Per this article 超级机场，浦东机场准备好了吗？PVG poised to become a super airport?, in line with China's ambitious scheme for Shanghai to become a top global city for global competition and cooperation, the municipal government has rolled out equally ambitious plans for the city's flagship airport PVG:

A 3rd terminal is being planned south to the satellite terminal, which would uplift PVG's annual pax capacity to 120 million upon its completion by 2035 when the airport would feature a First Terminal Zone consisting of 3 terminals and 5 rwys

By 2040, another 2 terminals and 3 rwys would be built in the southeast through land reclamation from the sea, making up a 2nd Terminal Zone for PVG that would enable the airport to handle 160 million pax per annum

Besides the hardware issue, the article also points out some other issues and problems PVG needs to resolve on its path to becoming a world-class super airport.

For example, the article suggests Shanghai should switch more, if not all, flights from SHA (the other airport closer to downtown Shanghai) to PVG in order to minimize the impact of split traffic inherent with any multi-airport system

The current rwys at PVG are also suggested to be reconfigured as 5 wide-spaced parallel ones that allow independent operations for maximum capacity

With respect to the thorny issue of airspace that has no easy solutions in the short-term, it is suggested that frequencies on routes out of PVG that feature busy aircraft movements might be lowered to optimize efficiency

General layout plan for PVG by 2040
Yellow lines indicate all the 8 rwys
Red areas show terminals and an HSR station


Any thoughts here concerning PVG's plans/problems?

Zoedyn wrote:

Shanghai should switch more, if not all, flights from SHA (the other airport closer to downtown Shanghai) to PVG in order to minimize the impact of split traffic inherent with any multi-airport system

That would be key to avoiding another YMX/IAD/MXP/KIX scenario, if they intend to create a superhub.

The other would be streamlining the surrounding airspace.

Not until China frees up military airspace for use by commercial aviation, and stops closing significant airspace at a moments notice.

Until then, people will avoid transiting through Shanghai. Flights via Shanghai are a god 25% cheaper than other Asian cities. People who know, don’t risk it.

The plan is official plan but most of the article are personal analysis and suggestions on the problem.
SHA can probably copy DMK/TSA/GMP's mode of operation.

I don't really see how they could force people away from SHA, given that it's so much closer for people not on the pudong side of city. Traffic in Shanghai is crazy bad and they will really need to get public transit situation more convenient than right now. And whenever there is any kind of major event in town, stuff all get shut down. Not great for people making connections through there.

On the flip side, there is more O&D to there than say ICN. If they can get the airspace + pollution situation under control, it would be quite helpful. I've done the north america to south east asia trip many times. Always avoided PEK/PVG. Can't risk getting held up an extra day due to airspace issues.

''in line with China's ambitious scheme for Shanghai to become a top global city for global competition and cooperation, the municipal government has rolled out equally ambitious plans for the city's flagship airport PVG''

Isn't PVG (and Shanghai as well) already a major global hub? Since when don't we consider Shanghai a huge city?

A mere 34 million+ people in Shanghai's metro (!) and China's second-highest GDP per capita.

OA940 wrote:

''in line with China's ambitious scheme for Shanghai to become a top global city for global competition and cooperation, the municipal government has rolled out equally ambitious plans for the city's flagship airport PVG''

Isn't PVG (and Shanghai as well) already a major global hub? Since when don't we consider Shanghai a huge city?

The article say, "Currently, there are only one super airport in the world now which is ATL with 104M annual enplanement." So it seems like 100M+ annual enplanement is the figure the article used to define "super airport". And it seems like instead of asking about will it able to capture that much traffic, the tone of the article lean more toward whether the airport is going to be able to be capable of handle this level of traffic or not.

c933103 wrote:

OA940 wrote:

''in line with China's ambitious scheme for Shanghai to become a top global city for global competition and cooperation, the municipal government has rolled out equally ambitious plans for the city's flagship airport PVG''

Isn't PVG (and Shanghai as well) already a major global hub? Since when don't we consider Shanghai a huge city?

The article say, "Currently, there are only one super airport in the world now which is ATL with 104M annual enplanement." So it seems like 100M+ annual enplanement is the figure the article used to define "super airport". And it seems like instead of asking about will it able to capture that much traffic, the tone of the article lean more toward whether the airport is going to be able to be capable of handle this level of traffic or not.

Well with the rate at which PVG (and the Chinese market in general) is growing I wouldn't be surprised to see it reaching 100M before 2030.

I can see why they'd use 100M as a landmark to separate airports, although personally speaking I wouldn't call ATL the only ''superairport'' in the world.

In line with China becoming the largest aviation market in the world by 2022, i wouldnt be surprised if PVG becomes the worlds largest airport by 2025 with 150 Million Pax, given that both Dubai and Beijing are keen to split traffic across 2 airports. That is if they close down SHA and consolidate all flights at PVG.

By 2025 we will also see several hundred C919 in the air, and hopefully the C929 as well.

Given the huge distance of 6,7&8 runway complex to existing main terminal, one wonders if keeping SHA runway complex and associated terminal wouldn't be more efficient.
If they have money to spare, perhaps invest in extending the Maglev from PVG to SHA interconnecting both airports.

Could this concept accommodate 100+ million pax/ year?

LAX772LR wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

Shanghai should switch more, if not all, flights from SHA (the other airport closer to downtown Shanghai) to PVG in order to minimize the impact of split traffic inherent with any multi-airport system

That would be key to avoiding another YMX/IAD/MXP/KIX scenario, if they intend to create a superhub.

The other would be streamlining the surrounding airspace.

Consolidation is key. Split hubs mean half the transfers are poor and thus a quarter of the potential traffic goes elsewhere.

I would add ICN, HND, and CDG to the scenario where the home airline is very much weakened by a split hub. I agree that the ones you listed are case studies in what not to do.
HND
ICN
YMX
IAD
MXP
KIX
CDG

I would add LHR, but that requires runways and terminals.

Lightsaber

BestWestern wrote:

Not until China frees up military airspace for use by commercial aviation, and stops closing significant airspace at a moments notice.
Until then, people will avoid transiting through Shanghai. Flights via Shanghai are a god 25% cheaper than other Asian cities. People who know, don’t risk it.

In my experience the Chinese airspace issue has got a lot better recently (I assume some military airspace has been released).
Just last year long delays (2-3 hours) on key routes (e.g. SHA-SZX) were normal, however this year my flights have all been on time or early (much to my surprise as I was mentally prepared for a long delay). My colleagues have had the same experience.

As often happens in China, when they decide to fix something it is amazing how quickly it gets fixed (the benefit of their political system )

Honestly, if there is still no transit zone, meaning that every transiting passenger has to go through mainland China immigration (even with the visa waiver plan for stays shorter that 144 hours), I will not set foot there another time. The comedy of spending so much time in front of deserted immigration booths, with just two or three manned ones in that large area in that gigantic hall, with not enough blue waivers to fill out in double (one for entrance and one for exit), with the ridiculous number of security controls, the obligation to pick up luggages and to queue again for the next flight, again with a fraction of banks open in another huge hall, no thanks. Really unpleasant experience (YUL-PVG-SGN and then HAN-PVG-YUL; we had four hours between flights, coming back, and arrived at the gate with 20 minutes left! The rest was lost in controls and queues)

lightsaber wrote:

I would add ICN, HND, and CDG to the scenario where the home airline is very much weakened by a split hub.

Not sure I can agree with CDG.... how does AF suffer?

Prior to the recent rise of DXB/HKG, it was the 2nd busiest gateway by total int'l pax for yearssss on end. AF couldn't have been hurting that badly.

LAX772LR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I would add ICN, HND, and CDG to the scenario where the home airline is very much weakened by a split hub.

Not sure I can agree with CDG.... how does AF suffer?

Prior to the recent rise of DXB/HKG, it was the 2nd busiest gateway by total int'l pax for yearssss on end. AF couldn't have been hurting that badly.

Last I read, ORY had 27 AF destinations not served at CDG.

I believe the ORY/CDG split is all keeping CDG from being Europe's #1 hub. Well that and a proper transfer terminal.

It was quite an international gateway in it's day. But in it's day, prior to DXB, ADD, HKG, SIN and other, has rebooted. Until the 744 was common, transferring between airports was common or staying overnight. Bridge hubbing (two or more stops) was common. Then frequency and fragmentation raised the stakes.

I believe poor hub management in Europe and India left such a huge vacuum in the market that gestrated the ME3. A combined ORY/CDG back in 2005 would have slowed EK's growth. The amount of lost feed is/was tremendous.

The market is efficient at finding solutions. e.g., car travel is so reliable that a two hour drive to an airport is worth taking.

What matters is PVG realizes they need domestic feed. Passengers want frequency. Passengers want value and if flights were upgauged that lowers costs.

I'd argue AF is hurting (lack of industry standard profits). I like solutions that involve few to no layoffs.

Is PVG unsuccessful? No. But it isn't a dominant TPAC hub as too many connections are a short drive away. Today's customers get online and book. I've yet to see Orbitz, traveloscity, Amex, or any other cite recommend an airport switch flight.

For network carriers, 30% to 50% of outgoing passengers should be transfer passengers to increase revenue. Otherwise, restructure as a true LCC. I doubt ORY has that fraction for AF.

My example is EK and ET Two profitable companies that made the connections. Many of which could have been successful at CDG with more efficient feed traffic.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I would add ICN, HND, and CDG to the scenario where the home airline is very much weakened by a split hub.

Not sure I can agree with CDG.... how does AF suffer?

Prior to the recent rise of DXB/HKG, it was the 2nd busiest gateway by total int'l pax for yearssss on end. AF couldn't have been hurting that badly.

Last I read, ORY had 27 AF destinations not served at CDG.

I believe the ORY/CDG split is all keeping CDG from being Europe's #1 hub. Well that and a proper transfer terminal.

Interesting. I always wondered if that's what prevented AF from expanding into secondary markets in the Americas.

The problem with closing down sha is that domestic passengers on the west side of huangpu river will simply take high speed rail.

intothinair wrote:

By 2025 we will also see several hundred C919 in the air, and hopefully the C929 as well.

You mean the C320 and the C787?

Any pilots out there with knowledge of this? But wouldn't it get a little tight taking off and lining up for landing with so many runways pointed the same way which are nearly on top of each other?

danj555 wrote:

Any pilots out there with knowledge of this? But wouldn't it get a little tight taking off and lining up for landing with so many runways pointed the same way which are nearly on top of each other?

Each runway need to be 1036m+ apart from each other to independently abd parallelly allow planes to land and take off at the same time. Some runway pairs in PVG seems to be separated by less than this figure so planes cannot simultaneously takeoff or land at some runway pairs but instead need to be staggered. Per the artocle.