The new bridge would grant direct access from the Main Terminal to the North satellite concourse, scrapping the need for shuttle buses.
It is planned to be tall enough for A380's to pass underneath

Full story: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... s#comments

I never understood why when the terminal was built, that they didn't just make a walkway tunnel there. Was it a water table issue? The terminal is fairly close to the main terminal and with moving walkways, it would have been reachable in 60 seconds. I assumed that because this was suppose to a LCC terminal, that was the rationale behind keeping the cost down.

The North Satellite Concourse was built years after Terminal 1 opened. At the time, the Airport Authority found building a tunnel too disruptive (closure of gate stands and taxilane) and technically challenging (fuel lines, other utlities at apron, tunnel connection at T1).
After plenty years with unsatsifactory bus shuttle service, and with at least one such monumental taxilane bridge that is now in operation (LGW, Gatwick), the authority is now considering, it makes sense.

It's a dumb idea, should have been a tunnel from the outset. Cutting edge, no way. Lack of planning from the start.

Yet another object to cause even more turbulence landing on 25R.

zeke wrote:

It's a dumb idea, should have been a tunnel from the outset. Cutting edge, no way. Lack of planning from the start.

It is at the image of how Hong Kong is managed: no long term planning, immediate return targeted, build/destroy cycle..

I usually agree or support most decisions the Airport Authority make however this definitely is not one, I know the government doesn't generally care about costs but the capital needed for this project to me far outweighs the potential benefits. Considering the bridge will need to be about 30M clearance thats no easy construction project and it'll inevitably cause tarmac delays which doesn't help relieve the congestion in that area either.

This seems like far more of an imaged-based decision rather than a functional one. I would have to imagine a tunnel would cause fewer operational disruptions during construction, and would cost significantly less given the scale and scope of the bridge. I'm sure it'll look great, but from a functional perspective, it's just not the best idea, nor the best use of funds.

atcsundevil wrote:

This seems like far more of an imaged-based decision rather than a functional one. I would have to imagine a tunnel would cause fewer operational disruptions during construction, and would cost significantly less given the scale and scope of the bridge. I'm sure it'll look great, but from a functional perspective, it's just not the best idea, nor the best use of funds.

Couldn't agree more. Though I personally love the idea of a moving walkway high above the tarmac for plane-spotting, however, with the incorporation of retail spaces, how large the proposed bridge would need to be for a satellite terminal houses only 10 gates?

A tunnel with moving walkway is more than sufficient for the job required.

With the opening of the 2XX gates, I don't really understand why the North Satellite (5XX) gates are still needed. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just torn down that odd building? And focus on the grand construction of the new terminal and runway?

I always thought the 5XX gates are supposed to be temporary. It's unplanned and hastily built. It's inconvenient and confusing to use. They are worse than real bus gates. Using a real bus gates, at least I get to get on the plane once I get off the bus.

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

weren't the latest concourse connected by underground transit system?

c933103 wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

weren't the latest concourse connected by underground transit system?

Havent been to HKG since late 90's i dunno about the current state of HKG. Guess I am going to have to plot a course to HKG soon and update my files on HKG. Going to be interesting to see this done.

c933103 wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

weren't the latest concourse connected by underground transit system?

Isn't this for the little North satellite concourse? This is not for the mid concourse. Was the north satellite ever in the master plan? It seems like an afterthought since the main terminal gates all are widebody sized. Having some smaller gates for narrowbodies makes sense but the location of the north satellite seems odd like HKG never thought they would get many 737s and A320s.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Isn't this for the little North satellite concourse? This is not for the mid concourse. Was the north satellite ever in the master plan? It seems like an afterthought since the main terminal gates all are widebody sized. Having some smaller gates for narrowbodies makes sense but the location of the north satellite seems odd like HKG never thought they would get many 737s and A320s.

I mean, if they can build a underground people mover to connect the mid concourse, then any reason they didn't do so with the north concourse would be unrelated to the fact that HKG is partly a reclaimed land.

The bridge has to be unnecessarily tall to accommodate A380 which drives up the costs. This was the reason why LAX abandon the bridge idea and went with a tunnel to connect its satellite concourse.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

HKG is built on reclaimed land but it ain't stopping the construction of an underground people mover.

I've was always under the impression the B737/A320 stand was connected to the main terminal via underground tunnel but I guessed wrong! I must agree too, it stands out like sore thumb as if it doesn't belong there.

EK413

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Sounds like a possible spotters dream eh? yet I agree what a odd decision to make. I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

I don't think tunnelling is a problem - they already link T1, T2 and the mid level concourse using underground trains. Seems to me that they need more retail space and a bridge will help provide that!!

Plane spotters' dream? Don't count on it. Over zealous security measures might kill that dream!

Also worth noting the bridge will spoil the design of the main terminal with this bridge going to look like a cheap add on.

EK413

What a waste of money and resources for such a small satellite, as said there is no forethought when it comes to Hong Kong, even the new terminal and taxiway design is terrible.

Clearly if Heathrow has morphed over the years into the "letterbox" design like Atlanta then clearly record breaking airports (LHR & ATL) need this design, it may not be aesthetically pretty but they are clearly the most functional designs.

HK should have copied Atlanta from the beginning or at least have done it for the new second terminal and now morph the current appalling 1st terminal like Heathrow is doing.

Hong Kong airport that you can't digging under ground to make tunnel do you know why? There are all rocks and dirt under water used to be. They filled rocks and dirt to make an airport land. If they digging it will be disastrous flooding or sank hole. That's why simple to built bridge that's the only way to do built it. You can't dig under ground due rock and dirt was filled to land. If airport was on real soil or crust landmark. It is ok to dig to make tunnel. Hong Kong engineering are not stupid to do built tunnel. They know what they are doing right thing to do.

Q

Q wrote:

Hong Kong airport that you can't digging under ground to make tunnel do you know why? There are all rocks and dirt under water used to be. They filled rocks and dirt to make an airport land. If they digging it will be disastrous flooding or sank hole. That's why simple to built bridge that's the only way to do built it. You can't dig under ground due rock and dirt was filled to land. If airport was on real soil or crust landmark. It is ok to dig to make tunnel. Hong Kong engineering are not stupid to do built tunnel. They know what they are doing right thing to do.
Q

Given that it is known to be water logged fill it is easy to dig a tunnel, "USING THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES". Whether it would be cheaper to build the bridge, I don't know.

Gemuser

Wanna see how that will look when it's done.

CCA wrote:

What a waste of money and resources for such a small satellite, as said there is no forethought when it comes to Hong Kong, even the new terminal and taxiway design is terrible.

Clearly if Heathrow has morphed over the years into the "letterbox" design like Atlanta then clearly record breaking airports (LHR & ATL) need this design, it may not be aesthetically pretty but they are clearly the most functional designs.

HK should have copied Atlanta from the beginning or at least have done it for the new second terminal and now morph the current appalling 1st terminal like Heathrow is doing.

There were plans in the beginning to build T1 like how T5 is configured at LHR. I'm not sure why it got scrapped.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

I think tunnels at HKG are not done as one other poster said due to water issues. If memory serves me correct aint HKG built on reclaimed land like KIX was?

Not exactly. KIX is 100% man-made island; HKG sits partially on an actual island. The island of Chap Lap Kok was flatened and the extra dirt/rock is dumped into the water for expanding the island to today's airport. I'd say about 30% of today's airport (the eastern part) is where the original island sat.

The northern satelite concourse was built later and not part of the original design. It's sort of a copycat of the low cost carrier terminal at SIN; thus, no tunnel or bridge connecting it to the main terminal. The people mover, on the other hand, was designed within the original plan.

I have used the northern satelite concourse a few times. The bus ride wasn't that bad, just need to account for it as far as managing boarding time and all. Although it's originally for low cost carriers, it is used by all airlines with narrowbodies. I am surprised that HKG didn't put gates that are only for narrowbodies at the new mid-concourse.

CXGabriel wrote:

I have used the northern satelite concourse a few times. The bus ride wasn't that bad, just need to account for it as far as managing boarding time and all. Although it's originally for low cost carriers, it is used by all airlines with narrowbodies. I am surprised that HKG didn't put gates that are only for narrowbodies at the new mid-concourse.

They're not doing it to make it easier for the passenger. That's not the goal. It doesn't get much easier on a passenger than taking a bus from point A to point B.
They are doing it so they...
1) Can save money on busing over the long run;
2) Can make money off of retail space that will be sold on the bridge itself.

Q wrote:

Hong Kong airport that you can't digging under ground to make tunnel do you know why? There are all rocks and dirt under water used to be. They filled rocks and dirt to make an airport land. If they digging it will be disastrous flooding or sank hole. That's why simple to built bridge that's the only way to do built it. You can't dig under ground due rock and dirt was filled to land. If airport was on real soil or crust landmark. It is ok to dig to make tunnel. Hong Kong engineering are not stupid to do built tunnel. They know what they are doing right thing to do.

Q

Except they already have a large tunnel spanning the length of T1 and now connecting the midfield concourse.

As mentioned in my earlier post (#3), tunneling is challenging. (Has nothing to do with the APM tunnel serving the midfield concourse, on centerline of T1. That was master planned and safeguarded for.)

For tunneling, I would restate slightly: It is technically feasible (yet not without significant complexities, and cost), soil/rocks and drainage aside, but it is the apron and taxilane disruption associated with the open-cut tunneling that make the bridge an easier alternative. For the bridge, you essentially build two large bridge pylons/bridgeheads inside a closed gate stand, either side, independent of the surrounding apron. The taxilane can stay in operation, which is crucial, it is a busy corner of the terminal. The bridge truss can be hoisted in a few days. The connectors between terminal and bridgehead can be build separately. Done.

How is the satellite building serviced? I assume there are shops etc. in the satellite concourse? If so, how are these serviced? How is terminal staff ferried across? Is it alll by transport vehicles? If so that constant traffic must be very disruptive to aircraft movement.

I agree that the tunnel option would make much more sense than a bridge.

All done via ground transport as far as I know, no disruption to aircraft at all. Just do some back of the napkin numbers for how many buses you think you could buy and run for the cost of building that bridge. I think HKIA would be in a different location by the time that bridge pays for itself.

zeke wrote:

All done via ground transport as far as I know, no disruption to aircraft at all. Just do some back of the napkin numbers for how many buses you think you could buy and run for the cost of building that bridge. I think HKIA would be in a different location by the time that bridge pays for itself.

It is not a problem of ground access per se or how many vehicles you can run to ferry passengers, staff, supplies. Can all be done.

The problem is this: The apron buses here never really satisfy a smooth operation for the passengers. If you have done the journey you will see that every time there is something uncomfortable or plain bad.
Waiting on apron for no apparent reason. BAD! Stop and go when you are standing in a full bus and halfway tripping as a result, with one arm on luggage. BAD! Bus is sitting idle with passengers inside waiting to leave, no information. BAD! Bus is full, you are standing under someone's armpit. BAD! Air conditon is too cold, or too warm. BAD! You are waiting too long for the next bus! BAD.

Nothing of that can really be fixed, unless you pay top dollar and someone working in hospitality is working for you, as driver and attendent. But you will simply not find someone doing this job. Not in Hong Kong. The result is reality and perception is not good and the authority knows it and wants to fix it.

vhtje wrote:

How is the satellite building serviced? I assume there are shops etc. in the satellite concourse? If so, how are these serviced? How is terminal staff ferried across? Is it alll by transport vehicles? If so that constant traffic must be very disruptive to aircraft movement.

I agree that the tunnel option would make much more sense than a bridge.

It is basically a small building with around 10 gates for typical narrow body aircraft (largest I've seen parked there are A321s). The departure level has a couple of shops but limited food options (1 starbucks IIRC). Arrivals get funnelled down into the busses right away back into the main terminal. I think all people (pax and staff) are moved on the busses across the tarmac. Usually its the aircraft movements that disrupt the bus connection and not the other way round.

I don't see why they cant just construct an alternative road connecting the satellite concourse to the main terminal that is far enough so that bus services cannot be disrupted regardless of aircraft pushing back and such.

atcsundevil wrote:

This seems like far more of an imaged-based decision rather than a functional one. I would have to imagine a tunnel would cause fewer operational disruptions during construction, and would cost significantly less given the scale and scope of the bridge. I'm sure it'll look great, but from a functional perspective, it's just not the best idea, nor the best use of funds.

I can't agree with that - I would expect to have support stands containing lifts and stairs built up over a couple of months, then overnight closures during one weekend to crane in a pre-fabricated bridge section. I really can't see a tunnel being less disruptive than that - and the bridge is probably cheaper too.

Don't forget that this wouldn't be a deep metro tunnel bored out by machine (which is a phenomenally expensive process) - realistically a tunnel would have to involve digging out and then filling in ground works.