April 24, 2003

Dual Jet Bridges

Category: Aviation

Calgary: A fully packed airliner can take ages to empty. It's especially frustrating when you're stuck in the back. WestJet airlines however, has just introduced second jetways at Calgary airport that attach to the rear of the plane, making the deboarding process twice as fast.

Actually, this isn't anything new. I've used double jetways at SFO, but only on large aircraft like 747s, I've never seen it in use on smaller jets.

It would be great to see more airports installing these, but given the state of airline economics it probably won't happen any time soon!

[more info]

Posted by Nick at April 24, 2003 02:38 PM | TrackBack

Comments:

Can't understand why airports don't do this. I can't imagine a train with a similar capacity (one wide body jet is equivalent to about 5 coaches) with everyone trying to exit through one door. Just about any train I can think of has at least one door for every 50 passengers.

Posted by: Tim Hall on April 24, 2003 10:24 PM

Given the state of airline economics, I don't see why they don't do this, since there are bound to be open gates at airports with the recent and future contractions in fleets and flights. Why couldn't they gin up some way to just arrange the gates so that large planes, where this arrangement would be beneficial, could be put on two adjacent gates, and perhaps modify the second gate to allow access to the rear of the plane. Is there some problem with larger planes (like the 777 or the Airbus planes) that they don't have easily openable rear access? And you wouldn't necessarily have to load the planes that way, just unload them, if security was a concern.

Posted by: Highway on April 28, 2003 04:27 AM

um there is dual jetways for big planes like the 777 or the airbus at many airports

here is a pic

http://www.jetphotos.net/images/d/DSC00156.JPG.88267

Posted by: ryan on August 11, 2003 01:04 AM

Where would I go to find out the dementions of various jetways.
Craig Aubrey

Posted by: Craig Aubrey on August 28, 2003 08:12 PM
Post a comment