|
On September 21st, it will have been 40 years ago that Atlanta's Midfield Terminal Complex opened for traffic.
Its characteristic layout of long concourses, perpendicular to the runway and connected by an underground people mover system, ensured a highly efficient movement of both passengers and aircraft. For the decades that followed, Atlanta would become the gold standard for the design of hub airports. However, did you know that the design evolved from a plan that was very similar to the original plan for Dallas/Fort Worth Airport? It's only due to project delays that we got the the "ATL" we know today. Read all about it below! 
Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in 1981, a year after opening of the Midfield Airport.
THE NEED FOR A NEW TERMINAL
Atlanta's previous terminal was completed in 1961. It was originally designed for 13.5 million passengers, a level that was already reached in the mid-1960s. In 1967 the city decided it was time to build a new terminal and modify the existing one. In November 1967 a consortium of architects commenced the difficult task of designing the world's largest air passenger terminal building. Everyone--the airlines, the two participating joint venture planning firms and even airline pilots--submitted ideas for the terminal design. The architects compiled sixty concepts into a briefing book. Those were narrowed down to ten for a more detailed study. INSPIRATION FROM TEXAS In the late 1960s the primary consideration in airport design was passenger convenience in the form of short walking distances between parking facilities and aircraft gates. In December 1967, the master plan for the newly planned Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport was published. Prepared by Walther Prokosch, who also designed the original Pan Am terminal and the Worldport expansion, the plan proposed the concept of 20 self-contained terminals along a connecting roadway. 
An artist's impression of the original master plan for the new Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport. In a way, the plan can be seen as an optimized version of New York Kennedy's Terminal City but also LAX, with each airline operating its own facilities. Later on, the terminals were changed to a semi-circular shape.
Airlines praised the model. They loved the idea of operating their own airport facilities and the small airport convenience the "mini-terminals" brought.
Thus, the Atlanta architects developed their own version of the DFW plan. They conceived the midfield complex as a series of sixteen terminal units along structural, double-decked roadways of Interstate 85 on the west. The roadways met on the east side and continued at ground level to Interstate 75. Each terminal was self-contained with aircraft gates, ticketing and baggage facilities. The 600-foot (183-meter) central strip was dedicated to roadways and parking garages. A people mover system ran through the upper level of each terminal, parallel to the roadways. Other features included a hotel and an automated sorting system for mail and baggage. 
The original 1968 concept for Atlanta's midfield terminal, which boasted 16 terminal units. The concept was more tailored toward local passengers than transferring passengers, who would be hugely inconvenienced.
SLIPPING TIMELINE: A BLESSING IN DISGUISE
Initially the completion date for the new midfield expansion was 1972. However, the timetable slipped by years due to airline politics, economic downturns, financing issues as well as discussions about a second airport. This had a major advantage: there was ample time to adjust and fine-tune the design for the midfield complex. By 1971 the original design was still more or less intact. However, the central area had been reduced from 600 to 200 feet and the people mover was no longer elevated. The layout was very much tailored to Atlanta's "O&D" (origin and destination) passengers. However, at the time 70% of passengers changed flights at the airport. With the proposed design, most transfer passengers would have to change terminals in order to catch their onward flight. Even cities that had large volumes of connecting passengers had never specifically addressed this situation: they had merely adapted standard airport designs. Therefore, no precedent existed from which Atlanta's planners could draw.
A BREAKTHROUGH
In a conceptual breakthrough in 1973, the complex had been split into two distinct sections, airside terminals with aircraft parking gates and landside terminals for ticketing and baggage. Roadways and parking were moved away from the aircraft gates and concentrated around the landside facilities, making the roadway system much simpler, while still creating curb space for hundreds of cars per hour. Although the separation was not considered particularly significant at the time, it marked the point at which the airport veered away from its "drive to the plane" stance and began to deal with the particular requirements of a transfer airport. Originating and terminating passengers would shuttle between the terminals and six airside concourses on a sunken but exposed people mover system, the sole means of transportation within the complex. As ticketing and baggage facilities no longer had to be provided in each airside terminal, more aircraft gates could be added. The elimination of roadways and parking freed additional space. 
In the 1973 design, the landside and airside facilities were separated. Three landside terminals would be built: one for Delta; one for Eastern; and a smaller third one for the remaining airlines.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
Another major change was to come in the winter of 1975. Due to an ice storm at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, the Airtrans people mover system, the ground level people mover that had been a model for Atlanta's planning, became paralyzed. The designers realized that Atlanta's system would be vulnerable under similar conditions. It was a risk that airlines would not accept. Thus, during an intense brainstorming session Delta's facility department recommended covering the "ditch" that contained the people mover system, thereby protecting it from the elements. Putting the people mover underground also removed the barrier between the north and south runway systems and eliminated the need for costly taxiway bridges. Also, the taxiways that in earlier layouts had separated the landside and airside terminals could be eliminated. Next the Delta team recommended that two parallel terminals replace the three landside linear landside buildings. This move, coupled with the removal of the taxiways, allowed the half-concourse to become a full concourse, adding twelve gates. 
A major breakthrough was to put the people mover in a tunnel, thereby protecting it from the elements, and removing the barrier between the north and south runway system.
THE FINAL STEP IN CREATING THE "ATL" WE KNOW TODAY
A final critical step was to divide the people mover tunnel into two chambers and separate them to allow for a pedestrian mall in between. Lastly, the planners re-positioned the terminals from a north-south to an east-west alignment and placed them back to back. The number of concourses was reduced to four domestic concourses boasting 26 gates each, with space to build a fifth concourse. An international concourse was added adjacent to the north terminal. 
An artist's impression of the final design. The total handling capacity was to be 75 million annual passengers, a volume completely unheard of at the time.
On April 18th, 1977, the contracts for construction of the terminal building and the people mover were awarded and construction could begin, almost ten years after the start of the design process. All good things take time!
The Midfield Terminal in 1981.
For this blog the fantastic 1989 book "A Dream Takes Flight" by Betsy Braden & Paul Hagan was a huge inspiration. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the history of Atlanta Airport pre-1990.
We hope you enjoyed this little piece of history on the development of Atlanta's Midfield Terminal. In the future we are also planning a full multi-part history on the development of Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. Sign up below to know when new content is released!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to give a special thanks to Marie Force of the Delta Flight Museum for her assistance in preparing this article.
Back in the late 1990s, Frankfurt Airport considered re-configuring its runway system to an Atlanta-style layout with four parallel runways. Read all about it below!
BACK IN TIME: THE NEED FOR A NEW RUNWAY The idea of building an additional fourth runway for Frankfurt Airport was first proposed in 1997 by Lufthansa's then-CEO Jürgen Weber. The year prior, Frankfurt had handled over 38 million passengers and 386,000 aircraft movements. The runway layout allowed for 80 movements per hour, translating into about 420,000 annual movements. Thus, the capacity ceiling was in sight. With nearby competitors Amsterdam Schiphol and Paris de Gaulle adding new runways and planning to increase their hourly capacity to a 120 aircraft movements, something needed to be done. A proposed new runway would allow the number of hourly takeoffs and landings to grow by 50% to 120 per hour, translating into over 660,000 annual movements and doubling the number of annual passengers to over 72 million by 2015. Frankfurt's last new runway, the north-south runway named "Startbahn West" (West Runway) had opened in 1984 and became the focus of intense protests by environmentalists, which even lasted three years after the runway had opened. 
A 1990s aerial view of Frankfurt looking northeast. The West Runway, which opened in 1984, is visible in the foreground.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
With this experience still in mind, the airport decided to closely involve residents of the surrounding communities in the planning process. A pact was made stipulating that the new runway could only be built if it was supported by the majority of nearby residents. Fourteen different variations for increasing runway capacity were studied. The main options involved building a new runway northwest, northeast or south of the airport. Other options were to optimize the current runway system by using new procedures and technologies or by realigning the runway system. Yet another option saw part of traffic being transferred to nearby Erbenheim Airport, a general aviation airport located 9 miles (15 km) west of Frankfurt Airport. The remaining options were different combinations of the above options. THE ATLANTA MODEL The most ambitious option involved building two new east-west oriented runways south of the existing airport, providing the airport with four parallel runways and allowing both simultaneous parallel takeoffs and landings. Under this option, the north-south runway would be closed. The layout was appropriately named the "Atlanta Model". Depending on the mix of aircraft, this layout would allow up to a 150 aircraft movements an hour, as opposed to 120 with most other expansion options. Unsurprisingly, this was the option backed by the home carrier Lufthansa, which operates a global hub out of Frankfurt. 
The Atlanta layout involved the construction of two new runways south of the existing airport, one measuring 13,000 feet (4,000 meters), the other 10,000 feet (2,800 meters). The existing north-south runway would be closed.
Although never explicitly stated at the time, the Atlanta Model would also have the additional benefit of enabling the airport to do a bit of "land grab", by creating a huge new midfield area, similar to what Schiphol did with the addition of the infamous Polderbaan.
The midfield area--nowadays largely developed with cargo and maintenance facilities--could eventually have been used to develop a large new passenger terminal complex for Lufthansa and its partner carriers. 
An impression of what the Atlanta model would have looked like. Note the newly created midfield area, which would have offered the opportunity to develop a large-scale midfield passenger terminal complex.
POLITICAL REALITY
The Atlanta Model was not without its issues. Until the majority of traffic would move to a future midfield terminal, taxiing times to/from the existing terminals would be long and aircraft would have to cross the existing parallel runways, raising the risk of runway incursions. Also, part of the then new Cargo-Sud (Cargo-South) complex would have to be torn down. From a community point of view, the problem with the the Atlanta Model was that it would almost double the airport in size and 600 hectares (1500 acres) of city forest would need be to cut. Also, the number of people affected by aircraft noise would increase by almost half a million. This made the Atlanta Model politically unattainable, and thus, it disappeared off the table. A COMPROMISE Three options remained: the construction of a single new runway north-east, north-west or south of the airport. The conclusion was that a runway north-west of the airport site would have the least impact on local residents and the surrounding environment. The runway's location--north-east of the existing airport and squeezed against the autobahn A3--was quite ingenious in that the layout is extremely compact, thereby barely increasing the airport's footprint. Only a relatively small amount of trees would need to be cut down to build the runway. Also, the amount of additional people affected by noise would be limited to about 225,000. 
A map showing the three viable options. For the northwest and northeast option, the runway could only be used for landings.
LANDINGS ONLY
As part of the concessions to get the buy-in from local communities, the runway would be used exclusively for landings, and only aircraft types up to the size of an Airbus A340 would be allowed to use the runway. In December 2007, the plans were approved by the Hessian government (Hesse is the state where Frankfurt is situated) and construction on the runway started in early 2009. In October 2012, after 15 years of discussion, planning and construction, Frankfurt opened the fourth runway, providing the airport with a total of three east-west parallel runways and one north-south runway. 
An aerial image of the new runway looking west. At 9,240 feet (2,800 meters), runway 07L/25R is Frankfurt's shortest runway. It can be used for landings only for aircraft up to A340 size. The MD-11, 747 and A380 are not allowed to make use of the runway.
This vertical aerial image clearly demonstrates the very compact layout of the Frankfurt Airport. The fourth runway, located just north of the A3 highway has only moderately increased the airport's footprint.
The things that could have been if they had gone with the "Atlanta Model"! What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to give a special thanks to Markus Grossbach and Annette Schmidt of the Fraport Archive for their help in preparing this article. Fans of the classic disaster movie "Airport" (1970) know that the movie was shot at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. But did you know the Master Plan for the expansion of "Lincoln International Airport", a fictional Chicago airport, was based on that of Houston Intercontinental Airport? Read all about it below!  THE MEADOWOOD CONTROVERSY Frequent readers of this site know I am a huge fan of the classic airplane disaster movie "Airport". The name of this blog honors this great movie. One of my favorite scenes in the film is when the airport manager, Mel Bakersfeld, argues with Commissioner Ackerman over closing down the airport to reduce noise over "Meadowood". Meadowood is a wealthy suburb which is suffering under the noise produced by aircraft using the airport's only available runway that night, Runway 22. In the scene, Bakersfeld, played by the legendary Burt Lancaster, makes the case for a modern and expanded airport, where Meadowood would be re-zoned for industrial use. Here's the scene, with credit to Universal Pictures. Question to self: why do I suddenly feel like a smoke? AN ALTERNATE TAKE ON THE HOUSTON AIRPORT MASTER PLAN? As a kid back in the early 1980s, I used to pause the VHS tape at this very scene and copy the Master Plan layout on drawing paper. Later on, as I became familiar with airport layouts around around the world, I realized that the runway layout was very similar to that of Houston Intercontinental Airport. Houston opened in 1969, the year "Airport" was filmed. Have a look at the screenshot below, specifically the layout map mounted on the wall.  Now, compare that to Houston's 1971 Master Plan in the image below. Full disclosure: I did a bit of improvising here. In the 1971 Master Plan of IAH, the left cross runway (15R/33L) is actually indicated as a taxiway.  THE TERMINAL For the passenger terminal, the Lincoln plan depicted an octagon-shaped building consisting of passenger terminals and multi-level parking structures. The airport administration building and tower were located at the heart of the complex. The fictitious terminal boasted two large piers on opposite sides of the main building, with mini piers or fingers protruding out from the main concourse. The plan also featured four circular satellite buildings.  Although the plan had "Hollywood sexy" written all over it, I remember thinking even back then how challenging it would be to process all the vehicular traffic. Also, the complex had zero possibilities to expand or to be adjusted. Having said that, it certainly wasn't the worst airport plan produced in the 1960s! Like the Lincoln scheme, Houston Intercontinental's real terminal complex was and is aligned in an east-west direction, but that's where the comparison stops. The real Houston had two terminal buildings, with each building having four satellite concourses attached to it, and with room for two more terminals in the Master Plan (see below). And similar to other major airports of the era, Houston featured a spine road connecting the terminals.  An artist's impression of the "future" passenger terminal complex, as prepared in 1971. The two terminals in the foreground were built. Very different from Lincoln for sure, but compare the cargo area (middle of picture) to that of Lincoln. However, the original 1962 Houston Master Plan did have a centralized terminal which strongly resembles that of Lincoln. Take a look below!  An artist's impression of the 1962 Master Plan for the new Houston Airport. It's very likely that there have been several iterations of the Houston Intercontinental Airport Master Plan between the 1962 version and the final version, including a version which might be much closer to the plan depicted in the movie. Together with the crew of Houston's 1940 Air Terminal Museum, we're trying to get to the heart of the matter! We'll keep you posted on our progress. Did we convince you? Did you see any other similarities that we didn't discuss? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below! If you haven't seen "Airport", please go buy the DVD here. I want to extend a special thank you to Geoff Scripture and Michael Bludworth of the 1940 Air Terminal Museum in Houston for their help in preparing this article. As soon as the world returns to normal, go visit this great museum! Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online! 
THE EVOLUTION OF BWI THROUGH AERIAL IMAGES
This year, Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport is celebrating its 70th anniversary. On June 24th, 1950, President Harry S. Truman dedicated "Friendship International Airport". In this post, we feature a series of aerial images showcasing the spectacular growth of the passenger terminal at "BWI" through the decades. 
An aerial view of Friendship Airport around the time of opening in 1950. Scheduled airline service began one month after opening. At the time, the airport was viewed as the most advanced in the United States.
An aerial view taken in the late 1960s. By this time, the original terminal had been expanded in both directions and two new concourses had been added. The pier to the left of the image--Pier C--was operated by United; Pier B in the middle by Eastern, Piedmont and Allegheny Airlines; and Pier A to the right by all other airlines.
A 1985 aerial. By this time the terminal radically altered its appearance. In the late 1970s a major renovation of the terminal complex was completed. The project doubled the size of the terminal to 635,000 square feet (59,000 square meters), The number of gate positions increased from 20 to 27. By 1983, Pier D (right of image) had been expanded from seven to 19 gates to meet Piedmont's hub operation needs.
A mid-1980s closeup of the Piedmont hub. In 1989, the carrier merged into USAir.
A 1991 aerial view. A new, four-level parking garage, located in the front of the main terminal is being completed. A few years prior, the terminal had been expanded with a new commuter terminal and expansion of Pier D to handle the growth of the USAir/Piedmont hub operation.
In 1997, the Governor William Donald Schaefer International Terminal (foreground) opens. The $140 million project features light rail service on the lower level. Total passenger traffic at BWI reaches more than 14 million, a new record for the fourth consecutive year.
In 2005, the new Terminal A/B facility was officially dedicated at BWI Marshall Airport. The 510,000-square-foot facility provides 11 new gates for Southwest Airlines, which connect to 15 current gates on Concourse B, creating a compact, 26-gate concourse facility.
A magnificent evening aerial view of the BWI terminal complex taken in 2008. During this year, the airport handled over 21 million passengers.
We close with this 2016 aerial. Since then the airport has expanded even further. We are currently working on a full feature on the history of BWI, which will include the latest extensions. Make sure you sign up for our newsletter below to know when it goes online!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online! ,Following the recent 62nd anniversary of the modernized and expanded London Gatwick Airport, we went digging in our extensive AirportHistory archives. From this, we found a batch of very rare color images of the airport taken shortly after opening of the newly-built terminal. Have a good look and enjoy! A (VERY) SHORT HISTORY Initially known as the Surrey Aero Club, Gatwick had existed since 1930. Four years later, Gatwick, located 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Central London, became the reliever airport for Croydon Airport, then the main airport for London. Two years later, in 1936, the trendsetting "Beehive" terminal was dedicated. Among others, the Beehive featured predecessors of the modern boarding bridge. In July 1952, it was decided to modernize and expand Gatwick. The airport was to serve as a reliever airport for Heathrow--then still called London Airport--focusing on flights to the Channel Islands and Mediterranean holiday destinations. The Stage 1 scheme involved the erection of a box-like terminal building and pier, the construction of a new railway station to serve the airport, and a 7,000-foot (2,134-meter) single runway with associated high-speed taxiways, parking areas and aprons. On June 9th, 1958, the expanded London Gatwick Airport was dedicated by the Queen. Having cost GBP 7.8 million, Gatwick became the first airport in the world with an integrated railway station. Now, without further ado, let's have a look at the images!  A view from the new terminal building's third level looking west toward the platform. A 300-foot (90-meter) single pier extended out to the platform.  A view from the end of the pier looking east toward the main terminal building. The guidance system at the end of pier looks like a giant 'pause' button! Note the airfield operations control room on top of the pier.  An image taken from the airfield operations control room, looking east toward the terminal building. The terminal, designed by Yorke, Rosenberg & Mardall, boasted three levels and was designed with expansion in mind. These gentlemen certainly were no Eero Saarinen (designer of Washington Dulles Airport and the TWA Flight Center in New York)! Then again, this building is still part of the current complex today. As I often say, the boxes last longest!  A 1958 interior view of the concourse level of the terminal, taken from the mezzanine level. The Stage 1 terminal measured 350 by 130 feet (107 x 40 meter) and contained two rows of check-in desks, the other row being located to the left of the image behind the shops. Airline offices were located behind the check-in desks. The advertisement in the back at the mezzanine level reads "Remington Rand", an American company that made office equipment, including typewriters.  Another view looking east toward the exit toward the train station, which was connected to the eastern end of the terminal. A small curbside was located to the north of the terminal, or toward the left in this picture. I assume "Business for Prosperity" was a typical post-war reconstruction slogan but could not find a reference to it on the web.  Unfortunately the quality of this image is not optimal but it's too interesting to exclude. This view looks east toward the pier. Check in desks are located to the left and right. The green sign at the end reads "departure gates 1 to 18". The mezzanine level contained bars and restaurants. The blue signs read "restaurant and cocktail bar" and "buffet and bar".  This image is actually not from 1958. This aerial view was taken some time after completion of the airport's expansion in 1965, which included the doubling of the terminal, the construction of two more piers and extension of the runway to 8,200 feet (2,500 meters), making it suitable for jets. Color aerials from this period are very rare, which is why I wanted to include it. We hope you enjoyed these photos. Do you remember visiting 1950s and 1960s Gatwick? Leave a comment below!
In the future, we'll be posting a full history on Gatwick Airport as well as more themed photo specials. Want to explore more airport history? Sign up for our newsletter here or follow us on social media! 
After almost 40 years of operation, the TWA Flight Center was closed in October 2001, just before TWA itself ceased to exist (the airline was absorbed into American Airlines).
Thankfully, the TWA Flight Center had been able to acquire landmark status and escape the wrecking ball, contrary to other illustrious JFK terminals such as the Pan Am Worldport and the Sundrome, A new Terminal 5, operated by JetBlue, opened on October 22, 2008. The entry hall of the newer Gensler designed terminal wraps around the former terminal in a crescent shape. Although the old satellite buildings, called "Flight Wing One" and "Flight Wing Two", were demolished, the original tube connectors leading passengers from the terminal building, called the "head house", were retained. After standing empty for nearly two decades, the TWA Flight Center found a new life. In May 2019, the TWA Hotel opened to the public. Although commercially the hotel has had a bumpy take-off, it has become a place of pilgrimage for aviation geeks from around the world. However, did you know that back in 1990 a plan was developed to expand the TWA Flight Center? If built, the terminal might still have been with us today as a working terminal, instead of a hotel. A 1990 PLAN FOR A REVAMPED TWA FLIGHT CENTER By the 1980s, the deficiencies of the TWA Flight Center had become very apparent. The terminal had too little of everything: gates, check-in space, baggage handling facilities, curb space, etc. In 1990, Trans World Airlines--at the time still in a relatively healthy state--commissioned Perkins and Will to work on a redevelopment project for its whole JFK complex, which by then included the former National terminal, a.k.a. the Sundrome. 
A 1986 aerial of the TWA Flight Center (then Terminal 5) and the Sundrome (Terminal 6) in the background.
NEW FLIGHT WING TWO
The most radical feature of the proposed scheme was a complete replacement of the original Flight Wing Two satellite building. It would be replaced by a "Y"-shaped 20-gate concourse, with most stands being able to accommodate wide-body aircraft. Having been opened in 1970, Flight Wing One, was still a relatively young structure at the time, and thus was maintained with an extension being added. A new Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility, "meeters and greeters" hall and arrival roadway would be built in a curved shape around the iconic TWA head house. These were all planned to be depressed below the apron level to preserve the openness and views to the airfield from the head house. Wow! 
A layout drawing of the final version of the scheme. Interestingly, the arched structure and adjoining arrival roadway are quite similar to the current layout.
FLIGHT CENTER BECOMES CHECK-IN FACILITY
The head house itself would be used for check-in. One of the adjoining wings would have been expanded to accommodate more check-in desks for international flights. The famous concrete connector tubes leading from the head house to the flight wings would have been replaced with glassed-in tubes equipped with escalators. Interestingly, in the original design for the Flight Center, the tubes featured escalators and a glass roof. However, the design was simplified in an attempt to contain the cost of the project. CONNECTION BETWEEN TERMINALS The then-existing corridor between the Flight Center and the Sundrome would be replaced with a large connecting structure, containing baggage transfer facilities and an expanded domestic baggage claim area. In between the terminal was a people mover station. The tracks would lead to a newly-built central terminal building, which was part of the shelved JFK 2000 Master Plan (which will be discussed in a later article). See more from the models and renditions of the plan below. 
A model of the expanded complex. The TWA Flight Center and the Sundrome would share a people mover station. The track ran to a never-built massive new terminal building in the heart of Terminal City.
A view of the refurbished departure lounge with the new Flight Wing One in the background. Note that the characteristic concrete corridors were replaced with glass tubes. Due to the arrival facilities being placed below the ramp level, the view of ramp from the departure lobby could be maintained.
A view from the new Flight Wing Two toward the TWA Flight Center head house.
A view of the arrival curb, which was located below the ramp level in order to provide unobstructed views from the head house to the ramp. The TWA head house is to the left. Note the ramp control tower.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
The plan aroused great public concern and a campaign was launched to protect the Flight Center, which culminated in the Landmarks Preservation Commission granting landmark status for the exterior and some of the interiors on July 19, 1994. In addition, the protection status included Flight Wing Two in its entirety. In the end, the redevelopment did not go ahead as TWA reduced the scale of its operations and retrenched back to the Saarinen building. The rest, as they say, is airport history! 
A 2019 aerial view taken shortly after opening of the TWA Hotel.
MY TAKE
Even after 30 years, the proposed design for the expansion of the TWA Flight Center still looks pretty nice! It also seemed to be an effective solution as well, providing a huge expansion, while still being very respectful toward the original Flight Center head house--even putting the arrival facilities below grade just to maintain a nice ramp view from the lounge! I was not able to locate any budget estimates but it seemed like it was a costly solution. Even in 1990, TWA was not in a state to afford a project like that. Alas, it did not come to be. As an airport planner and fan, I actually don't like terminals being converted to alternative uses such as shopping malls, entertainment centers or hotels. The best use of an airport terminal is...as an airport terminal. Having said this, the most important thing is the that the Flight Center is still around and I'm happy to have it anyway I can! What are your thoughts on the scheme? Would it have been a better solution? Let us know in the comments below!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
- Follow us on social to get the best of airport history right in your news feed!
- Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Audrey Barsella of Perkins & Will. Without her kind assistance this article would not have been possible.
In the late 1960s, planners considered completely relocating Toronto Pearson Airport's passenger terminals. Find out the story below!
Toronto Pearson Airport's spectacular "Aeroquay 1" was one of the great airport design experiments of the early Jet Age. Opened in 1964, the aeroquay's circular design sought to minimize walking distances between the car and the airplane. Passenger vehicles reached the terminal by means of an underground tunnel, thereby allowing aircraft to circulate freely on the ramp. 
A late 1960s aerial view of Aeroquay 1. The core of the terminal featured a seven-level parking structure accommodating 2,400 cars. The top floor was a plane spotter's heaven, which was also one of the main problems of the design. Sightseers caused exit delays from the car park of 2.5 hours and clogged the access tunnels for the airline travelers to the aeroquay.
LIMITATIONS OF THE AEROQUAY CONCEPT
The Aeroquay had a capacity of 3.2 million passengers annually. The airport's master plan envisaged the construction of a total of four aeroquays, which could be built according to passenger demand. However, with traffic at Pearson booming, the concept quickly revealed its limitations. The circular Aeroquay could not be expanded. In addition, the approach roads to the terminal became heavily congested with airport visitors. Hence, in the mid-1960s, the master plan was abandoned and the planners started contemplating a better solution. 
The original Pearson master plan envisaged the construction of four circular terminals. Two are visible in this artist's impression, with the footprint for the remaining two being clearly visible. The Aeroquay in the foreground is the one that was built.
GOING INFIELD
With the experience from Aeroquay fresh in mind, this time the planners emphasized full flexibility. They decided to start with a clean slate and build a new passenger terminal complex in between runway 14/32 (now 15L/33R) and the still-to-be-built parallel runway 15R/33L. The proposed plan envisaged a number of linear terminal modules arranged along a central spine road, a popular airport planning concept back then. Additional terminal modules be easily added according to demand, while existing buildings could be enlarged. 
Pearson airport layout showing the proposed passenger infield terminal complex. The central location of the terminals enabled aircraft to quickly taxi to and from the surrounding runways. The complex could easily be extended according to demand. The spine road was directly connected to the 401 Freeway.
There were no concourses or satellites. Aircraft would park directly alongside the terminals. Planners did retain one key feature of Aeroquay 1 though, with multi-level parking structures built on top of the terminals.
An artist's impression of the new passenger terminal complex looking west. The complex could be expanded according to demand. The space in between the terminals and central spine road could be used to enlarge the existing structures. Note that airplanes were parked parallel to the terminal (not nose-in), which in the 1960s was still commonplace.
"TEMPORARY" TERMINAL 2
The jump to the infield area was to be made sometime during the 1970s. A "temporary" Terminal 2 would be built to bridge the gap until the first phase of the new terminal complex could be opened. However, the scheme was abandoned due to cost and it was decided to expand within the existing footprint. Phase I of Terminal 2, which adopted a more conventional linear design, opened in 1972, with Air Canada transferring all flights there in June 1973. The building went on to function as the global hub facility of Air Canada for the next three decades. 
An early 1970s aerial view of Pearson's Terminal 1 and 2 in the early 1970s. For Terminal 2 (upper right), a linear design was adopted. While walking distances can be longer, its great advantage is that it can be easily expanded.
A small remnant of the infield plan did remain however. In 2002, a passenger satellite terminal called the Infield Terminal (IFT), built to deal with peak demand, opened in the infield area. The rest of the infield area was used for new cargo, maintenance and de-icing facilities.
An image of the infield area looking north. Note the Infield Concourse (IFC) in the upper left of the image.
What are your thoughts about the infield plan? Would it have made sense? Let us know in the comments below!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
- Follow us on social to get the best of airport history right in your news feed!
- Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online! PLANNING BLUNDER OR GREAT VISION? Everyone who frequently flies in and out of Schiphol will be familiar with the infamous runway 18R/36L, nicknamed the "Polderbaan" or "polder runway" ("polder" refers to the typical Dutch phenomenon of dry pumped lake beds, on which Schiphol is built). Opened in 2003, the runway is located a whopping 3 miles (4.5 km) from the terminal area and it can take 20 minutes or more to taxi from the runway to the gate! Some people refer to it as a planning blunder, but is it? In today's post, I will argue that the runway's remote location was actually well considered.  A aerial view of runway 18R/36L taken just after its completion in 2003. Wait, where is the rest of the airport?! THE 'ENVIRONMENTAL RUNWAY'? So, why was the runway so far away from the airport? In the early 1990s, when the project was going through the public consultation phase, the runway was pitched to the public as the "environmental runway". Supposedly, its location was optimized so that departure and arrival routes would avoid overflying built-up areas as much as possible, explaining its eccentric location. However, the runway first appeared in planning documents in 1968, when there was a lot less urban development around the airport and when jet noise was much less of an issue.  An artist's impression of the "future" runway, which is located in the bottom right of the image. Note the round satellite buildings between the new runway and the neighboring parallel runway. To date, the connecting "noord" (north) taxiway has not been built.
CHANGE OF PLAN Over the years the thinking about Schiphol's long-term evolution has changed. Current plans envisage a second terminal building north of the current terminal complex, rather than northwest. This location would optimize connections to the existing terminal as well as existing road and rail connections. For the huge area in between runways 18R/36L and 18C/36C, planners have come up with the idea to construct yet another runway, which would provide Schiphol with four parallel north-south runways. This would still not preclude the development of satellite buildings at some point in the future.  Recent plans envisage the construction of a new passenger terminal north of the current passenger terminal complex. As you can see, a fourth parallel runway has been proposed in between runways 18C/36C and 18R/36L. Not pictured here is a planned seventh runway parallel to runway 06/24. AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Currently, Schiphol can still accommodate growth within the current runway system and terminal area. A new terminal and Pier A will open in 2023, raising the capacity with 14 million annual passengers to a total of about 80 million annual passengers. However, with almost 500,000 aircraft movements in 2019, growth at Schiphol has hit a political ceiling. Currently, a national discussion is ongoing on if and how to accommodate growth in the long term. The Dutch government as well as the general public traditionally have taken a pro-growth stance. However, with addressing aircraft emissions becoming an ever more urgent priority, the outcome of the discussion is currently uncertain. One thing is certain however; if the government does decide to allow further growth, plans are ready to accommodate it! What are your thoughts about Schiphol's long-term development? Let us know in the comments below! Want to explore more airport history? Sign up for our newsletter here or follow us on social media! A full house at Melbourne's Tullamarine airport including two Queens back to back in the foreground. In October 1973, a strike by government communications technicians in Sydney shut down virtually all air traffic in south-eastern Australia forcing Qantas and several international airlines to move its flights to Melbourne.  Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-231B 9V-SIB shares taxiway S with KLM Boeing 747-206B PHBUA. This aircraft was KLM’s first Jumbo and just one month after this photo would be hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. After touring much of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the hijackers left the aircraft and passengers unharmed in Dubai.
ALL GOOD THINGS TAKE TIME In democracies, development of big infrastructure projects can take decades. This especially applies to airports, which have a huge impact beyond their perimeter. For example, Amsterdam Schiphol's newest runway opened in 2003, 35 years after it first appeared in planning documents. London Heathrow's third runway takes the cake however. Did you know that plans to construct new runways north of Heathrow date back all the way to 1946?  The future of Heathrow Airport, as envisaged in the Illustrated London News of May 25, 1946. NINE RUNWAYS According to the airport's original development plan, initially Heathrow would boast six runways laid out in a Star-of-David pattern: two main east-west runways, which could handle the heaviest aircraft of the time, along with four shorter diagonal runways. Passenger terminals were to be located in the middle of the field in order to optimize aircraft taxiing times to and from the runways. In a second development phase, a further three runways in a triangular pattern would be built north of Bath Road, bringing the total to nine runways!  London Heathrow's 1946 development plan, showing Heathrow's orginal six runways in black and the three additional runways north of Bath road in grey. The expansion would have necessitated the demolition of the two nearby villages of Harlington and Sipson. The Illustrated London News article mentioned that: "This work will not be undertaken before 1950 in order to... give ample warning to the householders concerned." The first six runways as well as the central terminal area were built as planned. The northward expansion, however, was thought to be costly and unnecessary, and plans were shelved.  A 1970s vertical aerial of Heathrow. By this time, three of Heathrow's original six runways had been closed. The original Star of David pattern is still clearly recognizable though. FROM SIX RUNWAYS TO TWO Due the expansion of the central terminal area, as well as the new generation of jets needing longer runways, three of Heathrow's four diagonal runways had been closed by the 1970s, leaving Heathrow with three runways. The last remaining diagonal runway, runway 5/23, was decommissioned in 2003, leaving Heathrow with its current two runways. Discussions about the construction of a third parallel runway resurfaced again in the 1980s. Between 1990 and 2015, three major studies were undertaken, all of which concluded that a third runway at Heathrow afforded the greatest benefits.  A 2015 rendering showing the location of the third runway, northwest of Heathrow. The scheme was further detailed and optimized in the 2019 Master Plan. THE THIRD RUNWAY IS FINALLY COMING...OR NOT?
In 2018, the UK House of Commons voted in favor of the expansion, after which a public consultation started. According to the planning, the third runway would open in 2026, 80 years after it was first conceived! However, in February 2020, plans were blocked by an appeals court on environmental grounds. At the time of writing, the project could face many more years of delays, and with climate change now becoming a political priority, there is a chance that the scheme will be cancelled altogether. You can read many more details about Heathrow's history in the book Heathrow Airport 70 years and Counting, written by aviation journalist Kevan James. You can find more analysis on the recent court decision his website KJM Today. What are your thoughts about London's third runway project? Let us know in the comments below! Want to explore more airport history? Sign up for our newsletter here or follow us on social media! |
With a title inspired by the setting of the iconic 70s film "Airport", this blog is the ultimate destination for airport history fans.
Categories
All
About me
Marnix (Max) Groot Founder of AirportHistory.org. Max is an airport development expert and historian. |
RSS Feed