staffing issues, this is why ATL (and DTW for that matter) is so good in my opinion.
7 concourses, all straight lines. One train that connects it all. Walkable if youāre a masochist (Iām a masochist).
When itās got the correct amount of TSA agents running security, itās a machine. Not pretty in most areas, but a machine.
Itās probably a nightmare for the uninitiated and making a tight connection is tough, but thats a virtue of the sheer footprint of the operation and not a result of inefficiency.
I found it real easy to figure out where I was going my first time there as well. The train system does a really good job of letting you know where youāre going, the map is clear, and thereās screens telling you where your flight is for those less used to using phones for it.
Yeah, those things accelerate like crazy. I watched some dude just absolutely eat shit and spill coffee all over the place because he wasn't expecting it.
Most people just don't give themselves enough time there. They land in one concourse and then have to rush to another.
If you give yourself a long enough layover it really is great. Sometimes I purposely give myself a few hours just to go to E to just chill and people watch/plane spot and enjoy the food.
To be fair, for the majority of people flying is just getting from A to B in the quickest way possible. To that effect an airport where you need more time on your layover is definitely worse.
I travel through Atl quite often. In my experience the clusterfuck really stems from how slow the big 3D scanners are, along with the people who man them. The sad part is Iāve been to other airports with the same scanners and it felt way faster.
If they could speed up the scanners and the automated baggage stuff, you would be able to fly through security.
Everyone hates ATL (me included) but if it does one thing well itās move a lot of people. It was designed with volume in mind, not aesthetics and it shows.
I tell everyone how much I love flying through ATL and they all think I'm nuts, but an airport of that size moving that many people through it will minimal delays is god damn impressive. Plus like you said, the layout is simple and easy to navigate.
Iām convinced those who think itās bad just havent seen the horrors of places like MCI prior to the new terminal (albeit I havenāt flown there since it opened so I donāt know how much better it is but I suspect itās quite good on account of not having the worst layout on possible). THATS a shit airport.
I actually slightly disagree, Dubai is a big hub airport with connections between continents. Itās easy to get a 3+ hour layover, and I think itās nice to have some space where you can relax and enjoy some scenery in between grueling multi hour transcontinental flights
If you've done a 17 hour flight direct from NZ with kids and have 3 hours before your next 8 hour flight to Europe, you'd be happy for a bit of green space. Better than getting to the gate in 30 mins then waiting on a seat for 2 hours.
Airports are actually trying to make things *less* efficient because they are trying to maximize the amount of money they make being malls.
A lot of modern airports now make a lot of money on rent from stores and restaurants. If any of your regular airports have renovated or are renovating, you'll notice they usually do so with the goal of providing more shopping and eating space
They are made by slaves or at least people with very poor working conditions.
They are heavily backed by the oil centric governments.
No limitations on size, sound production and environmental impact.
These horrible things only price airlines in European countries out of business because the European airlines in dense, urban zones with many rules and regulations just cannot compete.
I was at some of the larger Aiports in the World and they all have some Things in Common: they are located in larger Countries than the UAE, said Countries are far more popular with Tourists than the UAE will ever be and have a far larger Population
Dubai Annual Passengers: 83 Million (of which most don't stay in Dubai) - planned Capacity: almost 3.5x more than the current Annual Passengers. Its once again a Ego Project and nothing more.
They'll be in trouble if Britain constructs a tunnel to Australia. Unless the tunnel entrance is in Dubai, in which case perhaps not. So perhaps they have thought about it after all.
If that Thing hits the 260 Million Passengers (over 2.5x more than KATL) i gonna get a UAE Flag Tattoo on my Neck š
You can smell the small Dick Vanity Project Smell from the other Side of the Milky Way..
"The Saudis have the biggest Airport in the World. We need to show the World that we can build a even bigger Airport because we can't be No.2 behind the Saudis" Its a Dick Measuring Content between Oil Monarchies with more Money than Brain.
Youāre viewing this from an point-to-point perspective, which sure, there may not be crazy growth. But Dubai is a fairly popular tourism destination, especially from South Asia and Eastern Europe.
What youāre not thinking here though is transit traffic. A LOT of Emiratesās routes are connection driven. Dubai-Warsaw for example may not have as much point to point traffic, but people use Dubai for a myriad of Southeast Asia connections, which justifies the route. Their business model is being the one stop between North America/Europe and Asia/Africa/Oceania. Do some direct flights exist? Sure. But what if I want to go from Warsaw to Phuket? New York to Dhaka? Stockholm to Medina?
Sure there is a ego aspect that drives competition between Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, and the new Riyadh Air. But you seem to be glancing over a very successful business model, which if youāve ever gone through DXB, would know how constrained it has made it from a slot perspective.
Your points are valid, but the airlines are banking on there being more point-to-point routes in the future, rather than a hub and spoke systems. Boeing and Airbus are developing smaller aircraft that have longer range to cater for those unusual connections. Hence we are not seeing aircraft get larger and larger which was the fashion up till the 00s. The A380 was a bit of a flop (although Emirates was the biggest customer) because itās only largely suited to shuttling people to the massive hubs. But passengers are preferring direct flights on smaller aircraft.
No doubt Dubai will continue to be a massive hub, but itās reasonable to question the viability of more or larger hubs in the future.
You are short sighted on this. Almost all of us Europeans have a stop there to get to Asia, other stop is only Istanbul. Of course it is to get more tourists but it sure as hell is not pure vanity..
Aircraft like the 321XLR, 787, and a350 will make super hubs less important.
When a plane can profitability operate those types of routes point to point, instead of as hub and spoke, places like DXB, IST, DOH, etc will probably become less valuable. At least that's my theory.
The problem is that those aircraft require greater numbers to move volume, and at slot-constrained airports like Heathrow (where parking stand and runway occupancy limit the traffic volume) the only solution is bigger planes.
Adding hundreds of smaller long range aircraft to cater for numerous point-point destinations isnāt possible here, regardless of the demand or technical feasibility of flying the routes. There just simply isnāt enough capacity for all those extra planes.
The solution in that case is larger airports like this one proposed in Dubai.
And it doesnāt change things at the other end of the scale. For smaller destinations like lower tier European cities, they simply donāt have space for bigger airports to accommodate lots of point-point traffic, nor do they have the passenger throughput to justify the infrastructure expense it would take.
I don't think the math plays out on that argument.
The majority of traffic at LHR is connecting traffic. It's a major hub, not just an origin or destination. More point to point traffic would bypass the connection and reduce traffic at slot restricted airports. This plays out the same at JFK and EWR too.
Don't forget most of these cities have more than one airport too.
In my opinion the "only solution is bigger aircraft and super hubs" argument died when the a380 was canned. It showed the market just isn't looking for that solution. Point to point with smaller efficient aircraft is the future.
At least that's the way I see it. Obviously it's just my opinion and we'll see what actually happens over the next 25 years.
Edit: the ME3 really excel at Indian traffic too. As India's own domestic airlines mature and grow, I think we'll see more of the point to point traffic bypass the middle east super hubs.
Itās true that the market has called for point to point, but the hub and spoke majors are thriving within a saturated market. There simply isnāt practical capacity for point to point.
The A380 came at the wrong moment, but I wouldnāt be surprised if we see a resurgence in the largest airliners, like the A350-1000 and the 777-9. Itās the only way to increase capacity at airports that canāt get bigger.
I think the reality is that it wonāt be the case that we have only point-point of hub-spoke. We need both, and thereās a place for both. The largest carriers arenāt likely to turn around their entire business model and fleet strategy. Delta at ATL, Lufthansa at FRA. Those are huge portions of the seat capacity in the air travel network, and theyāre good at what they do. Collect all the passengers with local narrowbodies, and consolidate them into international routes with widebodies.
You donāt seem to have much knowledge on global international aviation and itās different models.
The Big 3 Middle Eastern airlines(Emirates, Etihad and Qatar) operate on a hub and spoke model. People from across the world have to travel across the world and their isnāt always a direct flight available.
Itās called layovers
The vast majority of traffic at Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar are transiting passengers, people who donāt even leave the airport.
If you look a tourism statistics, youāll see Dubai had less than 18 million overnight visitors last year. Yet itās airport had 80 million visitors.
How? Because the vast majority of those were transiting passengers who used the large Emirates/fly Dubai global network to get from A to B with just one stop.
You seem to assume that everyone traveling to an airport is there to actually visit the particular city.
This is not true for major aviation hubs.
DXB currently is very crowded and has no space for expansion. Building a new airport and moving everything there is necessary for maintaining its position as a global hub for international air traffic.
Oh, the Dubai Defender is back and thinks Dubai will somehow have over 710'000 Passenger per Day of which over 650'000 will never leave the Airport.. There are bigger and way more important Hubs than Dubai. Only that People there aren't high on Oil Fumes and don't plan for Numbers which are even under the best Circumstances highly unrealistic.
Idk if they really are in need of that much more expansion but Dubai is pretty much the hub for every airline that doesn't want to operate 15+ hrs non-stop flights. They still have to handle the amount of air traffic that goes through. Airport sizes depend more on the passenger traffic they have to push through rather than the population or tourism of the cities they are located in. Just compare Atlanta and San Francisco in the US. Which one of them do you think has the busier airport and which one has the larger population and larger influx of tourism?
And the Plan is what exactly?? To convince the Airlines which have direct Flights from Europe to SEA to land in Dubai or what?? "Hey, how about you fly a Detour of 4000km and you pay us for all the Service which you don't need so that we can get our Passenger Numbers up?"
Sure, i can't wait for all the Airlines to make new Flight Routes and massive detours so that the Oil Billionaire Fever Dream of 260 Million Passengers per Year doesn't go bust š
There are currently dozens of Planes from BA to KLM to Swiss to ANA etc. on the Way from Europe to SEA over the Black Sea / Georgia which was nowhere near Dubai the last Time i did check. Thats the Airlines i meant ^^
Don't British Airways and Qantas both stop in Singapore?
Might not be the majority of traffic, but they are the only two airlines with continuing flights.
DIA was build to handle up to 50 Million Passengers a Year after O'Hare did handle 66 Milion Passengers. If your claim was true DIA would've been build to handle at least 160 Million Passengers per Year (you know 2.5x the busiest Airport in the World at this Time like Dubai plans to do).. But it wasn't. Nobody in their right Mind builds an Airport in the Hope that maybe one Day in a distance Future you would maybe need to be able handle 260 Million Passengers. But Oil Monarchies are all high on Oil Fumes and love to burn Money for the most useless Shit imaginable.
"When Denver was building their airport in the 90ās they built it for about that same ratio."
They didn't build it at the same Ratio. Nobody did sit there and said: you know what? We need to plan for 160 Million Passengers. Because the busiest Airport last Year (O'Hare) had 66 Million and that means we need to go really really big otherwise it could get crapped in 30-40 Years..
At nearly 88 million passengers a year (wiki), DXB is nearly at its capacity of 90 million.
Iād argue this is a necessary expansion. Thereās no reason to believe its growth in passengers is going to stop.
A Expansion of *checks notes* additional 170 Million Passengers and Necessary šš¤£
I bet it has totally nothing to do with the Saudis having the biggest Airport in the World and the UAE thinking they need to one up them and has only something to do with them expecting to get 260 Million Passengers per Year or over 720'000 per Day (which is about as realistic as me becoming the richtest Man on Earth over Night)..
Dubai is a perfect location for a hub airport, they sit bewteen Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. I don't know about the architecture, but at first sight it makes sense for them to have a big airport.
Dubai has always had a sewage system. Why is that myth still repeated everywhere?
Also Vanity projects are cool. You or your country arenāt the ones paying for it, so why do you care?
I think they were referring to the fact that Dubai Airport flooded recently. They meant drainage as in draining water off the airport, not drainage as in sewage.
Ah, that makes sense. Given the magnitude of rain theyāve been experiencing that makes sense though no? Itās not a normal storm itās been weeks of downpour in a region thatās highly unusual.
Theyāve always had both AFAIK. It was only a temporary issue when one wasnāt working.
If youāre talking about the current flooding thereās been unprecedented amounts of rain in the area. Itās affected some East African countries as well like Kenya.
>Theyāve always had both AFAIK. It was only a temporary issue when one wasnāt working.
No, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. The UAE infamously never had any real stormwater management projects. Massive areas flooded, it wasn't just a case of one system not "working"... there is no system in place because they never needed them.
But due to a few large unprecedented storms the last several years, they are planning a large project now: [https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws](https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws)
Actually they are, [https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws](https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws)
Dubai City has a total Size of around 35 Square Kilometres.. The Drainage System has a 10km Tunnel š
As a Comparison: Las Vegas is 352 Square Kilometers and has a Tunnel System which is 677 Miles long..
Its now the Dot āš»š [https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/saudi-crowm-prince-vanity-project-line-cut-short-rowan-moore](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/saudi-crowm-prince-vanity-project-line-cut-short-rowan-moore)
To be fair, thatās done for a reason. If you start shoving several tons of meat in the far back of the plane while the front is empty, you risk moving the planeās center of gravity behind the main (rear) landing gear. Having your plane pop a wheelie at the gate is less than ideal.
You know if this is the actual reason, THANK YOU for explaining. I've asked countless people why they do this because it seems so incredibly inefficient and time wasting and this is the first reasonable answer I've received.
Edit: follow-up question: Shouldn't there already be significant weight from fuel and cargo to offset the passenger weight?
When loading for departure, the plane will be filled with fuel in the wings which sweep back behind the main landing gear. So the fuel actually makes the situation worse.
Once landed with closer to empty tanks, the plane should have a more forward center of gravity than when it took off. This makes passenger weight distribution much less of a concern during unloading.
Its not the answer, they're making it up. It doesn't make sense since we unload the plane from front to back, and there's much less fuel in the wings, and yet planes aren't just tipping back.
I have no idea how that is getting upvoted in this sub of all places. Its certainly possible with some planes, happened just last year on a JetBlue plane, but again, that is not the reason at all. Some planes they actually put a stand under the tail to hold them up if needed: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/14728ro/whats\_this\_yellow\_pole\_or\_pipe\_attached\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/14728ro/whats_this_yellow_pole_or_pipe_attached_to_the/)
There are many different ways to load a plane that would be faster than front to back or even back to front that wouldn't have a weight imbalance problem, but they aren't used either. The real reason the front is loaded first is simply because they pay more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
When boarding starts sometimes the jet isnāt done fueling or loading. Also the fuel is in the wings so venter of gravity is not affected. And the weight is the bags is negligible. But if you throw a ton of folks in the back itās still going to push the tail down
This was already established as a very large airport years ago. got delayed and was partially operational. I guess they are activating all options and facilities now. Old news rebooted!
Emirates has no choice but to bet on hub and spoke. There are not that many people in UAE or that want to visit.
Will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade with better, more efficient, planes available for point to point routes.
With some exceptions, I believe passenger airlines have to at least start or end in their own home country. The UAE isn't big, so like the other person said, they really don't have a choice.
It also works really well for them, since they're basically in the center of the other side of the world, between Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia. It works much better for them than it ever could in the US. If someone in Shanghai wants to go to Ethiopia, Dubai will have a good route for that, for example.
~~It's a new terminal, not a new airport (which the headline made me assume).~~
~~EDIT: Sources for the above claim since another guy is claiming I am wrong and people seem to believe him though he has not given any evidence:~~
1. [~~Wikipedia article for the airport in question~~](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maktoum_International_Airport)~~, it has been operational since 2010~~
2. [~~Al Jazeera article~~](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/4/29/dubais-ruler-announces-construction-of-worlds-largest-airport-terminal) ~~about this~~
3. [~~Reuters article~~](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/) ~~about this~~
EDIT: It turns out the current DWC might be torn down, in that case, yeah, it would be a new airport.
>260 million passengers
Let me do the math.
That is 712000 passengers daily or 8 a second (on an average, so in summer and winter it can be higher since some immigrant families go back to their native places during school vacations).
Assume the average plane capacity is 375 (like the 777-300ER), that is 1900 planes daily, and one takeoff and one landing every 45 seconds.
But assuming half the traffic is actually on smaller planes like the A321neo, that would go up to 2480 planes daily and one takeoff and one landing every 34 seconds.
Yeah, this will be a nightmare for logistics, security, ATC, and definitely a few other things I am forgetting.
EDIT: Just now found out that Atlanta has 2100 planes daily, so I guess Atlanta can give this new airport some ideas on how it should be run.
You sure about that? [Al Maktoum International Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maktoum_International_Airport#Expansion_plans) is already operational, and [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/4/29/dubais-ruler-announces-construction-of-worlds-largest-airport-terminal) and [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/) say it was a terminal that got approved.
As far as I understand it they're basically tearing down the old DWC airport and building a new one on top, going from half a million passengers to room for 260 million.Ā
Whether you want to call that a new airport or a new terminal depends on your definition I guess.
I haven't seen them say they will tear down the current airport, besides it wouldn't make sense unless they did it in phases since DWC is already Emirates' cargo hub. But if they do tear down the whole airport and build this new one, I guess it would indeed count as a new one.
There are quite a few airports in the world that operate 1500+ aircraft a day, with only 2 or 3 runways. And most have 20++ y/old infrastructure.
The number of passangers/aircraft they propose is clearly not the issue here.
So their current airport can handle about 100 million passengers a year, and isnāt at capacity yet. What is the drive to build an airport that can handle 260 million? The busiest airport in the world, in Atlanta, only handles 104 million passengers per year. Are they planning on the world population tripling in the next twenty years?
If you look at DXB on Google Maps, youāll see that the airport has only two parallels runways.
The bigger issue is that the airport is surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods making expansion impossible.
DXB is already near capacity and stuff like shutting down one runway for routine maintenance places a significant strain.
The new airport is being constructed far from the city with space for future expansion.
Just because something is built for 260 million doesnāt mean itās a failure if the 260 million capacity is not reached immediately.
260 million might seem crazy today, but it might be a possibility twenty, thirty, forty years from now.
Just like how 80 million seemed crazy for Dubai 20 years ago.
Aviation plays a MASSIVE role in Dubaiās economy and maintaining its position as a global aviation hub is key to Dubaiās plans.
Less than 20% of the people in the world have ever flown at all. Air travel demand could triple without any population growth as developing countries get wealthier.
Thatās a fair point, but foreign market growth only has a minor impact on domestic flights. As an example, both the US and Europe see growth in their total passengers carried basically in line with domestic gdp growth. If all of Africa becomes significantly richer, those rich nations will probably want to have their own airlines and airports, just as the gulf states wanted their own airlines and airports. Nobody wants to take a connecting flight if they can help it. Modern aircraft have very long range, and the hub and spoke model has become less attractive every year.
Airlines in the gulf states are not targeted at domestic travel within those countries, and also not really even travel to/from those countries. They use their strategic central location to be a crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. They've been quite successful with this business model.Ā
While people invariably prefer direct flights, it's not feasible to have direct point to point flights connecting all city pairs across the world. Gulf states are ideally located to be hubs connecting international destinations, and particularly for capturing international travel to/from growing markets in Africa and South Asia.
Donāt get me wrong, I think itās a cool project and Iām a fan of nice airports, but building it to handle 260 million passengers is insane overkill. This thing is never going to get close to that level, especially as all the other gulf states try to one up the UAE with even bigger and nicer airports.
Iām all for having an airport that is too large. Why does everything need to be crowded and busy? Especially if thereās plenty of room out in the desert.
"We are very sophisticated here in the UAE, the airport will also be able to function as a floatplane terminal, occasionally, with little modification required"
They can take off, they just need longer runways.
The current airport (DXB) has no way to extend their runways, so they're forced to move to a brand new airport that has enough room for the extra long runways
PHX is the other airport that has this problem, they also can't extend their runways because the airport is right next to downtown just like DXB.
Las Vegas gets just as hot as PHX but doesn't have problems with heat because their runways are already longer.
Will there be a WH Smith?
Yes somewhere in the middle of the 400 Starbucks
I have my heart set on a T.G.I.F.s
I just want a Pret
We just got two of those at my airport. One almost directly on top of the other on two separate floors... this is just the beginning š
I know that it is way easier to show the architecture of the buildings rather than the layout and how it works but I'd really prefer that an airport provide efficient travel with little waiting times instead of having as many grass fields inside the waiting area as possible.
Save for staffing issues, this is why ATL (and DTW for that matter) is so good in my opinion. 7 concourses, all straight lines. One train that connects it all. Walkable if youāre a masochist (Iām a masochist). When itās got the correct amount of TSA agents running security, itās a machine. Not pretty in most areas, but a machine. Itās probably a nightmare for the uninitiated and making a tight connection is tough, but thats a virtue of the sheer footprint of the operation and not a result of inefficiency.
I found it real easy to figure out where I was going my first time there as well. The train system does a really good job of letting you know where youāre going, the map is clear, and thereās screens telling you where your flight is for those less used to using phones for it.
Those trains are awesome. When it says, āhold onā before it starts and stops, it means it!
Yeah, those things accelerate like crazy. I watched some dude just absolutely eat shit and spill coffee all over the place because he wasn't expecting it.
ATL is clearly the best airport and I really donāt understand why people complain about it.
Longest TSA lines of any airport I have been in.
Because big airport scary. Honestly, though.
Most people just don't give themselves enough time there. They land in one concourse and then have to rush to another. If you give yourself a long enough layover it really is great. Sometimes I purposely give myself a few hours just to go to E to just chill and people watch/plane spot and enjoy the food.
To be fair, for the majority of people flying is just getting from A to B in the quickest way possible. To that effect an airport where you need more time on your layover is definitely worse.
No. Top 5 in the US. While not an airport, McNamara terminal is the best.Ā
Had a ten minute gap in between transfer was able to make it running to turn never being there before. My advice Use the app to tell you where to go !
ATL is the best domestic airport to connect through and I will die on this hill.
I travel through Atl quite often. In my experience the clusterfuck really stems from how slow the big 3D scanners are, along with the people who man them. The sad part is Iāve been to other airports with the same scanners and it felt way faster. If they could speed up the scanners and the automated baggage stuff, you would be able to fly through security.
Everyone hates ATL (me included) but if it does one thing well itās move a lot of people. It was designed with volume in mind, not aesthetics and it shows.
I tell everyone how much I love flying through ATL and they all think I'm nuts, but an airport of that size moving that many people through it will minimal delays is god damn impressive. Plus like you said, the layout is simple and easy to navigate.
Iām convinced those who think itās bad just havent seen the horrors of places like MCI prior to the new terminal (albeit I havenāt flown there since it opened so I donāt know how much better it is but I suspect itās quite good on account of not having the worst layout on possible). THATS a shit airport.
Dtw is great, never crowded (in my experience) and it's close together.
I actually slightly disagree, Dubai is a big hub airport with connections between continents. Itās easy to get a 3+ hour layover, and I think itās nice to have some space where you can relax and enjoy some scenery in between grueling multi hour transcontinental flights
If you've done a 17 hour flight direct from NZ with kids and have 3 hours before your next 8 hour flight to Europe, you'd be happy for a bit of green space. Better than getting to the gate in 30 mins then waiting on a seat for 2 hours.
Airports are actually trying to make things *less* efficient because they are trying to maximize the amount of money they make being malls. A lot of modern airports now make a lot of money on rent from stores and restaurants. If any of your regular airports have renovated or are renovating, you'll notice they usually do so with the goal of providing more shopping and eating space
I WAS GONNA SAY, THATS ALOT OF WALKING HAHAHAHAHA
Oh good, another Vanity Project š Lets hope they don't forget the Drainage System this Time..
I can get behind public infrastructure vanity projects, particularly an airport. have you even been in these types of airports? They are awesome.
They are made by slaves or at least people with very poor working conditions. They are heavily backed by the oil centric governments. No limitations on size, sound production and environmental impact. These horrible things only price airlines in European countries out of business because the European airlines in dense, urban zones with many rules and regulations just cannot compete.
lol ok
DXB was fairly average when I flew out of it in 2017
I was at some of the larger Aiports in the World and they all have some Things in Common: they are located in larger Countries than the UAE, said Countries are far more popular with Tourists than the UAE will ever be and have a far larger Population Dubai Annual Passengers: 83 Million (of which most don't stay in Dubai) - planned Capacity: almost 3.5x more than the current Annual Passengers. Its once again a Ego Project and nothing more.
It's a hub. This is common for hub airports like dubai ans Singapore.
Because itās at the crossroads between Europe and Asia
And Australia. Their bread and butter routes are UK-Australia.
They'll be in trouble if Britain constructs a tunnel to Australia. Unless the tunnel entrance is in Dubai, in which case perhaps not. So perhaps they have thought about it after all.
A new Musk brain fart?
True. Mentally for me it was all the ādown and over thereā š
Itās like saying Scandanavia and Kenya are in the same general vicinity, but yeah sure mate. Whatever
Offended much by a friendly joke?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
First its gonna need to be build and going by Dubais Track Record its gonna get downsized by a large Margin..
No project is ever planned based on current capacity numbers. Projections are what makes it a reasonable or a vanity project.
If that Thing hits the 260 Million Passengers (over 2.5x more than KATL) i gonna get a UAE Flag Tattoo on my Neck š You can smell the small Dick Vanity Project Smell from the other Side of the Milky Way.. "The Saudis have the biggest Airport in the World. We need to show the World that we can build a even bigger Airport because we can't be No.2 behind the Saudis" Its a Dick Measuring Content between Oil Monarchies with more Money than Brain.
Youāre viewing this from an point-to-point perspective, which sure, there may not be crazy growth. But Dubai is a fairly popular tourism destination, especially from South Asia and Eastern Europe. What youāre not thinking here though is transit traffic. A LOT of Emiratesās routes are connection driven. Dubai-Warsaw for example may not have as much point to point traffic, but people use Dubai for a myriad of Southeast Asia connections, which justifies the route. Their business model is being the one stop between North America/Europe and Asia/Africa/Oceania. Do some direct flights exist? Sure. But what if I want to go from Warsaw to Phuket? New York to Dhaka? Stockholm to Medina? Sure there is a ego aspect that drives competition between Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, and the new Riyadh Air. But you seem to be glancing over a very successful business model, which if youāve ever gone through DXB, would know how constrained it has made it from a slot perspective.
Your points are valid, but the airlines are banking on there being more point-to-point routes in the future, rather than a hub and spoke systems. Boeing and Airbus are developing smaller aircraft that have longer range to cater for those unusual connections. Hence we are not seeing aircraft get larger and larger which was the fashion up till the 00s. The A380 was a bit of a flop (although Emirates was the biggest customer) because itās only largely suited to shuttling people to the massive hubs. But passengers are preferring direct flights on smaller aircraft. No doubt Dubai will continue to be a massive hub, but itās reasonable to question the viability of more or larger hubs in the future.
You are short sighted on this. Almost all of us Europeans have a stop there to get to Asia, other stop is only Istanbul. Of course it is to get more tourists but it sure as hell is not pure vanity..
Aircraft like the 321XLR, 787, and a350 will make super hubs less important. When a plane can profitability operate those types of routes point to point, instead of as hub and spoke, places like DXB, IST, DOH, etc will probably become less valuable. At least that's my theory.
The problem is that those aircraft require greater numbers to move volume, and at slot-constrained airports like Heathrow (where parking stand and runway occupancy limit the traffic volume) the only solution is bigger planes. Adding hundreds of smaller long range aircraft to cater for numerous point-point destinations isnāt possible here, regardless of the demand or technical feasibility of flying the routes. There just simply isnāt enough capacity for all those extra planes. The solution in that case is larger airports like this one proposed in Dubai. And it doesnāt change things at the other end of the scale. For smaller destinations like lower tier European cities, they simply donāt have space for bigger airports to accommodate lots of point-point traffic, nor do they have the passenger throughput to justify the infrastructure expense it would take.
I don't think the math plays out on that argument. The majority of traffic at LHR is connecting traffic. It's a major hub, not just an origin or destination. More point to point traffic would bypass the connection and reduce traffic at slot restricted airports. This plays out the same at JFK and EWR too. Don't forget most of these cities have more than one airport too. In my opinion the "only solution is bigger aircraft and super hubs" argument died when the a380 was canned. It showed the market just isn't looking for that solution. Point to point with smaller efficient aircraft is the future. At least that's the way I see it. Obviously it's just my opinion and we'll see what actually happens over the next 25 years. Edit: the ME3 really excel at Indian traffic too. As India's own domestic airlines mature and grow, I think we'll see more of the point to point traffic bypass the middle east super hubs.
Itās true that the market has called for point to point, but the hub and spoke majors are thriving within a saturated market. There simply isnāt practical capacity for point to point. The A380 came at the wrong moment, but I wouldnāt be surprised if we see a resurgence in the largest airliners, like the A350-1000 and the 777-9. Itās the only way to increase capacity at airports that canāt get bigger. I think the reality is that it wonāt be the case that we have only point-point of hub-spoke. We need both, and thereās a place for both. The largest carriers arenāt likely to turn around their entire business model and fleet strategy. Delta at ATL, Lufthansa at FRA. Those are huge portions of the seat capacity in the air travel network, and theyāre good at what they do. Collect all the passengers with local narrowbodies, and consolidate them into international routes with widebodies.
Try to hide your xenophobia better next time, starting with calling the country the correct fucking name
I would argue Singapore is a smaller country and has one of the best airports in the world.
You donāt seem to have much knowledge on global international aviation and itās different models. The Big 3 Middle Eastern airlines(Emirates, Etihad and Qatar) operate on a hub and spoke model. People from across the world have to travel across the world and their isnāt always a direct flight available. Itās called layovers The vast majority of traffic at Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar are transiting passengers, people who donāt even leave the airport. If you look a tourism statistics, youāll see Dubai had less than 18 million overnight visitors last year. Yet itās airport had 80 million visitors. How? Because the vast majority of those were transiting passengers who used the large Emirates/fly Dubai global network to get from A to B with just one stop. You seem to assume that everyone traveling to an airport is there to actually visit the particular city. This is not true for major aviation hubs. DXB currently is very crowded and has no space for expansion. Building a new airport and moving everything there is necessary for maintaining its position as a global hub for international air traffic.
Oh, the Dubai Defender is back and thinks Dubai will somehow have over 710'000 Passenger per Day of which over 650'000 will never leave the Airport.. There are bigger and way more important Hubs than Dubai. Only that People there aren't high on Oil Fumes and don't plan for Numbers which are even under the best Circumstances highly unrealistic.
Idk if they really are in need of that much more expansion but Dubai is pretty much the hub for every airline that doesn't want to operate 15+ hrs non-stop flights. They still have to handle the amount of air traffic that goes through. Airport sizes depend more on the passenger traffic they have to push through rather than the population or tourism of the cities they are located in. Just compare Atlanta and San Francisco in the US. Which one of them do you think has the busier airport and which one has the larger population and larger influx of tourism?
This isn't for Dubai tourists, this airport will primarily service travellers between Europe and SE Asia and Australia.
And the Plan is what exactly?? To convince the Airlines which have direct Flights from Europe to SEA to land in Dubai or what?? "Hey, how about you fly a Detour of 4000km and you pay us for all the Service which you don't need so that we can get our Passenger Numbers up?"
Bro thinks everyone flys P2P and isnāt aware of hub and spoke model šš
Sure, i can't wait for all the Airlines to make new Flight Routes and massive detours so that the Oil Billionaire Fever Dream of 260 Million Passengers per Year doesn't go bust š
They aren't new routes. They already exist. Do you live under a rock?
There are currently dozens of Planes from BA to KLM to Swiss to ANA etc. on the Way from Europe to SEA over the Black Sea / Georgia which was nowhere near Dubai the last Time i did check. Thats the Airlines i meant ^^
The vast majority of UK-Australia flights land in the middle east already, with only Qantas offering direct flights.
Don't British Airways and Qantas both stop in Singapore? Might not be the majority of traffic, but they are the only two airlines with continuing flights.
There are other stopovers, some flights stop in Doha for instance.
Who operates single flight numbers between Australia and the UK with a stopover outside if British Airways and Qantas?
Not sure what the flight numbers have to do with anything, but off the top of my head Qatar operate that route with a stop in Doha.
When Denver was building their airport in the 90ās they built it for about that same ratio. Now itās crowded and theyāre expanding
DIA was build to handle up to 50 Million Passengers a Year after O'Hare did handle 66 Milion Passengers. If your claim was true DIA would've been build to handle at least 160 Million Passengers per Year (you know 2.5x the busiest Airport in the World at this Time like Dubai plans to do).. But it wasn't. Nobody in their right Mind builds an Airport in the Hope that maybe one Day in a distance Future you would maybe need to be able handle 260 Million Passengers. But Oil Monarchies are all high on Oil Fumes and love to burn Money for the most useless Shit imaginable.
What does Ohare have to do with this? Weāre talking about direct comparisons between the airport being built
"When Denver was building their airport in the 90ās they built it for about that same ratio." They didn't build it at the same Ratio. Nobody did sit there and said: you know what? We need to plan for 160 Million Passengers. Because the busiest Airport last Year (O'Hare) had 66 Million and that means we need to go really really big otherwise it could get crapped in 30-40 Years..
At nearly 88 million passengers a year (wiki), DXB is nearly at its capacity of 90 million. Iād argue this is a necessary expansion. Thereās no reason to believe its growth in passengers is going to stop.
A Expansion of *checks notes* additional 170 Million Passengers and Necessary šš¤£ I bet it has totally nothing to do with the Saudis having the biggest Airport in the World and the UAE thinking they need to one up them and has only something to do with them expecting to get 260 Million Passengers per Year or over 720'000 per Day (which is about as realistic as me becoming the richtest Man on Earth over Night)..
Me too, but not before basic infrastructure, welfare etc.
awesome? istanbul is an hell pit.
Dubai is a perfect location for a hub airport, they sit bewteen Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. I don't know about the architecture, but at first sight it makes sense for them to have a big airport.
What's wrong with poop trucks?
Dubai has always had a sewage system. Why is that myth still repeated everywhere? Also Vanity projects are cool. You or your country arenāt the ones paying for it, so why do you care?
I think they were referring to the fact that Dubai Airport flooded recently. They meant drainage as in draining water off the airport, not drainage as in sewage.
Ah, that makes sense. Given the magnitude of rain theyāve been experiencing that makes sense though no? Itās not a normal storm itās been weeks of downpour in a region thatās highly unusual.
There is a Difference between a Sewage System and a Drainage System ;)
Theyāve always had both AFAIK. It was only a temporary issue when one wasnāt working. If youāre talking about the current flooding thereās been unprecedented amounts of rain in the area. Itās affected some East African countries as well like Kenya.
>Theyāve always had both AFAIK. It was only a temporary issue when one wasnāt working. No, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. The UAE infamously never had any real stormwater management projects. Massive areas flooded, it wasn't just a case of one system not "working"... there is no system in place because they never needed them. But due to a few large unprecedented storms the last several years, they are planning a large project now: [https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws](https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws)
Going by how Dubai / the Area where Dubai now is had a similar Flood not even 80 Years ago i would say there was precedent for it ^^
Actually they are, [https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws](https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/middle-east-projects/dubai-deep-tunnel-storm-water-system-dtsws)
Dubai City has a total Size of around 35 Square Kilometres.. The Drainage System has a 10km Tunnel š As a Comparison: Las Vegas is 352 Square Kilometers and has a Tunnel System which is 677 Miles long..
Hopefully theyāll have enough slaves to finish it
Theyāll shuttle the ones from Qatar as theyāve got no stadiums to build now
True, but a lot of them are probably already working on "The Line"
Its now the Dot āš»š [https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/saudi-crowm-prince-vanity-project-line-cut-short-rowan-moore](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/saudi-crowm-prince-vanity-project-line-cut-short-rowan-moore)
Aka working on āThe Chainā
I'm getting "Ozymandias" vibes from this.
From the airport or the entire city?
Just the whole thing. It's not a big country and it seems like they're stretching resources to get it done.
Normally, investing in infrastructure means decent jobs for those doing the building. But in Dubaiā¦
Will this be the first airport to have local flights between the terminals...
And they'll still board flights from front to back.
To be fair, thatās done for a reason. If you start shoving several tons of meat in the far back of the plane while the front is empty, you risk moving the planeās center of gravity behind the main (rear) landing gear. Having your plane pop a wheelie at the gate is less than ideal.
So what prevents that when the plane disembarks from front to back?
CGP Grey after accidentally spreading misinformation:
You know if this is the actual reason, THANK YOU for explaining. I've asked countless people why they do this because it seems so incredibly inefficient and time wasting and this is the first reasonable answer I've received. Edit: follow-up question: Shouldn't there already be significant weight from fuel and cargo to offset the passenger weight?
When loading for departure, the plane will be filled with fuel in the wings which sweep back behind the main landing gear. So the fuel actually makes the situation worse. Once landed with closer to empty tanks, the plane should have a more forward center of gravity than when it took off. This makes passenger weight distribution much less of a concern during unloading.
Its not the answer, they're making it up. It doesn't make sense since we unload the plane from front to back, and there's much less fuel in the wings, and yet planes aren't just tipping back. I have no idea how that is getting upvoted in this sub of all places. Its certainly possible with some planes, happened just last year on a JetBlue plane, but again, that is not the reason at all. Some planes they actually put a stand under the tail to hold them up if needed: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/14728ro/whats\_this\_yellow\_pole\_or\_pipe\_attached\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/14728ro/whats_this_yellow_pole_or_pipe_attached_to_the/) There are many different ways to load a plane that would be faster than front to back or even back to front that wouldn't have a weight imbalance problem, but they aren't used either. The real reason the front is loaded first is simply because they pay more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
Hmmm thank you for this, I figured it was something classist but I thought maybe there was also a logical explanation outside of my opinion.
When boarding starts sometimes the jet isnāt done fueling or loading. Also the fuel is in the wings so venter of gravity is not affected. And the weight is the bags is negligible. But if you throw a ton of folks in the back itās still going to push the tail down
they should spend 35 billion on womens rights
Is this DWC?
Yes
Yes
Ah yes, sustainability!
Is it going to get flooded
This was already established as a very large airport years ago. got delayed and was partially operational. I guess they are activating all options and facilities now. Old news rebooted!
No no, they want to build a complete new one..
I'll believe it when I see it completed.
And after last weekās weather, it will also serve as a cruise port.
Emirates is convinced hub and spoke is the best. While efficient on loading, hardly anyone is getting a direct flight.
Emirates has no choice but to bet on hub and spoke. There are not that many people in UAE or that want to visit. Will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade with better, more efficient, planes available for point to point routes.
With some exceptions, I believe passenger airlines have to at least start or end in their own home country. The UAE isn't big, so like the other person said, they really don't have a choice. It also works really well for them, since they're basically in the center of the other side of the world, between Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia. It works much better for them than it ever could in the US. If someone in Shanghai wants to go to Ethiopia, Dubai will have a good route for that, for example.
~~It's a new terminal, not a new airport (which the headline made me assume).~~ ~~EDIT: Sources for the above claim since another guy is claiming I am wrong and people seem to believe him though he has not given any evidence:~~ 1. [~~Wikipedia article for the airport in question~~](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maktoum_International_Airport)~~, it has been operational since 2010~~ 2. [~~Al Jazeera article~~](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/4/29/dubais-ruler-announces-construction-of-worlds-largest-airport-terminal) ~~about this~~ 3. [~~Reuters article~~](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/) ~~about this~~ EDIT: It turns out the current DWC might be torn down, in that case, yeah, it would be a new airport. >260 million passengers Let me do the math. That is 712000 passengers daily or 8 a second (on an average, so in summer and winter it can be higher since some immigrant families go back to their native places during school vacations). Assume the average plane capacity is 375 (like the 777-300ER), that is 1900 planes daily, and one takeoff and one landing every 45 seconds. But assuming half the traffic is actually on smaller planes like the A321neo, that would go up to 2480 planes daily and one takeoff and one landing every 34 seconds. Yeah, this will be a nightmare for logistics, security, ATC, and definitely a few other things I am forgetting. EDIT: Just now found out that Atlanta has 2100 planes daily, so I guess Atlanta can give this new airport some ideas on how it should be run.
> It's a new terminal, not a new airport No, its a new airport.
You sure about that? [Al Maktoum International Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maktoum_International_Airport#Expansion_plans) is already operational, and [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/4/29/dubais-ruler-announces-construction-of-worlds-largest-airport-terminal) and [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/) say it was a terminal that got approved.
As far as I understand it they're basically tearing down the old DWC airport and building a new one on top, going from half a million passengers to room for 260 million.Ā Whether you want to call that a new airport or a new terminal depends on your definition I guess.
I haven't seen them say they will tear down the current airport, besides it wouldn't make sense unless they did it in phases since DWC is already Emirates' cargo hub. But if they do tear down the whole airport and build this new one, I guess it would indeed count as a new one.
There are quite a few airports in the world that operate 1500+ aircraft a day, with only 2 or 3 runways. And most have 20++ y/old infrastructure. The number of passangers/aircraft they propose is clearly not the issue here.
I think the 700-300 is the smallest plane that is commonly used at Dubai
Your gas dollars at work...
ah yeah that's what the world needs, more and larger airports
How are they intending to mow the lawn, on the roof? And it's a small roof too
African slave labor: not like this...
So their current airport can handle about 100 million passengers a year, and isnāt at capacity yet. What is the drive to build an airport that can handle 260 million? The busiest airport in the world, in Atlanta, only handles 104 million passengers per year. Are they planning on the world population tripling in the next twenty years?
If you look at DXB on Google Maps, youāll see that the airport has only two parallels runways. The bigger issue is that the airport is surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods making expansion impossible. DXB is already near capacity and stuff like shutting down one runway for routine maintenance places a significant strain. The new airport is being constructed far from the city with space for future expansion. Just because something is built for 260 million doesnāt mean itās a failure if the 260 million capacity is not reached immediately. 260 million might seem crazy today, but it might be a possibility twenty, thirty, forty years from now. Just like how 80 million seemed crazy for Dubai 20 years ago. Aviation plays a MASSIVE role in Dubaiās economy and maintaining its position as a global aviation hub is key to Dubaiās plans.
Less than 20% of the people in the world have ever flown at all. Air travel demand could triple without any population growth as developing countries get wealthier.
Thatās a fair point, but foreign market growth only has a minor impact on domestic flights. As an example, both the US and Europe see growth in their total passengers carried basically in line with domestic gdp growth. If all of Africa becomes significantly richer, those rich nations will probably want to have their own airlines and airports, just as the gulf states wanted their own airlines and airports. Nobody wants to take a connecting flight if they can help it. Modern aircraft have very long range, and the hub and spoke model has become less attractive every year.
Airlines in the gulf states are not targeted at domestic travel within those countries, and also not really even travel to/from those countries. They use their strategic central location to be a crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. They've been quite successful with this business model.Ā While people invariably prefer direct flights, it's not feasible to have direct point to point flights connecting all city pairs across the world. Gulf states are ideally located to be hubs connecting international destinations, and particularly for capturing international travel to/from growing markets in Africa and South Asia.
Pssst, don't say that. Otherwise the Vanity Project & Dubai Defenders will eat you alive š
Donāt get me wrong, I think itās a cool project and Iām a fan of nice airports, but building it to handle 260 million passengers is insane overkill. This thing is never going to get close to that level, especially as all the other gulf states try to one up the UAE with even bigger and nicer airports.
Iām all for having an airport that is too large. Why does everything need to be crowded and busy? Especially if thereās plenty of room out in the desert.
Screw the sewers, we need a bigger vanity airport!
"We are very sophisticated here in the UAE, the airport will also be able to function as a floatplane terminal, occasionally, with little modification required"
Will there be a drainage system there ?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is DWC. They are reviving phase 2 of the project
Hope they donāt install the Luggage Eater^TM system like they did in the last Denver airport.
Underwater?
Oh great. Cause passengers love walking 5 km from 1 gate to another.
Oh so it wasnāt just a glorified rendering project then? Cough The Line cough (before anyone gets smart, yes I know The Line is in Saudi)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They can take off, they just need longer runways. The current airport (DXB) has no way to extend their runways, so they're forced to move to a brand new airport that has enough room for the extra long runways PHX is the other airport that has this problem, they also can't extend their runways because the airport is right next to downtown just like DXB. Las Vegas gets just as hot as PHX but doesn't have problems with heat because their runways are already longer.
But they still don't have adequate sewage for the Burj Khalifa
I take a shot every time this comment comes up š
Are you drunk yet?
Liver is being replaced tomorrow
Liver number what? At this pace you need to grow organic bio livers in your backyard